FB placement locations

[TH3_BL4CK]

**Before you read i did search so dont flame if i re-suggested**

Hey fellow Pe-arians, ok i have a little suggestion which may change the game play of AAS a little bit and hopefully force some teamwork .
So lately Ive been playing PR as you do and as you know we would sometimes see the random Firebase 500 meters behind enemy lines which i just find ridiculous.

So my general suggestion and question is it possible to limit fire base placements to friendly territory eg capped flags.
I know some people will not agree with this but it will hopefully stop people from running logi trucks straight into enemy territory and trying to get 1337 firebase up at the enemy main.
The idea may seem pretty bland now but with a bit of tweaking and discussion it could make the game play a little more interesting.

[Psyrus]

Just wondering though, how does 'friendly territory' get classified? You say 'capped flags', but how would you implement that sort of system in code? Are you saying that you can only deploy fobs within range of flags you currently hold? How then would the russians attack the first flag on Kozelsk... it is a good 500m+ away from their main base. Surely they aren't supposed to run from main each time?

And what of insurgency?
-----

My suggestion along perhaps a similar vein is the return of the (imo) logical "old" version of firebase placements. It was 1x Bunker = 2x Firebases, or perhaps it was the other way around (long time now since it's been like that). This simulated securing your new forward operating base in the area you just captured, and allowed you to set up 2 new firebases which would be used for the assualt. The firebases could also be used as fall-back spawns in case the defence bunker was overrun. It would be interesting to see the dynamic with the new 6 fobs max, especially if you know they have to have a bunker to build firebases, and thus attacking their bunkers [and defending one's own] becomes a real priority in battle.

[TH3_BL4CK]

Yeah, like i said it would need alot of tweaking to get it right, im not sure if its hard coded or not but if it is possible to have sectors of the map which are somehow linked to correspond with the already capped flags so example:



Flags capped, the sector activates allowing team to put a fire base in that area, except if it is possible at all and this idea works you could give the team with no flags capped a already assigned sector on land so they can get a firebase up before the first flag is capped.

[Rudd]

I kind of suggested it a long time ago, but that was so long ago I think a new discussion would be good
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... tions.html

ust wondering though, how does 'friendly territory' get classified? You say 'capped flags', but how would you implement that sort of system in code?

we used to have code that put bunkers in your flags and firebases everywhere else, so I think its doable.

My only worry with this firebase system would be AASv3, if the flags aren't in particularly good positions then your ability to manouvre will be hugely inhibited leaving most of the map unplayed.




Perhaps another way of doing it would be that you have to be WITHIN 650m of another firebase to build one or within 1000m of a vehicle depot (for that first Firebase), simulating a line of supply to an extent as well as making sure that if you are going to get a firebase near their main or whatever, you're not going to be able to do it directly at the start of the game.

it would however make FB positions more predictable at the start of the game, however it could be interesting.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff22 ... gstuff.jpg

oooo, actually thats an interesting idea, however it would have to be done on a per map basis, but if my understanding is correct it could be done in python coding but it would have to be on a map by map basis which isn't feasible I think. but I'm not sure, it could be done that way maybe...

[Psyrus]

we used to have code that put bunkers in your flags and firebases everywhere else, so I think its doable.

That's not the point though, I remember the bunkers well. The point I was making is that you theoretically wouldn't be able to place a firebase closer to the front than the outer limit of your most recently capped flag. So if you envision something like Kashan desert, if you as the MEC get pushed off south bunkers... the only place you can set up your FOB is @ South Village. It would make assaulting nigh impossible.

[Exterior]

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

[TH3_BL4CK]

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

Never played it but sure if its the same general idea sure

[alberto_di_gio]

Kinda loved the idea. It will make sense in maps like Muttrah or Iron Ridge but on the other hand defining sectors in maps like Kashan will be hard.

[Arnoldio]

Makes sense, the random FOBs are stupid and unrealistic. A guy takes a truck alone, goes deep behind enemy, builds the thing by himself and insta FOB is there.

Though radius, (i say radius because i dont think you can do it like shown on the pic, but its possible by limiting itwith a set radius), of the frendly are should vary on the map size. So perhaps 200 on 1 km maps, 300 on 2km maps, 400 on 4km maps.

EDIT: As alberto said, it would not work so good with predefined layouts. Silent eagle should get a flag or two more to make it mroe interesting.

[Rhino]

The big problem is how you do this code wise. Its something we ourselves thought of before but we couldn't really think any decent way of coding it.

The problem being the simplest way of coding it is to say you can only deploy a firebase XXX distance away from anouther object python can pick up, like a flag.

So you can tell python that you can only deploy firebases say 500m away from a friendly flag but that becomes way too limited epically on 4km maps where 500m is nothing, where on a 1km map 500m is piratically 1/4 of the map.

The other way you can do it is set lots of little (invisible) objects up and say you can only deploy a firebase xxx distance away from each object and then just basically spam lots of radius's everywhere of where you can deploy them and then somehow link that to each flag but that gets over complicated and lots of work.



to do that you would have to spam lots of little radius's side by side to get anything like a strait edge you want there and then python will have to strain the server a little to work out all the locations and your plan also limits quite a bit as to where you can deploy stuff since its nice to be able to deploy a firebase in the mountains etc.

