Jump to content

Peerun

Member
  • Content count

    1,493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peerun

  • Rank
    Company Commander

Recent Profile Visitors

2,025 profile views
  1. I like the sentiment. Perhaps it could be done, so that if a single entity(clan, community or server provider) has multiple servers online - there'd need to be a server filter, e.g. show duplicate servers - it only shows 1 of the servers, unless a. the person switches the filter off in their server browser filter settings b. 30% of entities have their first server filled to 51% capacity (^ example number, I have no idea how many individual licenses there are and what the player flow is), but I think this would help promote variety, especially in the seeding hours. Sooner or later, people would then notice which servers are admined and how much/how they like it and flock to only certain servers based on their preference. e.g. meanwhile in voip "Hey, how come this server isn't online all the time Mr. Admin? I really like to play here" "It is, new_player24584, you just have check the show duplicate servers filter in your server browser" At the end of the day though, I think it should really just be a balance of admin:performance:playerflux that should keep your server licensed. I feel that maybe there has been a little too much focus on the playerflux part during the freeweekends/new versions etc and those servers just stayed up, while other depopulated et cetera. I spend as little time as possible in the server browser, but I can say with perfect certainty that on any given day(singular) there's never exactly the same combination of populated servers. There's a lot of overlap, but also variety, from day to day.
  2. FOBs in V12+

    Ok, at this point I'm pretty sure that you guys are replying to a different thread and your posts end up here via a wormhole matrix glitch.
  3. FOBs in V12+

    Sure. It's just something that popped into my head when I heard concerns about the loopholes, when the devs explained how it's probably going to work, which I think are loopholes. Technically if you look at the suggestion it doesn't get rid of the importance of vehicles and doesn't make HABs/FOBs into fortresses. All it really does is give you a choice, logistics vs transport from main. If you wanted to set up two backup FOBs for every HAB you make then you could, but it'd take some effort. Or you could just rely on vehicles all the way, which are unreliable. Either way you will have to maintain supply lines, whether you're making a single FOB defensible or you are making backup FOBs or you are running people into the fight from main. I think the "deny FOB and withhold 400m from enemy" is going to be an issue. Some people seem to be hard pressed to find an adequate spot for a FOB even without having inactive FOBs in their way already. And the "geometric equation" is as simple as can be tbh, (FOB+FOB) x 3 = HAB + HAB = (HAB + HAB) / 2 = FOB + HAB But taking a step back, maybe this or something similar could be in place for the smaller maps only. Maybe split the gamemodes between AAS and AAS Large. Just a thought.
  4. FOBs in V12+

    Going off of the community roundtable here's a suggestion. Especially the part where someone in the discussion pointed out that 2 people can disable a FOB, hide and then the enemy team can't make a new FOB, without the enemies destroying the old one, so if they don't have a defence on the FOB it cuts them off from using, basically, an 800x800 area of the map to place a new FOB. Yadda yadda yadda. Here's a couple ideas I had while listening to this part of the discussion. 1 - Increase the size of the HAB model. This will do two things. First it'll be possible to make the HAB more protective against incoming fire for those that are spawning in. By enlarging the footprint of the HAB it'll be more likely that people will place it in open spaces, which lowers the possibility of two enemy players hiding it out in a nearby building etc, though not dramatically. Also if you make it triangular instead of rectangular you could plant the HAB, when deploying it, inside a hill for example, as long as two of the three entrances aren't blocked by the terrain. 2 - FOB/HAB/Build distances. Right now there's a 400m zone around each FOB which is assigned to that FOB and no other FOB can be placed there. You can build a HAB or anything else within 150m, from the FOB in all directions. Coming back to the first, if enemies(2+) lock down a HAB then that's 400m in all directions where you can't set up a new HAB - possibly for the rest of the game, I mean there is a chance. Instead, what could be done is to have a distance for FOBs, a distance for HABs and a distance for building. e.g. FOBs: (atleast) 100m from any other FOB, 150m from any HAB HABs: 300m from any other HAB Building zone: 100m from a HAB in any direction, 100m from the FOB in any direction(except HAB, 150m limit) supplies for both building zones would be in a single pool So it'd look something like this(not exact distances its quickly cobbled together and there might be a few pixels error) Blue - FOB Green - HAB White - build zone, wh. line - HAB belongs to FOB(100m) Purple - HAB build distance limit from FOBs(150m) Yellow - HAB minimum build distance from another HAB(300m) This has two effects. The first, simpler one, is that if you put FOBs too close to each other then their HABs become directional(bottom FOB line: One HAB in Village, second HAB in a fallback position). The second effect has to do with disabling the HAB. When the HAB is online then there can be no other HAB within 300m. - - - - - (In the current version, there can be no FOB within 400m of another FOB, so if a HAB gets disabled, that's 400m) - - - - - If the HAB gets disabled, it also disables the 300m limit. The HAB ceases to be a HAB it falls apart, it becomes dilapidated, deserted. This is option A and C. A = 2+ enemies get within proximity of the HAB, the HAB gets disabled, both visually and functionally + it loses the 300m limit, because it's not longer a HAB. C = The HAB gets destroyed by a mortar for example. Same as above ^ ^ ^ mock-up of a triangle HAB with a larger footprint in comparison with current HAB(no rl reference, I might've gone a little too wild with it) The B option would be when there are 2+ enemies, but there is also atleast 1 friendly on the HAB(within 100m) In this case the HAB becomes disabled, but that's it. It stays visually the same and the 300m limit is still in place. This way a HAB defence can go one of three ways. The defenders kill all the enemy within the area = the HAB becomes spawnable again. The defenders fail(all die or the HAB gets otherwise disabled; explosives)- they come in from a rally point and clear the HAB = now they have to build the HAB back up for it to become spawnable they completely fail and the attackers leave the disabled HAB and FOB standing = they can now build another HAB within a 150m of the disabled FOB on a preexisting FOB 100m+ away OR they can take down a HAB from a preexisting FOB 100m+ away from the disabled one and rebuild it 150m+ from it, etc etc One thing to keep in mind is that disabling a HAB and keeping the enemy FOB up would not deprive the enemy of a large area, for FOB building like now, but it would deprive a slightly smaller area + the angle at which the HAB will be built in relation to the FOB and so the angles of HAB + FOB + FLAG. In other words, disabling the HAB and leaving the FOB would still retain the tactical advantage(quote from roundtable: "aboooze"), but it's not an absolute distance/speed impediment from new HAB-to-capzone, only if you want to attack from the same angle as the disabled HAB let you do, ie going to the disabled HAB from the new HAB and then going to the flag from there.
  5. I am actually fairly certain that nametags NOT showing through walls was considered a bug in V6 or something. Also don't see the point, especially now that there are icons on your compass for nearby friendlies.
  6. Functional walk mechanic

