Uncappable CPs?

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Post Reply

Should all cps be capturable?

Yes, all CPs should be captureable.
5
38%
No, it should stay as is.
5
38%
All the CPs except for the naval aircraft carriers should be.
3
23%
 
Total votes: 13

Pak
Posts: 121
Joined: 2005-08-06 22:18

Uncappable CPs?

Post by Pak »

I think it would be cool if all the cps could be captured. It seems really lame when you capture all the points on a map with 2 invincible ones so all there is to do is wait for the enemy or spawn camp. I think all the CPs should be vulnerable to being overrun.
Tom#13
Posts: 477
Joined: 2005-05-22 13:32

Post by Tom#13 »

i think it would be more realistic, in real life (as long as u have the men and firepower) u can capture anything.
Royal Green Jackets- Britains premier infantry regiment
http://www.army.mod.uk/royalgreenjackets/

Air force definition of explosives: A loud noise followed by the sudden going away of what was once there a second ago.

Retreating?! Hell no, we're just attacking the other direction!
TerribleOne
Posts: 586
Joined: 2005-06-26 16:00

Post by TerribleOne »

CP's that cannot be taken serve a purpose to keep the game balanced. Eg on karkland where the mec allready have all but 1.
Image
Pak
Posts: 121
Joined: 2005-08-06 22:18

Post by Pak »

Karkand is fine as is, but for maps like Zatar where both uncaps are just airfields, in a real battle they would be the prime targets to be captured, not the little huts in the swamp between them.
Figisaacnewton
Posts: 1895
Joined: 2004-11-23 05:27

Post by Figisaacnewton »

Most maps would play better like this:

You can only spawn at the main base of your team, and that both main bases are uncappable. All other flags are capable, but you can't spawn at them.

Karkand would play better if the two north US spawns that have nothing to do with thier main base were removed, it would allow the MEC some time to actually set up a defense.
Image
TerribleOne
Posts: 586
Joined: 2005-06-26 16:00

Post by TerribleOne »

Or for a map like karkland just do away with a *main base* and have an insertion point since you dont attack a city and then airdrop UAV, static artillery and a big radar dish about 300m away from the city. Which is totaly unrealistic even if them items did exist, which they dont in the way EA perceives it.
Hopfully when pr hopfully has mortars that can be set up anywhere and carryed on the rooftops etc, UAV's dont require a stupid little prop and mabe cannot be destroyed unles communication is lost, but that wouldent be all bad since real UAV can only send back images not flashing red dots of every enemy position.
Radar on such a map would be obtained via awax or another alternate long range radar so the key to stop that for the enemy comander would have to be jamming or simply no radar support on such a map. Allthough radars also do not pick up every soldier with a bleeping red dot :wink: .

Id like to see how it is eventually implemented in the final releases.
Image
Figisaacnewton
Posts: 1895
Joined: 2004-11-23 05:27

Post by Figisaacnewton »

true about no american base on karkand, but, in this circum stance and this map, it makes sense: the final planning and staging area is a gas station just outside the city.

maybe if the distance between the gas station and the city was 3 or 4 times what it currently is, then it would be realistic.
Image
Pak
Posts: 121
Joined: 2005-08-06 22:18

Post by Pak »

I'm still hoping we can fly our own uavs :)
But I would like the main bases to see some action. As it is, there are all kinds of defenses set up, but no one ever uses them.
Dearmad
Posts: 3
Joined: 2005-08-14 21:00

Post by Dearmad »

I disagree with capping all flags- the uncap ones represent, to me, "off field" points where the main army is that can jsut keep sending in reinforcements to your limited engagement area. There needs to be this option on maps to represent that.
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”