Project Reality Forums

Moszeusz6Pl wrote:FOBs are good for gameplay, but as somebody suggest before, making it require 2 creates instead of 1 might prevent so ninja FOBs behind enemy lines, and air-assault infantry will have to choose attack without FOB, or wait for second create and lose valuable time.

Drop squad in safe place, drop crate on another LZ, drop 2nd squad on LZ with crate - we have 2 crates for fob, and 2 squads for defend and attack

ChallengerCC wrote:What about 2 gamemodes for maps or servers:
(sv.realisticMode: true/false)

1. Realistic mode (no FOB or a harder deploy etc... something)
2. Normal mode

The comunity will then decide what they like more.

That would be maybe nice.
maybe community mini-mod?

Like in arma2pr forums.
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f443-p ... ost1861319

The alternatives can only be inferior in my eyes. If you reduce the overall number of FoBs then a flag can be taken much more easily once a FoB is destroyed.

I believe this is what they are trying to accomplish. By reducing the FOB's, when the FOB near the objective is destroyed then the flag "can be taken much more easily once a FoB is destroyed."
Why? Because by destroying the FOB near the objective you have interrupted the reinforcements in one of the few ways that can simulate "interrupting reinforcements" in a small 32v32 match (more people obviously allow the team to wander further and search for more fobs, so as the player limit increases so should FOBs but at the current limit, the 32 player team will be stretched thin searching for every possible FOB near the objective), and when reinforcements are interrupted, of course taking the objective will naturally be much easier.

The current problem is having too many FOB's near one objective, where you need to take out all of them in order to actually capture the flag which can be very problematic for the small teams of 32 players (in which only usually 1-3 Squads are Infantry).

maarit wrote:That would be maybe nice.
maybe community mini-mod?

Like in arma2pr forums.
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f443-p ... ost1861319

And no rally points

I am against split mode, makes it look like COD.

The larger overrun radius is actually an extremely good idea. Why? We keep the ammount of FOBs, which keeps the "run'n'gunners action only 'murica f'yeah" people happy, yet when forces meet, its a high chance their spawnable reinforcements will be cut off, which will force them to either spawn at the next closest spawnpoint, which would be 300-500m away or relocate existing nearby forces to come help.

So its kinda like "fog of war" thingy. Out of effective rifle range, which is 300 up to the averagte VD, should be the runover area. Also, atleast a squad must be present in the area for a certain ammount of time for it to be overrun, to prevent exploits ast flying a full chopper over the map, deniying enemy from spawning.

This would keep the areas of battle clean without constant feed of the same enemy from behind the next corner. Defenders role would be to defend the whole perimeter and prevent the attackers coming too close and vice versa, not just giving up sprinting into the battle. With the new deviation this is even more feasible i imagine.

Also RPs could be taken out without any problems.

Wow with the 100+ player server's coming after the 1.0 patch we should think about making it so the commander can be the only one to place a fob. or limit the SQ leaders to place one every 60mins. This way the teams will have to have a commander.

xambone wrote:Wow with the 100+ player server's coming after the 1.0 patch we should think about making it so the commander can be the only one to place a fob. or limit the SQ leaders to place one every 60mins. This way the teams will have to have a commander.

Having a commander who isn't willing is the same/worse as having no commander at all imo. Better toys for the commander and a meaningful purpose will help people to *want* to be commanders, I don't think we should try forcing it on them. That was tried back in 0.6(?) when the commander had to accept build requests from squad leaders before they could place assets. I personally loved that system, but I don't think today's PR players would like it nor be able to handle it.

zOMG... I hate to be negative Nicholas here, but seriously... If it ain't broke, why fix it? FOBs are great just the way they are. If anything, they should be smarted up, not dumbed down.

why do pleople have problem with mortar squads "in the middle of nowhere"? The need to be further form the fight because these things have a thing called minimum range, meaning you can shoot only so close. 1 km from the fight is where they belong.

lucky.BOY wrote:why do pleople have problem with mortar squads "in the middle of nowhere"? The need to be further form the fight because these things have a thing called minimum range, meaning you can shoot only so close. 1 km from the fight is where they belong.