    Right, it just doesn't do anything and you have to hold it.
  7. 3000hrs+ suggestions

    Actually the map is unreadeable because anything that's not the min zoom level will offset the letters and numbers, so you can't tell grids from each other anymore. All that's needed is to make it so that the letters and numbers always intersect X(X)kp5skp5 - like it used to be on the old maps. Then you can tell at a glance. Right now you have to either mouse over or look at your position and guess from which grid line looks like it's one pixel wider than the other and trying to remember what zoom level you are in and what's the exact width of that grid line in that zoom level.
  8. Bipod seamlessness

    There's two main problems with that 1) You need to click a button to detach the bipod, then click a button to aim again, then click a button to attach the button, then click a button to aim again 2) Often when you get stuck in an angle, you can't turn the other way anymore either, forcing you to detach the bipod anyway and less often when stuck and after detaching the bipod you'll bounce up and down Now don't get me wrong, it'd be great if they could fix the getting stuck issue in the first place, but this suggestion is to make it so the bipod gets detached before you get a chance to get stuck and attached again, before you get a chance to click two buttons 4 times.
  9. Exactly. RIP Gorodok Lumberyard layer. I don't know about DH, but in PS the lockdown is clearly there to let the defenders set up a defense after losing a point. It's pretty much the opposite of the effect you want. Somehow I think that reverse engineering it to promote steamrolling will not have a positive effect.
  10. What exactly do you mean by a stalemate? A double-neutral or both teams putting up a defense on their respective points so that one cannot cap the other's? The former happens when the defenders get wiped on both teams roughly around the same time, most of the time - and they could have been defending for 15-20 minutes - so there's absolutely no effect on that with lockdowns. Imho, just increasing the time it takes for a flag to go from Neutral to Capped would have the same effect - without any solid lockdown restrictions.
  11. Could be wrong, but it seems like Kohat maybe has forced DF shadows on, or something.(fps hit + see them lag-render on the surrounding landscape)
  12. Personally I'd like to see a custom. kit system that is based on points/carry weight/room with more broader kits - like Fire Support Role being a single kit, or alternative squad compositions, kind of like PR had a second version of a kit, except squad-wide, affecting not just the nature of the kits, but restrictions and availability of them to the squad, too.
  13. Netcode feedback

    I understand that with the new vehicles, damage model, wanting to push the game to 50v50, etc, things are being made to be cheaper to run, but as it is right now it really is less than playable in my opinion. I'm strictly talking about the "replay last 5 seconds of movement"-feature of the current netcode. The one where when you turn around, all the players behind you have to "catch up" to what they are actually doing. I guess this is okay for far away players, atleast I've never seen an issue with it, but when you round a corner and a player(enemy player) runs 10 meters, vaults onto a roof and then proceeds to shoot at you - the time this takes being 3 seconds from when you round the corner - that I think borders on broken. No idea how this works, but making it so that all players within a certain radius have to be updated, regardless of whether or not you can see them, that I think would be fix enough.
×