Siege missions

[Aegis_RVIR]

From my experience, FOBs are pretty easy to take, since they are pretty empty and flat beforehand. Every time one has to be captured, it is just the AT destroying the armor in a minute, the marshalls and the hunters destroying the infantry and the rest is just there to clean up whatever didn't die.

 

So my suggestion is that we turn the FOB missions into siege missions (hear me out on this one before going to the comment section):

 

-FOB are heavily fortified, think about walls, stationary defenses and minefields. Thus requiring planning and not sheer force to take.

 

-If OPFOR thinks that it is gonna lose, reinforcements will be called unless the radio tower can be destroyed first.

 

- Walls and minefields are placed in such a way that vehicles can get through, but at such a speed that they can easily be picked off from a distance, unless when the infantry cleans the mines up so that armor could advance at a faster rate.

 

Okay, what is your opinion?

[TheScar]

12 hours ago, Cryo said:

From my experience, FOBs are pretty easy to take, since they are pretty empty and flat beforehand.

 

I+A 3 is still in development,what you see now is sure not the final result of development.

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Cryo said:

Every time one has to be captured, it is just the AT destroying the armor in a minute, the marshalls and the hunters destroying the infantry and the rest is just there to clean up whatever didn't die.

 

welcome to MP?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Cryo said:

-FOB are heavily fortified, think about walls, stationary defenses and minefields. Thus requiring planning and not sheer force to take.

 

less FPS,more CPU work for the server and the usual shitty spawning of editor placed objects in a MP enviroment comes to mind

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Cryo said:

- Walls and minefields are placed in such a way that vehicles can get through, but at such a speed that they can easily be picked off from a distance, unless when the infantry cleans the mines up so that armor could advance at a faster rate.

 

every sane MBT or APC crew will stay out of engagement range/borderline to enemy forces by default.

there s a reason a Leopard can engage from 6k distance,you know

 

 

 

 

 

Your idea is a decent,yet its not that easy to work your stuff out in a mission without making (big) compromises to either FPS/attractability/performance of the mission.

Therefor - DECAP!

Dont bother with me replying in a negative way to your (wonderfull) posts.

Im just drunk and without a proper dedication to spend my money and time.

Yea.

Hate me.

I m used to it.

[Aegis_RVIR]

9 hours ago, TheScar said:

Dont bother with me replying in a negative way to your (wonderfull) posts.

Im just drunk and without a proper dedication to spend my money and time.

Yea.

Hate me.

I m used to it.

Uuuum, I am not gonna hate you for being straightforward with me. There are some flaws in my idea, that's true. But that is also why I put my idea on the forums, so that people can react to it, so you can change the idea until you reach a satisfying result.

 

Never be afraid of me hating on you, it takes a lot more than a post to make me hate you

[TheScar]

Hah!

 

Spoiler

 

 

on  a serious note (more sober again),i d really luv to have a shitload of more cover spread around the AO (wrecks,containers,oilbarrells,etc to offer a denser immersion due to not having a 180 degree clear view on a 2 mile range - but as mentioned before its a pain in the ass to script such things into a AO without clipping issues,horrible FPS and decent amount of stuckness of things/vehicles/players and shitty AI pathfinding to ice the cake.

 

To further support my "statement" i will quote you a guy @ the BI forums that nailed it pretty well :

Quote

Bohemia has done what they can for the game at this point, we aren't going to see any improvements. Unlike its predecessor this really is a sub 30 player game if you want playable framerates. Playable in BI's own words is 30 fps, that is their target. You can absolutely sustain 30 fps with decent hardware and below 30 players and about 60 AI and not too many scripts running. Arma 2 however we regularly had 60-90 player games with a lot of AI, so its disappointing to see the sequel perform so much worse, but BI continued to rely on the CPU core getting faster which it really hasn't done.

 

They are niche developer, they certainly aren't AAA and performance is clearly a tertiary consideration for them. Its been the number 1 request feature/bug fix since the very first alpha of the game and it'll be the number 1 problem when its obsoleted by Arma 4. The fix for the performance problems of Arma 2 was actually promised for Arma 3 but none of it materialised. I don't know if they will learn and do it differently for Arma 4 considering just how many sales Arma 3 has had. It seems no one cares enough that the performance is awful, its not hurting the growth of their sales for the series anyway.

 

Like everything else the feedback goes in the same skip out back marked "community requests".

 

tltr > shitty engine /niche cash cow

[Aegis_RVIR]

To bring this post back from the dead (and my forum activity as well).

64-Bit arms 3 is coming! Could that make my idea, with some adjustments, possible?

[GamerbugUK]

I can't imagine it'd work, there would be a lot of altering what is still a fairly new mission, and I don't think that's something the designers would want to do right now.

 

Also the minefield might remove the vehicle aspect of assaulting a FOB, but minefileds that have to be navigated while the super accurate AI is nailing your minesweepers, can't see that working. And if it's a case of clearing the opposition from distance before tackling the minefield, well thats pretty much what each AO/Fob/Side mission is now.

 

I love how you are thinking, but I think I&A is a bit too casual for this sort of thing, at least as it stands.

 

However, maybe a Zeuse could spice up the FOBs similar to how you are thinking?