Remove Capture Bar

[Wili]

Hello, my suggestion is remove capture bar:

Well, I first would remove the bottom bar who indicate the number of enemies who is inside the capture zone without see them. You can also know when the enemy enter into the cap zone or die without see them. That's quite unrealistic. I would prefer search the capture zone for possible enemies while capping.

I would remove the upper bar also.

In my opinion we just need to know if one capture zone is under enemy control or not; this way you can enter into a cap zone to conquer it without knowing if there is any enemy presence.
I also would remove the intermitent X who indicate the objectibe is being captured for the same reason.

I think the most important bar to remove is the bar who indicate the number of enemies who are inside a capture zone.

I hope you agree
Thanks!

 

[LemoN]

old idea, but verry good

 

[SiC-Disaster]

I'd like the friendly vs enemy forces ratiobar to be gone as well.
However, the capbar itself isnt bad imo, you need some kind of visual representation of the progress you are making.
But removing the ratio-bar thing would make for a lot more tense gameplay inside capzones because you cant know how many enemy soldiers there are, and should make you more careful.

 

[PETERPANs]

I am against capture bar in all terms. It giving you illegal informations about enemy movement, no matter on bar type. Both bars are bad, its just my thinking.

If you attack or holding objective in real conditions there is only TWO matters to win.

1. YOUR SOLDIERS IN AREA YOU NEED.
2. ENEMY DONT HAVE REINFORCEMENTS DUE TO FIGHTING TO TAKE OR HOLD IT.

Point 2 is best value to say who is winner. If you lost your soldiers and other side have them still you are looser, because you dont have soldiers to secure objective. There is no need of any type of bar.

Respawn of soldiers should be dynamic, it mean spawning near (suitable distance, no instant throw to battle) fight zone.

 

[SiC-Disaster]

2. ENEMY DONT HAVE REINFORCEMENTS DUE TO FIGHTING TO TAKE OR HOLD IT.

Point 2 is best value to say who is winner. If you lost your soldiers and other side have them still you are looser, because you dont have soldiers to secure objective. There is no need of any type of bar.

So basically turn it into a Team DeathMatch?

 

[PETERPANs]

So basically turn it into a Team DeathMatch?

Naming it deathmatch? I dont know. Like I say enemy and you have resources (soldiers, equipment ...) for objectives and If one side lost them that side witch have still available military units (survivor) is winner.

 

[RedGuardist]

Naming it deathmatch? I dont know. Like I say enemy and you have resources (soldiers, equipment ...) for objectives and If one side lost them that side witch have still available military units (survivor) is winner.

But battle is not that simple. And it

 

[Zetsumei]

My main point isn't bars or whatever, but what i dont want is information being told prematurely before the actual team knows that info themselves.

In order to increase teamwork automatically telling info to the entire team can be good, but telling what the enemy is doing before anyone of your team has noticed it is just bad in my opinion.

Especially the team balance overview in the capbar meter often tells too much information. If you know howmany of your team are in the capzone (and in clanmatches you do know) you can guess exactly howmany enemies are in as well.

If you suddenly see that that there was no enemy in the capzone and suddenly there is one, you know that hes on the corner of a capzone or hiding in one of the few clich

 

[Kolya Belenky]

I am against capture bar in all terms. It giving you illegal informations about enemy movement, no matter on bar type. Both bars are bad, its just my thinking.

If you attack or holding objective in real conditions there is only TWO matters to win.

1. YOUR SOLDIERS IN AREA YOU NEED.
2. ENEMY DONT HAVE REINFORCEMENTS DUE TO FIGHTING TO TAKE OR HOLD IT.

Point 2 is best value to say who is winner. If you lost your soldiers and other side have them still you are looser, because you dont have soldiers to secure objective. There is no need of any type of bar.

Respawn of soldiers should be dynamic, it mean spawning near (suitable distance, no instant throw to battle) fight zone.

