Jump to content
Niklasgunner

Is the 400 meter fob distance requirement stil a good design choice?

Recommended Posts

I have the impression that the minimum distance between fobs was initially a way to avoid FOB spam, back when there were no logistics vehicles and supplies were gained automatically (crazy times). Now, with cooker FOBs gone, we are at a point where you MUST resupply a FOB for people to spawn on it, spamming them is hardly a big problem now. Why not remove or atleast shrink the minimum distance requirement so that 1. stupid teammates can't **** up your plan with bad FOB placement 2. Smaller maps like Sumari and OP First Light can have more than one worthwhile FOB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was an argument on range think your find that people will want it increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I think it works well the way it is now. Otherwise you'll see more FOBs being lost due to improper use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Smee said:

If there was an argument on range think your find that people will want it increased.

And make it literally impossible to have more than one FOB on Sumari and OP first light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Smee said:

If there was an argument on range think your find that people will want it increased.

 

I think you will find quite the opposite. This is just one more of those early Alpha restrictions put in to stop spam when it was possible. The build radius and proximity restriction should be the same. It would work better if spawning consumed resources, but the current requirements are sufficient for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol really you want more ammo abuse, lol  .Let's get rid of the limit have 5 fobs in 100m  sounds awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Smee said:

Lol really you want more ammo abuse, lol  .Let's get rid of the limit have 5 fobs in 100m  sounds awesome.

Did you have a seizure halfway through reading my post and miss the part where I said the build and proximity radius should be the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry so  5 in 150m what's the difference. Either way too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Smee said:

Sorry so  5 in 150m what's the difference. Either way too many.

 

Not if they have to be supplied. Neither is what you're suggesting practical. The ammo drop isn't really an issue here, and you know my opinion on starting resources on FOBs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People wont care if they are supplied or not.  I don't want the distance to reduce because its about right at present.  The build could be increased to 400m if that' s what you implying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smee said:

People wont care if they are supplied or not.  I don't want the distance to reduce because its about right at present.  The build could be increased to 400m if that' s what you implying. 

 

How are they going to build anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you throw out just stupid radio placement, one reason people whine about another SL placing a lousy fob is because it's in a place the doesn't allow for building  defenses where they'd like. If you tied building to supply crates instead, you could build on smart strategic locations and place your FOB where it's the most hidden, and/or best defended. No radius restriction on crates, drop them wherever you'd like, use up the build points and the crate vanishes. If emplacements and resupply items cost tickets when destroyed, they'd have a value and you'd have an incentive to keep an eye on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Smee said:

Sorry so  5 in 150m what's the difference. Either way too many.

He said that build radius and distance to other fobs should be equal, meaning that you wouldn't be able to stack FOBs. Where is the problem?

Your argument is literally shitposting and putting words in his mouth

 

8 hours ago, Smee said:

.  The build could be increased to 400m if that' s what you implying. 

 

And make it impossible to find the radio of a HAB you found?

 

In Project Reality the distance inbetween FOBs was 200 meters, which was much better atleast. It didn't make FOB placement on smaller maps so restricted like Squad is doing right now.

Edited by Niklasgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But i would like to see it reduce for Insurgents. It would give them a small Boost, since they are in general the weaker Faction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LugNut said:

If you throw out just stupid radio placement, one reason people whine about another SL placing a lousy fob is because it's in a place the doesn't allow for building  defenses where they'd like. If you tied building to supply crates instead, you could build on smart strategic locations and place your FOB where it's the most hidden, and/or best defended. No radius restriction on crates, drop them wherever you'd like, use up the build points and the crate vanishes. If emplacements and resupply items cost tickets when destroyed, they'd have a value and you'd have an incentive to keep an eye on them. 

 

Please no cost for sandbags though. A bag of sand shouldn't be considered any sort of loss. I think sandbags should cost nothing to put up, and cost nothing when destroyed. That's probably the best way to actually incentivise players to shore up the defenses. It would also give squads the ability to really dig into a position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Peerun said:

Add a 400m radious around all cap points also.

