Skip to content

Adjusting FOB meta

mebelmebel Member Posts: 10 Civilian

The recent changes to FOBs raises a lot of discussion, so I will also add my piece to it.

Now, the changes to a gameplay that I have noticed are:

  • less of making FOBs directly on objectives (imo that's good)
  • attacking is rewarded more (imo that's bad)
  • way more of steam-rolling (imo that's bad), rounds that ends in like 30-40 mins, with huge difference in score

There might be even more changes, it worked out kinda like intended, but only kinda - as we can see by reading the feedback. What I would like to see personally is a keeping the rounds more unpredictable till the end (so players don't loose morale so quick). Now, there many rounds that you know what would be the outcome just after couple of minutes.

I thought how this FOB meta could be solved, and what I come up is a characteristics of a FOB/radio dependent on a distance to a main base. It could be applied both to overrun and exclusion radius. The maximum overrun radius/layer would be smaller if closer to main, and same would go to exclusion radius. For FOBs that are deep into enemy territory we have all overrun layers and also exclusion radius extended. It could be applied for both or just for one of those characteristics.

This could simulate the ease of reinforcing grounds that are closer to main base, and simulate also that working behind enemy lines require more stealth and tactics. Or simply the fact that radio signal is weaker over a distance - it's a radio for some reason ;]

Reasoning for this:

  • it should be harder to steamroll
  • FOB hunting would be still viable tactics and rewarding as a defensive tactics
  • overall outcome of a round would be dependent on overall player performance, less on lucky initial set-up after couple of minutes
  • defence, close to the main, would be tougher
  • attacking would be less desirable job to do, as it would be a bit harder

I don't mind making those changes gamebreaking, changing values thus gameplay a lot, but bringing gameplay closer to be somehow balanced, so players won't be loosing morale after like ~20 minutes of a round when steamroll can sometimes began.

Yes - I know some layers have asymmetric flag layouts. But I still claim this would potentially work out, maybe with some tweaks to other factors for balance.

Yes - I know that we can resuplly fobs closer to main easier, and we can build defences, but static assets are actually nothing compared to amount of unproxied fobs the team could spawn on. It's still not a real life.

Comments

  • tzaerutzaeru Member Posts: 27

    Personally I'm open to all sorts of creative attempts in making the game more exciting over the length of a whole match. I'd not mind seeing this being attempted.

    Buuuuuut.

    I'm unsure if it's actually touching the root issue, the rollout meta and the importance of the first fight in the middle of the map.

    Most Squad games are decided in two phases. Either in the rollout - when the teams leave main - where sometimes no one goes backcapping or there are no good squad leads or logis are unused. This is difficult to fix. Would IMO need some sort of team balancing systems.

    But assuming that you have your vehicles in proper use, assuming you have semi-competent squad leads and so forth, then the game is often decided in the next phase; The rush to the middle.

    The first middle fight is by far the most impactful fight of the game - it typically has a logi involved, so if you lose, you lose your logi. You don't have a nearby FOB already set up and you don't have a continuous stream of players pushing there, so there's no way you're going to get bandaged if your squad is wiped. If you lose, you can't set up your FOB, while the enemy gets lots of time to set up their FOB and wait for reinforcements.

    Worst case, you lose the mid fight when there's no backup FOB yet even ready to spawn into.

    The game, as it is, is extremely focused on winning that first fight and gaining control of the middle point. The easy majority of time, the team that wins that first fight wins the game, and it's simply because they now have more of the map under control and they have 60 tickets more from that point, while they cost a logi and a whole squad of tickets to the opponent. So they're actually more like 75 ticket advantage at that point.

    That one fight, costs 75 tickets. So yea, it's an important one!

    Right now I'd maybe like to see trying even amount of points again. I know that there were complaints about the game dragging out if both sides have say, 3 points for 6 points in total instead of 5 or 7 as we nowadays tend to have, but the game's gotten faster and the players more experienced, so I'd be open to again trying those maps with even amount of points.

  • mebelmebel Member Posts: 10 Civilian

    Thank you for sharing your point of view. Indeed, games are based on those phases. However - I didn't mind to resolve those issues you mentioned by suggesting the above, but just getting closer to more balanced meta, prolonging uncertainty a bit.

  • RackEmUp187RackEmUp187 Member Posts: 34

    Captain made a video in response to moidawgs fob meta feedback. It's long but worth listening to. its on reddit title "response to moidawgs ne fob meta

Sign In or Register to comment.