Project Reality Forums

this was difficult to word in a title so bear with me.

What I am saying is that right now we have very large cap radius, and thats all fine and dandy. But I think that it would be beneficial from both a realism and gameplay standpoint if the closer you were to the center of the cap, the more effect you had numerically on the capping itself.

I think this would work from both a realism and gameplay perspective because right now I have seen several instances where teams would just stay on the outside perimeter of the cap zone and simply take the cap through numbers rather than actually "taking control" and while my idea wouldnt entirely prevent that, it would help.

Sry if this has been suggested before.

Pre set c4's,jdams,even grenades could wipe your whole sq out.

Not a bad idea they could set defensive spots to give you +points in capping as your defending the flag and taking control rather then laying down with the grass in your eye's using per numbers to cap.

This way maybe base defensive weapons will be used and better placed.

It should not give a huge boost tho maybe 1 to 2 points per person on the defensive weapons with in the defensive area.

Marc-5ive wrote:Pre set c4's,jdams,even grenades could wipe your whole sq out.

Im not saying it should be fixed to a certain building or point...Im saying that right now we have cap zones that can be as large as 300m, being 100 or even 50 meters should be worth more logically than being 300 meters away.

cobrax25 wrote:Im not saying it should be fixed to a certain building or point...Im saying that right now we have cap zones that can be as large as 300m, being 100 or even 50 meters should be worth more logically than being 300 meters away.

I think one example would be assault on mestia,and being able to cap almost directly out of the main base for the chechens.The radius for that is way to big,and should be fixed.Other than that i support this idea

I quite like this idea. The nice thing about larger cap zones allows you to be controling an area, while this would place more value on actually holding the strategic point of value.

IE, holding a bunker would be more valuable (therefore cap faster) than simply waiting in a forest a ways away from the bunker (which is what you're supposed to be fighting for).

I wouldn't say make it too big of a difference though. We don't want people zerg rushing for the very centers, what we want is a bigger selection of choice in strategy. A total difference of 2 times the capping speed in the center from the extremities should be max, imo. and 1 and 1/2 times the ammount the minimum.

With the bigger capzones comes a bigger freedom in capping or defending. Mestia is a fine example of that. It used to be a big Helms-Deep defense in Storage bunker. Now with the huge *** capzone you might as well sit in the tower or in the forest somewhere with enough squads to cap it from under there feet.

With stuff like: A bunker gives an advantage or maybe even center gives an advantage you will go back to the past where you knew: Oh! Enemy's will be over here so run there, toss nades and sweep the rest out!

I agree it would be realistic but I dont think it will improve gameplay that much.

cyberzomby wrote:With the bigger capzones comes a bigger freedom in capping or defending. Mestia is a fine example of that. It used to be a big Helms-Deep defense in Storage bunker. Now with the huge *** capzone you might as well sit in the tower or in the forest somewhere with enough squads to cap it from under there feet.

With stuff like: A bunker gives an advantage or maybe even center gives an advantage you will go back to the past where you knew: Oh! Enemy's will be over here so run there, toss nades and sweep the rest out!

I agree it would be realistic but I dont think it will improve gameplay that much.

This will not happen if implanted right as long as the boost in speed is not too great to where there's not always going to be there and you want it to be a good size to fit a full squad or 2 none cramped.