Try and reason with these people, last time I was part of a successful mortar crew, I operated the UAV as the MEC on jabal, and our mortars were at the north side of north bridge. We destroyed enemy mortars, at least 5 enemy FOBs, and netted 20+ kills. Of course we were never close to a flag in play. IT's an effective tactic especially on 2KM maps. I think the issue is that people will sometimes neglect to lock squads at small numbers using this tactic though. If youre as far away from the fight as possible, and not in danger of being attacked by enemy infantry, you should have 2 or 3 men in the squad. If youre infantry fighting the enemy on the flag it is frustrating to have like 6 guys at some FOB way away from the fight where half of them are totally uninvolved with anything relevant.

The role of a spotter is mostly worthless for mortars when you can use a UAV.

risegold8929 wrote:
The current problem is having too many FOB's near one objective, where you need to take out all of them in order to actually capture the flag which can be very problematic for the small teams of 32 players (in which only usually 1-3 Squads are Infantry).

Problem? I've seen teams dominate a flag surrounded by FOB's mowing enemy down as they trail in (always the same direction like lemmings) towards a defense position. A FOB is just a tool it does not magically spawn elite players. Blaming this all on FOB's is hysterical.

[R-CON]Psyrus wrote:Having a commander who isn't willing is the same/worse as having no commander at all imo. Better toys for the commander and a meaningful purpose will help people to *want* to be commanders, I don't think we should try forcing it on them. That was tried back in 0.6(?) when the commander had to accept build requests from squad leaders before they could place assets. I personally loved that system, but I don't think today's PR players would like it nor be able to handle it.

I liked that system as well. It could have been tweeked instead of completely neutered. I don't get why that happened. They fixed the commander painting icons on the screen added option to resign and with mumble the comms is outstanding (except for squad 8 ). The idea of top down command and control is how you can more effectively win as a team. Seen it so many times in the past. There is fun and then there is OMG that was a blast fun. Now we have 9 commanders with different objectives. That is brain dead imo.

At some point the COD playing style will overwhelm the PR style players. That's when I will bow out.

Problem? I've seen teams dominate a flag surrounded by FOB's mowing enemy down as they trail in (always the same direction like lemmings) towards a defense position. A FOB is just a tool it does not magically spawn elite players. Blaming this all on FOB's is hysterical.

It does not spawn in magical elite players, no. But it does spawn in players. Actually having a team that realises having 3 FOB's around an objective and not rushing in from the same FOB/direction makes it nigh impossible to actually get rid of the enemy team for a long enough time to capture the objective instead of continuously shooting and shooting and shooting as they all respawn and run into the cap range halting the cap (where they themselves could just hunker down in a building/defensible position making a stalemate).

Sure, you could send out some players to hunt down all these FOB's but with a 32 player team (in which only there are usually only 3 INF squads max which arguably do all the dirty work in clearing the objective conpletely), your forces will be spread extremely thinly and will be wiped out in the blink of an eye from spawning in squads.

There are just too many FOB's around an objective (when a team actually uses them to their advantage) to effectively simulate cutting off reinforcements in such a small scale battle which is required to take an objective (unless the enemy team is completely retarded and attacking flags 2 in advance/not defending at all).

The amount of fobs is fine... Its all about tactics, not the overrun radius of fobs. Having the overrun radius increases possibilities for so many exploits to be used in making sure people dont get to spawn anywhere except main. And then you just keep em there...

L4gi wrote:The amount of fobs is fine... Its all about tactics, not the overrun radius of fobs. Having the overrun radius increases possibilities for so many exploits to be used in making sure people dont get to spawn anywhere except main. And then you just keep em there...

