Jump to content
=CDN= Wehmann

Solution to "Buddy Rally"

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Nossa said:

Taking HABS out of the picture might make the game too slow IMO. Only spawning from mainbase? We may as well play Arma 3 at that point. I play Squad because I don't have to sit in the back of a truck for 30 minutes to die in a firefight that lasts 30 seconds like arma 3 AAS. 

Like somebody has already pointed out that is exaggerated. Reducing arguments to absurd propositions creates false impressions. 

 

First of all, It wouldnt take you 30 minutes to get back into action and you know it.

 

Secondly, maybe if it takes you longer to get into action then you, and EVERYBODY ELSE, would value life in the game much more and firefights wouldnt last 30 seconds.

 

Finally, take into account that I´m not for eliminating HABs and Rallies completely, but I definetely plrefer that to what we have now (although it Will never happen, because that wouldnt sell. Masses want instant action and clicking pretending they play a "tactical" game)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nightingale87 said:

 

 

Finally, take into account that I´m not for eliminating HABs and Rallies completely, but I definetely plrefer that to what we have now (although it Will never happen, because that wouldnt sell. Masses want instant action and clicking pretending they play a "tactical" game)

In actuality there is supposed to be limited amount of FOB's allowed in a match but that baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

 

Kickstarter:

 

"and also a limited number of them can be placed around the map."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 9:45 AM, Thr34t said:

 

A vehicle doesn't need to be useable to be considered captured. When I was in the military we captured plenty of assets with zero intentions on using them. 

 

"If it is considered lost then the enemy can replace it"? That didn't even make sense.  

 

A vehicle being de-crewed or abandoned and not being able to have it again until recovered DOES make sense.  Your logic in this post is nonsense thinking. 

 

It is very arcady to use a vehicle stupidly,  have it captured, and then have the option to press a magic button which fixes it and transports it back safely to base. Allow your vehicle to be captured or abandon it and you pay the consequence of not having it until you recover it. Any other way is illogical. 

 

The only exception I can see is if you go to the vehicle and demolition it, or have it blown up by a air support, bu even then it should have a very long respawn penalty attached.  This only stipulation is because it IS realistic for an asset in enemy's control to be demolished if possible.  Normally this doesn't mean getting a new one for free, but I'd reward that type of gameplay instead of just pressing a button.

 

Not sure why you think its nonsense. I will present to you two scenarios and I am sure you will be able to understand why it doesn't make sense.

 

1. A Logi or some kind of vehicle is either abandoned, disabled or "captured". Whatever. 

Until it has been recaptured another one does not spawn.

 

2. The same logi instead of being abandoned, disabled or "captured" is destroyed. 

 

A new one magically spawns in main. 

 

From a realism perspective, it makes no sense why scenario 1, where a vehicle is lost cannot be replaced but scenario 2 it can be replaced. You were in the military you said and you captured assets. Did you ever say to yourself, lets not destroy that enemy vehicle because if we do they will be able to replace it whereas if we hold on to it, they won't be able to deploy a new one?

 

The only valid explanation for this mechanic is from a game-play perspective. Where teams who don't abandon vehicles are rewarded. However, I think it can be done better. Lets say the SLs can vote and if enough of them vote on a vehicle being "lost" then it gets removed from their vehicle pool (it can no longer be recovered) and a new one spawns the way it would if that vehicle were destroyed. However, the catch is that doing this costs twice as many tickets than simply having the vehicle destroyed. This would be a better mechanic than what we have currently. 

Edited by warrior6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

back in JO we sometimes stole/kept-safe (usually to use against them but mostly for denial) the enemy vehicle as a new one would not spawn until the existing one was destroyed.

allowing vics the time to burn out and then goto re-spawn-timer, rather than outright destroy, also held the enemy up as well, just not for as long.

of course we could steal/comandeer vehicles in that game as well, so there's that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, warrior6 said:

 

Not sure why you think its nonsense. I will present to you two scenarios and I am sure you will be able to understand why it doesn't make sense.

 

1. A Logi or some kind of vehicle is either abandoned, disabled or "captured". Whatever. 

Until it has been recaptured another one does not spawn.

 

2. The same logi instead of being abandoned, disabled or "captured" is destroyed. 

 

A new one magically spawns in main. 

 

From a realism perspective, it makes no sense why scenario 1, where a vehicle is lost cannot be replaced but scenario 2 it can be replaced. You were in the military you said and you captured assets. Did you ever say to yourself, lets not destroy that enemy vehicle because if we do they will be able to replace it whereas if we hold on to it, they won't be able to deploy a new one?

 

The only valid explanation for this mechanic is from a game-play perspective. Where teams who don't abandon vehicles are rewarded. However, I think it can be done better. Lets say the SLs can vote and if enough of them vote on a vehicle being "lost" then it gets removed from their vehicle pool (it can no longer be recovered) and a new one spawns the way it would if that vehicle were destroyed. However, the catch is that doing this costs twice as many tickets than simply having the vehicle destroyed. This would be a better mechanic than what we have currently. 

 

 

Usually we prefered to hold onto the vehicle rather than destroy it because destroying it meant leaving it behind,  which usually meant the enemy would come and salvage parts from it in order to build a new one. 

 

So no, destroying it didn't mean a new one magically appeared, but it meant a higher potential for a new one to be built by utilizing whatever working parts were left after we destroyed it.

 

Contrary to popular belief, we didn't carry around C4. Destroying an asset usually just meant destroying a specific part of the asset. We used specific because we figured "if we always destroyed asset Y by breaking part X then they will always have a need for part X and can't simply take 2 broken assets Y to make a new asset Y since both have the same broken part. On a smaller scale,  we always took firing pins from abandoned firearms because they rendered the firearm useless and it was easy to take capture literally hundreds with only a slight weight gain in gear.

 

But yes,  destroying and abandoning the asset led to the enemy getting some working parts off it and rebuilding it while capturing it meant complete deprivation. 

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

×