No blitzkrieg?

[=VG= Skitalez]

After the last global update, I noticed that on some maps, the progress of allied units is extremely fast. especially on maps such as: Muttrah, Kashan, Jabal and some others. It would be great if the squad leaders rebuilt the fortifications on the captured flags, built a defense, gave the bots at least some chance to counterattack and try to recapture the flag back, then they themselves would move to the next flag. Otherwise, the gameplay on some maps simply turns into a blitzkrieg without interacting with each other in an attempt to become the best squad with the most points, despite the fact that the game involves working together as a team.

 

Information to think about.

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

It's worth thinking about. We could easily run a test game with the flags set for a standard neutral very slow capture (5-10 min) which would strongly encourage defence.
Biggest issue is everyone knows where the bots are coming from and what they are going to do.

[BinkleDinkle]

Would decreaseing neutral time and increasing capture time work better? For example, changing a 60second captime from 30second to netutral / 30second to capture to 15 netural / 45 second capture.

• Makes people clear the area before rushing to get capture moving at next flag.
• Reduce the ability / need of people to camp spawnpoints. Makes bots more of a threat, it now has the chance of popping out from random corner firing rather than having 10 ARs shooting it before it can spawn.
• Gives reason to stay back and defend.
• Punishment fits the crime. Rushing will result in a backcap slowing the game more organically, whilst 5-10min capture time feels more of a forced / punishment for being "good" at offence.

 

Simpler solution is be the change you want and be the one defending flags.

 

[Aori]

We can make the bots harder and make they spawn faster ? Slow down the cap will work too

[=VG= .Blizzard.]

1 minute ago, Aori said:

We can make the bots harder and make they spawn faster ? Slow down the cap will work too

And how is the team going to advance if they spawn a lot faster than usual and attack continuously?That is just defending against hordes of them or at least makes it harder when pop is low. 

The issue is in the neutral state of the flag/ capturing state timing like Binkle mentioned. Its the best way and if its possible it will be a good challenge. Plus why add a shit ton of vehicles when you can add a good amount for both teams but make the cap not possible for some vehicles/ kits like the pilot kit. This will prevent the apc/tank squad to cap fast.

[Golden]

1 hour ago, Aori said:

We can make the bots harder and make they spawn faster ? Slow down the cap will work too

As far as I know, the bots are as hard as they can get without being 100% 1-tap headshot terminators.

[Aori]

9 minutes ago, Golden said:

As far as I know, the bots are as hard as they can get without being 100% 1-tap headshot terminators.

Hmm how about making them spawn faster, for the "enemy keep coming " feel

[Aori]

1 hour ago, =VG= .Blizzard. said:

And how is the team going to advance if they spawn a lot faster than usual and attack continuously?That is just defending against hordes of them or at least makes it harder when pop is low. 

The issue is in the neutral state of the flag/ capturing state timing like Binkle mentioned. Its the best way and if its possible it will be a good challenge. Plus why add a shit ton of vehicles when you can add a good amount for both teams but make the cap not possible for some vehicles/ kits like the pilot kit. This will prevent the apc/tank squad

That makes sense maybe with the crew man cap remove it good enough for a challenge, force for inf and team work

[=VG= Acro1]

Making bots spawn faster will, IMO, do more harm than good. Certain maps are already notorious for being bot-heavy and need many friendly cappers to overpower them.

More bots per minute means our infantry must make more kills per minute to prevent defeat. The pressure on friendly forces would be higher in general.

Increasing the cap times sounds like a good idea. Forces the need to defend, and forces the need to plan ahead in order to prevent overpowering.

 

I think we already have an acute solution for the problem of 'overly easy' games though: Playing more challenging maps.

We will always need easy maps that can be completed during low-pop times. I personally think these maps are good the way they are now, but that's just my opinion.

It's no surprise that the game feels easy with this top 5 (since May 1st, 2020):

Map Name	Times played	% of total
muttrah_city_2	337	12.11%
jabal	242	8.70%
kashan_desert	229	8.23%
khamisiyah	172	6.18%
pavlovsk_bay	99	3.56%
bamyan	96	3.45%
burning_sands	93	3.34%

Thats 45.57% of all games since May 1st, played on these 7 maps. For reference, we have 62 COOP maps* (each having 1 - 4 layers) to pick from. (Visit the PR Map Gallery)

Essentially, we know these top maps inside and out. Melon's statement that we know where the bots come from is true on these maps, and the need to improvise is gone as we know the tried-and-true routines of wrecking them.

Conversely, these more challenging ones dangle at the bottom of the list:

bijar_canyons	15	0.54%
korengal	14	0.50%
charlies_point	14	0.50%
asad_khal	13	0.47%
the_falklands	12	0.43%
ulyanovsk	11	0.40%
dragon_fly	11	0.40%
lashkar_valley	10	0.36%
karbala	10	0.36%
brecourt_assault	10	0.36%
reichswald	9	0.32%
operation_soul_rebel	9	0.32%
dovre_winter	9	0.32%
dovre	8	0.29%
xiangshan	7	0.25%
tad_sae	7	0.25%
goose_green	7	0.25%
operation_ghost_train	6	0.22%
hill_488	5	0.18%
nuijamaa	4	0.14%
assault_on_mestia	4	0.14%
outpost	2	0.07%

Muttrah City, Jabal and Kashan have each been played more times than all these maps combined.

 

So whilst I'm definitely in favour of exploring captimes etc, I want to emphasize that we do have options to increase the challenge level. There's 'Nam, WW2 etc which require more coordination to complete, even at higher playcounts of skilled players.

 

* Certain maps/layers may be temporarily unavailable due to bugs or crash issues.

[Golden]

54 minutes ago, =VG= Acro1 said:

I think we already have an acute solution for the problem of 'overly easy' games though: Playing more challenging maps.

Been preaching this for ages. 

[=VG= =AMPH=]

Im voting for more:

1. karbala ++++

2. khamisiyah  ++

3. kokan ++++

4. Fallujah ++

5. jabal  ++

6. Gaza ++++

my opinion

[Golden]

34 minutes ago, =AMPHETAMINE= said:

Im voting for more:

1. karbala ++++

2. khamisiyah  ++

3. kokan ++++

4. Fallujah ++

5. jabal  ++

6. Gaza ++++

my opinion

 

Jabal and Muttrah are the most over-played maps. Jabal seriously needs to be retired. They retired so many other good maps in favor of that stinging POS lol. It is the oldest map now and I'm tired of it personally.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Jabal if people didn't camp the bridge flag and essentially base rape by TOWING anything that comes across the bridge. IMO it's akin to either A, mining the bridge. Or B, destroying the bridge entirely with C4. I see it all the time, I'll admit that it has calmed down a bit and people have been moving into the next objectives more frequently. However, that doesn't wash the bad taste out of my mouth that is Jabal.

[=VG= Melon Muncher]

I did some changes to muttrah std.

[=VG= Kavelenko]

22 hours ago, =VG= Skitalez said:

After the last global update, I noticed that on some maps, the progress of allied units is extremely fast.

Agreed, I spawn in sometimes and the players are half way through the map!

[KevinBrute]

Kashan Desert is the best example, Armors and CAS usually demolish anything that comes in sight.

[Johnny__Rico]

So did you make any changes regarding capping time / neutral time?