Project Reality Forums

There is something that PR dev mentioned about a dome of death over bases to stop people from getting into them and shooting enemy troops there. This in my opinion is unrealistic and quite a poor way of solving a problem.

Personally my own opinion is that it should be allowed all the time. If you cannot defend your base then you deserve all thats coming to you. An enemy attacking a base is not attacking a flag.

However I put some ideas below that may make things easier.

1. Multiple bases. Instead of having one large base have 2-3 small ones so if one if being sieged there are others to get out from.

2. Make bases destructable. Make a base capable of being destroyed. A base blown to bits is not worth sieging.

3. Add random edge of the map spawn points. Say a base is destroyed then points appear randomly (or in the same spots) at the edge of the map (where and when don't ask me) to enable infantry to keep flowing onto the map. Maybe spawn a vehicle at the same time as players do to enable them to take back a base or capture flags.

4. Multiple and/or random spawn points in bases. Add to the bases so that there are different spawn areas. Maybe make it so that tunnels or lead away from the base or more entrances leading away for escape to be possible. Add spawn points inside buildings. Make it harder for an enemy to hunt you down by increasing the areas where you can spawn.

Add any more suggestions if you wish.

Tunnels are not possible to do
And who wants to defend the base/ have enemy sneaking in, when they should be all on the frontlines?

So this is to protect jetwhores?

Anyway, when the enemy has pushed back the whole team, and cap the final flag, new spawn locations pop up?

Kashan has multiple bases.

there are multple spawn points.

Making bases destructible would be even more of an incentive to baserape.

Meester wrote:There is something that PR dev mentioned about a dome of death over bases to stop people from getting into them and shooting enemy troops there. This in my opinion is unrealistic and quite a poor way of solving a problem.

and ill tell you why you are wrong....we have considered many of these options and others...but it comes down to one key factor...

boots on the ground.. if we allow people to attack mains...the following scenario occurs (partially due to our gameplay dynamics)

squad 1 defends main base. (6players)
squad 2 defends AAS defend flag (6players)
squad 3 helps commander (2players)
commander (1 player)

15 of a possible 32 players are in passive/semi passive rolls...now lets assume that we have a 2 tanks (4players) and an apc or 2 (2players)

now we are down to just 11 infantry units..

oh dont forget MR.lone sniper...1player
oh and mr.dont know where i am...1player
oh and mr.tank waiter ...1player...

anyway...you can see where i am going with this...in an ideal world we could have a lot more players... in that case mandatory base defence could be a fun role...but not here and now...

'[R-DEV wrote:IronTaxi']and ill tell you why you are wrong....we have considered many of these options and others...but it comes down to one key factor...

boots on the ground.. if we allow people to attack mains...the following scenario occurs (partially due to our gameplay dynamics)

squad 1 defends main base. (6players)
squad 2 defends AAS defend flag (6players)
squad 3 helps commander (2players)
commander (1 player)

15 of a possible 32 players are in passive/semi passive rolls...now lets assume that we have a 2 tanks (4players) and an apc or 2 (2players)

now we are down to just 11 infantry units..

oh dont forget MR.lone sniper...1player
oh and mr.dont know where i am...1player
oh and mr.tank waiter ...1player...

anyway...you can see where i am going with this...in an ideal world we could have a lot more players... in that case mandatory base defence could be a fun role...but not here and now...

I suppose those are fears but does that scenario actually occur? Have you put it into practise? Considering options is one thing and testing them is another.

Could you just make the bases better defended? Add a minefield and plenty of razor wire and more cover to enable troops to get to vehicles while in a position to be capable of defence too. Better base design could make it harder for other players to attack. Im more against unrealistic solutions than anything.

then how do you get out!? o_0

The problem was not so much the attack of the base as the one or two snipers who camp inside the base. When a person would die and respawn back at the main he'd get shot w/o warning. With the long spawn times of PR its extremely frustrating. Compound it with one person putting mines under the armor and blowing up other vehicles when nobody is in the main and the US was getting pwned right off the back.

