Project Reality Forums

Jonny wrote:(some constant)*(distance to nearest enemy/neutral flag) > (distance to nearest friendly flag)
If it comes out as true, allow the FO to be placed.

If the constant is == 1, the limit is the line of equal distance between friendly and enemy flags.
If the constant is > 1, there is a part of land between the flags that both teams can use for FOs.
If the constant is < 1, there is a part of land between the flags that neither team can use for FOs.

Can python extract these distances from BF2? I know it can tell if you are within the radius of a flag, it can tell how far you are from any flag, but specific friendly/enemy flags (I honestly don't know)?

Psyrus wrote:Can python extract these distances from BF2? I know it can tell if you are within the radius of a flag, it can tell how far you are from any flag, but specific friendly/enemy flags (I honestly don't know)?

Yes. blabla

This will just limit gameplay. What you would end up with is only specific parts of the map, decided by how that map is designed, being used. There's already AAS in place to somewhat focus combat. The placement of FOBs is a tactical and strategic choice that should be made by the players, not the map makers.

I've already made this suggestion on how to limit where you can build FOBs without removing control from the players while also adding another layer of strategy and increasing the importance of logistics and maintaining control of captured territory, in addition to adding more strategic and tactical options to the game.

FOBs aren't only used to funnel troops to the nearest flag, they are important as secondary and tertiary reinforcement points, area denial, bases of fire, offensive staging points, covering flanks, etc. By limiting where they can be built based on arbitrary and rigid lines on the map you're effectively removing 2/3rds of the uses the FOB has.

Tartantyco wrote:This will just limit gameplay. What you would end up with is only specific parts of the map, decided by how that map is designed, being used. There's already AAS in place to somewhat focus combat. The placement of FOBs is a tactical and strategic choice that should be made by the players, not the map makers.

I sort of agree, so I think you should still be allowed to build in neutral areas and possibly near enemy flags as long as you have a legal FOB nearby.

Exterior wrote:so your saying make the territory lines like in frontline: Fuel of War......LOVE THAT IDEA
+1

that is the big deal, front line the fuel of war. giving us MORE ACTION! and quick manuever tatics, real worrior warfare, instead of special forces shiet.
+2

THIS ALSO GIVE US LESS TEAMKILL, since frontline function like this they there we are here.

also place more flags to encourage the one thing people need in mind, STORMTROOPERS TIME TO TAKE SOME TERRITORY!

HAAN4 wrote:that is the big deal, front line the fuel of war. giving us MORE ACTION! and quick manuever tatics, real worrior warfare, instead of special forces shiet.
+2

THIS ALSO GIVE US LESS TEAMKILL, since frontline function like this they there we are here.

also place more flags to encourage the one thing people need in mind, STORMTROOPERS TIME TO TAKE SOME TERRITORY!

what is this i don't even...

As the main idea is to keep FoBs near objectives in general, a possible approach would be to limit FoB's within X distance of a flag that is neutral or held by the other team, X distance of a flag that is capped and allow a max of one FoB to be built outside of this distance.

So on Kashan as an example:
NV and North Bunker capped by US
South bunker is white

So the US options are
FoB can be built within 400m of North Bunker
FoB can be built within 200m of South Bunker (same if MEC held it)
One Fob can be built anywhere

This would allow a team that was taking a flag to set up a base there to help take it, whether it is white or held by the other team. They would also be able to set nearby defenses for flags they already hold for defensive purposes. FoBs that are not destroyed would remain, the check would only happen when placed.

Restricting AA and TOWs (or all extra buildables) to the FoBs within the range of a friendly flag would go along way to making their free status a bit less exploitable and push people to use AA vehicles or request kits.

Rhino I think you're complicating from the gameplay standpoint. It would be best to relate radius size to the map size, so you only get 3 different markers (for 1, 2, 4km), not to the cap radius.

Overlapping should not matter, either team can place a FOB in there.

Minimum FOB-FOB distances should stay, though FOB number shouldnt be limited per flag/radius, so you can fortify flags more if you wish to.

Fighting would centralize a bit, wich is good in PR aspect because if flags are random, fighting would be on different routes wich makes a map a different experience.

Random squads behind gods back will be erased with this and flanking will appear on more squad based level too.

It would also punish for not defending/being pushed back, resulting in your team being spawned on the next flag to be denfended not your team trying to continuously flank from x location.

Jonny wrote:Requiring ammo to keep an FO operational could be interesting, though. What if the region (friendly or enemy, determined by my formula from a few posts up) determined what kind of spawn point was placed by python, and then that affected how quickly the ammo was used up. ie, an FO in enemy territory needs more supplies than one in friendly territory to maintain it (perhaps require more maintainance closer to enemy territory, on a sliding scale?). That would appear to give an advantage to defenders, but still allow an organised team to maintain a presence in enemy territory, and still allow any FO to be cut off if you lay seige to it.

'Heavy' assets should not be placeable in enemy territory.
A way to check for the FO being in friendly territory before placing it would be really, really helpful, too.

This +1

Is this the same as FoW? In any case keep this in the front of your minds as you debate this.

If this is seriously considered, forget the invisible objects just make the python look for the closest flag and its ownership. I find that this would be "Close Enough" for the BF2 engine and its constraints.