Jump to content

Smith

Member
  • Content count

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smith

  • Rank
    Grunt
  1. That's the whole point, take Ticket Bleed and make it much, much slower so that loss of Tickets is actually in the hands of the player(s) instead of in the hands of whomever manages to get the one meaningful CP. If a person builds a FOB in an easy to find location and fails to defend it than the direct result is a large loss of tickets. An action a player, a squad, or a team took would then have direct, tangible consequences. The game would be more about how the team utilizes the map and their resources as a whole instead of just a giant boxing match to see who can hit hardest at one CP. If people are playing smart than ticket count won't worry them as much because they won't have to deal with a fast rate of bleed, that'll give them time to get back on their feet even if they've been pushed back a few CP's. I disagree on both counts. AAS doesn't work because on most maps it's too linear. The natural point for a conflict is right in the middle of a map, so why would anyone take their time in back-capping when they know they won't see anyone until they get to the middle anyway? And remember, there is a caveat and a big one, to removing the safety bubble around a Main, all other points must be captured first. It's very rare for a team to make a comeback once they've been pushed to their final point, this would allow for the game to end quickly and cleanly without dragging on. There was also the second caveat, the team get's a short breather to prepare a last stand/counter-attack. But they don't. In my rendition Attrition would be the act of killing enough of the enemy team, destroying enough vehicles, and eliminating enough FOB's where as Domination would be forgoing that to capture each point until their Main could be dominated. The way you'd allocate resources would be very, very different. In it's current state Vehicles and FOB's aren't worth enough tickets to make them a viable focus over that one golden ticket bleed CP. It doesn't make sense because that's not what I said. Working from my above statement of why AAS doesn't work due to the linear nature of CP's: Having FOB's and Vehicles worth more tickets creates dynamic objectives. They're not pre-placed, you don't know where they are until you find them. This gives the player a credible reason to go do things other than just duking it out over the one meaningful point on the map. It creates any number of meaningful opportunities to change the tide of a game. To win you could focus entirely just on the linear CP's, or you could forgo them almost entirely, dedicate one or two squads to defending a point while your other squads search and destroy enemy resources. When you give real value and real consequence to player actions you create an environment ripe for dynamic and emergent game play. That's hard to accomplish when really the only way to effect anything is to fight over one point that dictates the game. I'm in favor of greater, more open options, not fewer, restrictive ones.
  2. I've noticed something about Squad, as tactical as it is, it's hard to play out strategies that involve taking time, everyone has this constant urge to rush. It's evident when we see people constantly sprinting about. I also notice losing vehicles or FOB's doesn't really distress anyone. I think that should change. I'd like to introduce an idea whereby Ticket bleed is reduced by an order of magnitude or more, I think that it should be a relatively small bonus received by the winning team. The reason being that it will slow the pace of the game to allow for squads to coordinate more interesting strategies, people won't feel rushed by the ticket bleed. Vehicles: To maintain balance vehicles need to be worth more tickets, losing an APC should be a loss that's felt by the whole team. It would highlight the significance of vehicles and penalize improper or inappropriate use. It would also force Squads to think twice about simply abandoning a Vehicle on the battlefield, something done far too often. Instead of rushing a vehicle in and everyone jumping out, deploying troops will have to become a more thoughtful and strategic task. There should be a scale to that though, with Armor costing the most and say transports costing the least. FOB's: Failing to defend your FOB should hurt, I'm talking 150 tickets or more kind of hurt. That should be a legitimate "mission" or "objective" within a match, to take down FOB's as not only a means of cutting off quick reinforcements but also devastating the other teams ticket count. This would increase the FOB's significance and force teams to choose their FOB's location more wisely. Okay but now there's a problem, without ticket bleed what incentive is there to focus on capturing and holding points? What if the opposing team is getting absolutely rolled and they can't come back from it and the match just needs to end? To this I'd like to introduce a final capture point that ends the game, the enemy Main. Once ALL points are successfully captured there should be a countdown timer in which the opposing team has a few minutes to set up their final defense/counter attack. Once that timer is up the Enemy Main should be open to capture, once captured the game is over regardless of ticket count. If the Enemy force is able to successfully counter-attack and recapture their first point then their Main becomes Off Limits again. I believe that with these adjustments there will still likely be the initial rush but after that rush things will slow down and allow for more realistic game play and strategy. I also believe that rushing will be altered in a positive way due to the increased penalty for losing a vehicle. Typically during a hard rush one team loses some of it's vehicles, teams may think twice if losing 3 or 4 vehicles means losing 25% or 30% of your teams tickets. In all, this system would raise the stakes considerably and force each team to truly think about how it utilizes it's assets as over committing to a poorly planned strategy could be catastrophic. This will open up each map to new strategies and tactics, allowing for strategies geared toward attrition or domination. It will create new game play opportunities that no longer center around just the objective points but legitimize groups interested in hunting FOB's or ambushing vehicles. It will add a new dimension to Squad. Thanks!
  3. Advanced Delegation of Responsibility: Simply put I'd love the ability to take my nine man squad and organize it into two fire teams. This would allow for a whole new array of strategies and tactics to be executed more effectively. While we can make it happen without UI and dedicated mechanics having these elements designed around this concept would make executing it much easier. I'd also like to suggest that the Squad Leader be able to hand off the base building controls to any one designee within the Squad. The idea being that as an SL I may need to focus my attention on more immediate concerns but I also need to get a FOB built. While I'm focused on communication, coordination and directing the Squad I can have whomever I've designated work on constructing the FOB. One of the key functions of a leader is being able to delegate responsibility in a responsible and effective manner, currently I feel as SL my focus is being pulled in too many directions. Advanced Radio Options: In Arma 3 there is a Radio/Comms mod called Task Force Radio, one of the extremely convenient features it offers is the ability to have your radio, or radios play in the right ear, left ear, or both (Stereo). This is very useful for when you are leading a squad and have a command channel and a squad channel. It's easier to parse what people are saying and decide which channel to focus on when you have, say, the command channel in your right ear, and the squad channel in your left. If my squad is relaying information among themselves during a fire fight and I need to coordinate with another squad, as any SL can tell you, it becomes a spaghetti salad of voices making effective communication very difficult. It has been my experience that being able to choose which ears my various radios are playing in is extremely helpful. Thanks!
×