So ye unless someone can think a decent way of coding this idea or willing to put in the work to get lots of radius's setup etc in a way that would also keep some freedom with firebase placement I don't really see it happening.

[Damian(>>>PL]

cant you make one big circle around objecitve, if map is big make it big, if map is small make it small

[Rhino]

what do you use to define the radius and how do you tell the player the radius for each flag because a player dosen't want to drive out to a place where he wants to deploy a FB to find out he can't and what happens with overlapping radius's?

[Nagard]

Personally I liked the idea to put the FOBs in line. Since you said all the other ways are either a lot of work or hard to code, that would be a simple, but effective solution. Even if the FOBs can be found quite easy in the beginning, that would just make the defensive abilities of FOBs more relevant.

[Damian(>>>PL]

what do you use to define the radius

Radius schold be big to give to players possibility to chose where they want to place FB,but not for wchole map to avoid FB somwhere in enemy ***.

and how do you tell the player the radius for each flag because a player dosen't want to drive out to a place where he wants to deploy a FB to find out he can't

FB are for regullar units to respawn close to Frontline, and front is there where are flags(isnt it). We still can be Partisan somhere bechind Front line but witch no Respawn there.

Example
Transporting one small unti bechind enemy, and wchole Army bechind enemy is sometching completly different. In PR one small unit can build FB, wait some time, and here we have wchole army transpoted by one huey.

Adding this schould be big step forward for using tactic in ProjectReality

and what happens with overlapping radius's?

Why sometching schould be happened(its only place where you can build FB). If we want to go forward destroying enemy FB is a must.

[Psyrus]

Radius schold be big to give to players possibility to chose where they want to place FB,but not for wchole map to avoid FB somwhere in enemy ***.

FB are for regullar units to respawn close to Frontline, and front is there where are flags(isnt it). We still can be Partisan somhere bechind Front line but witch no Respawn there.

Example
Transporting one small unti bechind enemy, and wchole Army bechind enemy is sometching completly different. In PR one small unit can build FB, wait some time, and here we have wchole army transpoted by one huey.

Adding this schould be big step forward for using tactic in ProjectReality

Why sometching schould be happened(its only place where you can build FB).

You don't understand....

He is asking from a python code perspective, not a theoretical fantasy design perspective. So what in-game objects or values could you use to define these radii, how would you define the sectors etc etc etc. I alluded to this in the second post of the thread... it's all well and fine to think of a general idea, but from a coding perspective it's a whole other issue.

[Rhino]

I'm sorry I don't believe you understood pretty much any of what I said there Damian.

When I say define I mean how do you set the distance for each flag since each flag is a different radius in your examples. There is a few ways of doing it but making it piratical is the key one...

For the second bit, players want to know where they can and can not place a FB, ie, they know right now they can deploy a FB 500m from anouther one which is fairly simple but unless they play the maps/mod a lot and memorise each flag's distance they are just going to have to guess which isn't very good.

and for the overlapping radius, what happens like on the Muttrah example you posted, north city and the dock's radius's overlap, what happens if MEC have north city, USMC have docks and either team tries to place a FB in the overlapping area of both flags? Can the MEC/USMC deploy a FB there or is it blocked off since it overlaps etc and what happens if the other overlapping flag is neutral etc. These are all very important things you have to think about when it comes to thinking how something is going to work ingame. You can't say do it this way and forget about the fine details they will some how work themselves out since then nothing happens. Look at my blog post on how the CSBs was developed if you want to get an idea of what I mean: Developing the CSBs from the Idea Up - Project Reality Forums

[alberto_di_gio]

what do you use to define the radius and how do you tell the player the radius for each flag because a player dosen't want to drive out to a place where he wants to deploy a FB to find out he can't and what happens with overlapping radius's?

I can't tell anything technical but as a plain PR player I think we should not see the exact radius during the game. May be each flag radius can be shown on the loading screen map. So people have to memorize and imagine it during the game. In time regulars will know where to put or not.

[Damian(>>>PL]

So you want me to write exacly how big radius give to "this" flag and why.
If yes then i have to take some time to work on it.

I'm suggesting it becouse i dont like using FB like transport it's destroying wchole tactic becouse we need only FB. FB can in one moment respawn wchole Army, and wchole army schouldn't been able to just show from nowhere bechind you.

if we are in radius we can build FB,
in overlap botch site can build FBs,
if FB is in neutrall flag range then its still spawnable
if itsn't in neutral or friendly flag range it have overun


Ofcourse we need FBs becouse it s only a game, and its hardcodet.

[Looy]

So ye unless someone can think a decent way of coding this idea or willing to put in the work to get lots of radius's setup etc in a way that would also keep some freedom with firebase placement I don't really see it happening.

I don't know how to code for BF2 but:
>Sort all nearby Flags by distance to build site.
>Check closest Flags status.
>If it's friendly (or neutral if you like) allow the build.

It would make the borders of the zones look like this:


As you can see it still has some weird stuff like MEC being able to build on the docks right away but this could be fixed by adding a max range to each flag (if that's possible):

>Sort all nearby Flags by distance to build site.
>Check closest Flags status.
>If it's friendly (or neutral if you like) and [sites distance from flag < flags range] allow the build.

EDIT: Never mind, Jonny's solution is better.