Any benefit of capturing a zone planned?
It is a very fundamental design decision and I am not saying that it is bad
or something needs to be done.
Just wondering, if there is or planned to have something else than additional
scoring from having a zone captured?
RE: Any benefit of capturing a zone planned? - Added by Dr_Eyeball about 6 years ago
With insufficient player numbers and playing as a lone player, the objectives do feel quite meaningless, but once you get sufficient players and play competitively within groups for your side to win overall, it then feels sufficient as it is, surprisingly.
I have no serious plans yet - just ideas. I don't know if these are worthwhile yet and have no short-term plans. I'd rather focus on a brand new game mode instead.To make zone captures more meaningful and to motivate players, I've considered:
- changing them into mini-objectives, like destroy UAV/tower and deploy your own object to classify zone as captured.
- nesting multiple zones per sector (a bit like Warfare's camps)
- requiring a vehicle presence to capture zone and/or deploy an object
- simply providing ammunition and medical supplies
- providing access to some device (eg: UAV, radar, etc)
- spawning some object for your side (eg: vehicle)
- You will require 3 players to capture a zone in an upcoming version, in addition to existing majority/ratio rules.
RE: Any benefit of capturing a zone planned? - Added by Jeepo about 6 years ago
Good ideas, but in the long term of actual game play maybe not. Obviously a squad will get teamwork points for a capture? Other than that though I am not sure?
- Perhaps over complicates things? This is not to say that the typical ArmA SL and squad do not have the brain power for this!:) I just mean when you capture the area you have things to do, like report to the CO that the objective has been completed and the zone is yours, deploy your squad for the enemy counter attack, get supplies brought up for ammo/FB deployment. Having to destroy/build something seems like just extra work giving the other team more time to plan an assault. Also, one single objective such as a radio tower seems to easy to exploit defence wise, just rig it to blow if the town is captured, killing all the attackers. Then walk in and recapture it.
- Good idea, but a few issues may arise. As it is with the capture system, you can either hit Alpha or Bravo. This is good, it prevents the opposition from simply pumping their entire team in there to prevent you taking it. With A & B they are divided by necessity. Having say 3 camps dotted around the main objective may be a stretch too far though, as they may be very thin on the ground. However, this idea has a lot of potential!:) One aspect could perhaps be allowing RP's inside the zome, but not the inner circle? This way the reinforcements are not so far away, and the attackers either need overwhelming number to take and hold the zone, or first seek out the enemy RP.
- Again nice idea. However it may then be a case of the OpFor simply ignoring the infantry and just seeking to hit the vehicle, and being reckless in that, knowning they can't cap the area without that truck/chopper etc. However I do like the assets idea. Something I would steal straight from PR is the FB system, in that it can have its own assets spawned irrespective of nearby vehicles, just have the FB as the main object and allow assets with a certain range of that.
Ammo and Medical supplies:
- Maybe I am going for the hardcore approach here, but I am thinking that after a successful assault you should "lick you wounds" as it were, wait for you reinforcements, get resupplied by chopper/truck, all the old fashioned way. A properly planned assualt will have taked this into consideration and be on standbye for this sort of role.
Access to devices:
- I am interested to hear what these would be, as they could be a nice idea!;)
- Could promote crazy tactics to get the new leet vehicle, taking away from the realism? Would need to be properly balanced but again a nice idea!
Just suggestions I am throwing out there!