This is true if it is only one man stopping the reinforcement of the opposing team, in which case it would absolutely neuter FOBs and their purpose.

If FOB disabling were more like the objective capturing system, or perhaps the system incorporated the amount of enemies correlating to the distance away from the fob to disable (for instance, perhaps 1 player per 50-75 meters), it would be more of a team effort in command and control, instead of an exploit.

L4gi wrote:The amount of fobs is fine... Its all about tactics, not the overrun radius of fobs. Having the overrun radius increases possibilities for so many exploits to be used in making sure people dont get to spawn anywhere except main. And then you just keep em there...

I smell fear in your posts.

More like anguish. People making stupid suggestions cause the only way to get something done is nerf it to hell and call it brilliant changes. Or is it?

L4gi wrote:More like anguish. People making stupid suggestions cause the only way to get something done is nerf it to hell and call it brilliant changes. Or is it?

sounds like the shit we heard when we were wanting to do away with the permanent rally.....
if changes do happen, it will most likely be for the best and players will adapt...where else will u find 50v50?

One solution that might make everyone happy:
1. Cut the FOB count in half.
2. Increase the FOB spacing just a tad bit more.
3. Increase the deployable count per FOB (Aside from mortars/TOW).
4. Increase the radius which deployables can be placed to make the FOB feel like a real FOB & thus soothe the pain of a reducing the count.
5. Set (X respawns allowed in X amount of time) 20 per every 10 minutes?
6. Menturas suggestion of more people required to neutralize a FOB with a smaller radius.

maarit wrote:That would be maybe nice.
maybe community mini-mod?

Like in arma2pr forums.
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f443-p ... ost1861319

This isn't RO2, we don't have the numbers in the community to fill that. Servers are divided/scarce in agreement as it is.

For communities such an idea may work better, the overall community though that might not work.

xambone wrote:Wow with the 100+ player server's coming after the 1.0 patch we should think about making it so the commander can be the only one to place a fob. or limit the SQ leaders to place one every 60mins. This way the teams will have to have a commander.

Such a mechanic could be abused by cycling SL's or creating new squads i'd imagine.

{ZW}C-LOKE wrote:Oh, ok. Now I get it. That does make a ton of sense, actually. Good point here.



Actually, that's exactly what they're (Canada, GB, and afaik so do the USMC and Army) doing in Afghanistan, and previously Iraq. They set up forward operating bases in abandoned buildings, so placing FOBs in buildings is semi-realistic... in a way. I've seen them do this with buildings a lot in various documentaries on Youtube. Of course, they're not pulling out a radio and setting a circular effigy that has a squealing Fischer Price radio that can be knifed into a pain-inducing dust cloud of suppression, but...

You also don't see it on the top floor of a 13 story building either though.





Always wanted placeable objects for FOBs in PR. Never knew the BF2 engine could even do that.

You also don't see it on the top floor of a 13 story building either though.

Well, you also don't see 13 story buildings in Afghanistan either, though. But for what it's worth, IRL a forward operating base on a 13th story or even a second story or anywhere in between is tactically unwise, given the potential possibility that you'd have to abandon the forward operating base in an emergency. I'd think you'd want to keep your ground floors covered from intrusion.

But here in PR, I've seen FOBs on upper floors go either way; either really good or really bad for defense. The problem is, once the opposing team has figured out you've got a FOB on one of the upper floors, you're pretty screwed. You're either stuck on defense for the rest of the round, abandoning, or being overrun generally quickly, depending on quantity of forces, skills of players, and importance to everyone to hold it.

I don't know what servers you all play on, but I've never seen FOB's as an issue. If there is a commander or even a squad worth their salt, they will figure out where the FOB(s) are and make them an objective to be taken out. It's a strategic objective that we relay about during the game all the time. I have taken out more FOB's than I could care to count, aren't hard to find and all you need is a knife.

What thread is next... bullets are bad for gameplay?