I suppose those are fears but does that scenario actually occur?

It was a huge problem in the orriginal Al Basrah map (0.4 as I recall). If the US did not break out and cap 2-3 flags right off they would just get pwned thanks to the heavy attrition caused by the snipers and the whole game devolved to a loosing battle for the airbase. As it releates to RL, a base would have a garrison who'd always be available for defence, and a sniper would have an extremely hard time getting into the base (and spawning on squad leaders does not happen IRL either). With the limits of the 64 player game there just are not enough bodies to cover all the assignments a real FOB would have.

Now when PRM 3.0 comes out with 1024 players and real life topography then we might have something to work with.

Now when PRM 3.0 comes out with 1024 players and real life topography then we might have something to work with.

Ill have my son playing that by then (and Im 15 )

Outlawz wrote:Ill have my son playing that by then (and Im 15 )

HAHA yeah same here, then ill be yelling at him "you city kids with your computers,IShoes, and your transporter machines"

Outlawz wrote:Tunnels are not possible to do
[/I]?

ive acctually saw screen shots of eve of destructions tunnels so wouldnt say they werent possible, just really hard to do lol

yeah,,,as mnentioned basrah was a wake up call when the US originally couldnt even get out of the base..

it is a valid topic but rest assured we have come full cirlce on "dome of death" main bases...

originally we removed all of them...and all capable as well..but it just didnt work fro many of the reasons already stated..

as for beefing up base defence... also doesnt really work...doesnt matter how many mine/gates/wire/walls you have...the front door still always needs a gaurd..

any volunteers..? thought not..

aternatively we also considered automated defence weapons for bases but they are a little beyond bf2 tech

SGT.JOKER wrote:ive acctually saw screen shots of eve of destructions tunnels so wouldnt say they werent possible, just really hard to do lol

Well, the train tunnel in OGT is actually a modeled hill, not real terrain...

This was discussed before.
I recall the answer was Devs would leave it to mapper decision whether a base should be raped.
Static defense, hanger and car-port-like stuff.

IMHO there should be no uncappable bases except for certain maps where it would make sense. Then the globe of death is ok because you might only want planes to enter but not ground troops.

for regular bases (i.e. destroyable/cappable)
If I were dev lead:
* spread out the bases and make them so they fulfil one task. An airfield should be a different base then for armor.
This spreads out the area and planes cannot carpet bomb the entire base with just one pass.

* destroyable control points / resource points:
once these are destroyed the enemy or their equipment cannot spawn there
This offers the enemy a legitimate target to assault in order to weaken you.
He can either keep bombing your planes or he can destroy the radio tower and thus remove your airforce altogether (cept for those already spawned).

Though some of the infrastructure could be 'rebuilt'.

@Taxi:
one thing often discussed at the ForgottenHope forums and was also implemented in FH1 were linked AI which made air def easier. But imho the biggest problem never addressed was that the air def was *always* at the same place and thus pilots were at an advantage.

Would it not be possible to have bots to guard bases?, on mounted MGs and stuff like that. Then a base would be protected but without the rigidity of being impenetrable.

Obviously this may be rather difficult to achieve...

to quote everyone's favorite Viking ............Search
All of these ideas have been suggested before and the more practical of them have been tried.
It is another case of " you can mod the game but not the player " so there are server rules and Admins to enforce them so that a majority of players can enjoy the game and its' just too bad the saboteurs can't have their day.

The best defense is a strong offense.

QFT ^

Not quite true as offence does not mean the opponent is defending.
Both sides could attacking and not care about defence.

Heck it only takes one person to attack a base. Unlike RL in the game you can just jump in a jeep or a plane and fly over to the other base. All without help from anyone else. Even if you do not have a single flag left besides the base.

In order for offence to result in good defence is when you are able to stop the enemy before they can escape.
Which might also mean you must camp their base.

Those often doing the base camping are planes and helis and guess where they mostly spawn at?
If you said 'the home base' you were correct.

So you have to camp their base in order to prevent them from camping yours?
Sorry, does not work.