 

please please dont tell me you actually think people should not be able to build FOBs with 400m of flags, and you mean something like "the cap radius of flags should be 400m"

Edited by 40mmrain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Qaiex said:

 

Please no cost for sandbags though. A bag of sand shouldn't be considered any sort of loss. I think sandbags should cost nothing to put up, and cost nothing when destroyed. That's probably the best way to actually incentivise players to shore up the defenses. It would also give squads the ability to really dig into a position.

If you're saying it should be that way for realism's sake i completely disagree. the sand is free, but the bags aren't. nobody is carry around millions of bags with which to fill with sand infinitely. they would need to be brought in on a truck with everything else built at an FOB.

gameplay wise this would also be horrible, because you could build a 7 layer thick castle wall of sandbags around your FOB for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When life doesnt give you bags, build a sandcastle.

To the topic though, I think it'd be interesting if different deployables had different maximum distance from FOB.
Rule of thumb, the lighter the materials, the further away you can build it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guts said:

If you're saying it should be that way for realism's sake i completely disagree. the sand is free, but the bags aren't. nobody is carry around millions of bags with which to fill with sand infinitely. they would need to be brought in on a truck with everything else built at an FOB.

gameplay wise this would also be horrible, because you could build a 7 layer thick castle wall of sandbags around your FOB for free.

 

Yeah, I think you should still need supplies to build sandbags, just they shouldn't cost any of the supplies to build. You could have something like a certain amount of sandbags per FOB or per supply crate. Point is I don't think players should feel like they don't want to put up sandbags because they'd rather spend the points on mortars or whatever. You should always put up sandbags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Qaiex said:

You should always put up sandbags.


Why?
Also you can, using ammo points from a FOB.

Edited by Peerun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Peerun said:

To the topic though, I think it'd be interesting if different deployables had different maximum distance from FOB.
Rule of thumb, the lighter the materials, the further away you can build it.

 

Absolutely awful. This is the kind of stuff that makes a game a convoluted mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only on small maps should FOB location be decreased.

 

I've heard many FOB locations be called bad, but I can see the advantages and disadvantages in all of them.

 

  • Some provide immediate reinforcements to an objective area,
  • Others provide multiple spawn points around an objective area
  • Others provide a backup spawn in case the  front line falls
  • Others provide a rear insertion area
  • Some are placed because the convoy team comes under fire and the only good place to set a FOB was their area. Why set a FOB in this situation? Imagine your entire team hasn't had a FOB for 20 minutes and you're desperately trying to get some spawn point up somewhere at least.

 

I really haven't seen a bad FOB. Unless you're actually in the squad that places the FOB, you are not qualified to say if it was a bad FOB. You don't know the circumstances and mindset of the squad leader who is placing it.

 

And unless you're the commander of a team who is keeping track of each squad's situation, you won't know what a bad  FOB is. And since we don't have commanders in-game, we really can't claim something as a bad FOB.

 

However, if I could agree on FOB distance being shrunk it would be on the tiniest of maps.

Edited by Cavazos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017/7/22 at 2:26 AM, LugNut said:

If you throw out just stupid radio placement, one reason people whine about another SL placing a lousy fob is because it's in a place the doesn't allow for building  defenses where they'd like. If you tied building to supply crates instead, you could build on smart strategic locations and place your FOB where it's the most hidden, and/or best defended. No radius restriction on crates, drop them wherever you'd like, use up the build points and the crate vanishes. If emplacements and resupply items cost tickets when destroyed, they'd have a value and you'd have an incentive to keep an eye on them. 

I really like this idea of no radios and being allowed to build as long as a crate is close enough and has enough supply points. This is simpler and would no allow you to put up an HMG and some sandbags for a quick ambush or defense without having to place a radio. Right now I really don't like how everything is tied to the radio because it's so restricting stratgically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×