Peterpans's logic constantly ****s with my mind (no offense to you Peter). Obviously enemies DO have reinforcements to use and assist the team or squad or whatever in the area in capturing it. Also, you can, if you are either an aryan superman or just a lucky PPSh wielding expert Russian soldier, take out all the enemies in the objective. But of course then you still need soldiers to hold out. Thats where I refer back to my first point. I agree with SiC-Disaster on this. The progress bar is fine, but the troop ratio really isn't. I don't like the enemy knowing I am here, or if I am a squad leader allowing more capture points.

 

[OneBloodyHero]

The capture bar is supposed to simulate the area with objective that opposing forces fight to capture. Because the objective is so vital, the bar simulates opposing forces in the zone or not to allow for the objective to be captured and cleansed of enemy forces. How will a person know if they are capturing the objective or not? Or if it the capturing process is at a stalemate?

Put simply, you cannot make any game as realistic as real life. The capture bar realistically simulates the capture and mutual contention between opposing forces fighting for objectives. It allows the game to be fluid and structured. Keep the bar, it is a great feature.

 

[Zetsumei]

The key is why show in the capture bar exactly howmany enemies there are in the capzone and show exactly when someone enters the capzone. Especially for the first few enemies that enter the capzone.

You need to know some sort of info about the zone and if there is a timer running before the cap you need to show the time left till you cap it. Thats why with the current cap system you simply need that cap progress bar, so i doubt most people would want that removed. The enemy precense bar is something else though.

And this is not even based on realism or whatever, but it simply takes the fun of stealth and tension out of the game. If you know exactly how many enemies there are in the capzone. And exactly when someone enters the capzone. You can simply throw nades at that location, there is no way to surpise an enemy any more.

The same with capzones, even if no friendly soldier is in a capzone watching over it, you can instantly see on your overhead map that the enemy is capping it.

 

[OneBloodyHero]

True, the enemy presence part of the bar is somewhat unrealistic. But you would know the same if when capturing the objective with only the top progress bar. If when enemy units were in the cap zone and the progress bar was not moving to your or the enemy direction, you would know the enemy was in the objective capture zone, just not the size.

The indicator on the map is good, because people are not always near the objectives, so they do not know what the situation is. By displaying that the objective is being captured, either by friendly or enemy forces, allows players to defend or support the objective capture. It provides useful gaming data to players. It might seem unrealistic, but that map capture indicator reflects and simulates battlefield communication. Not all players talk or chat, so they do not know what the situation is on the battlefield. When the map indicator is flashing to indicate capture or enemy incursion, it allows players react without having to voice communicate about what is going on.

I think that the enemy presence or friendly presence bars may be somewhat unrealistic. But that element tries to simulate enemy contact and presence. The battles that RO simulates are where two opposing forces already know of each other. Whether one side is assaulting, defending, or both are meeting in engagement. So the presence part of the objective par, I think, reflects that aspect realistically.

 

[Zetsumei]

For the defenders to be in the capzone is not a big surprise. Thats why it wouldnt matter if the attackers wouldnt see the bar move when they enter the capzone knowing there are enemies in there.

Sure they know there is an enemy in there but thats only likely, the question is how many are in there which you wont know till you start capping. And they wont be able to guess the whereabouts that well as the defenders often had time to setup somewhere.

TBH showing the precense bar once you started capping wouldnt be too bad, or only showing enemy prescense when there is a certain amount of enemies in the zone.

The issue with the the presence bar is primarily that it can be used for the defenders to see when someone enters the zone, and knowing someone is in the zone. Allowing for a quick extermination with flying nades, as they are often on the edges of a capzone. The attackers do not have that much of a benefit from it.

 

[PETERPANs]

Objective or capture bars are stupid, there is no reason to keep them.

Just feel free to post some romances about their role in game. I dont take it.

 

[{Core}Craig]

Peter, please just stop. . . .


--------------------------------

I would like the ratio bar removed but we do need to know if we are capping or not etc.

IIRC there is an ro mod zets put on a server to make this happen . . maybe last year??? was interesting and intense.

 

[LionbI4]

The solution is very simple.
Decrease size of a capture area, so you will always see everyone, who is capturing the objective. Remove indication, that enemy is capturing the objective. Just inform post-factum.
Currently, most captures are just zerg-fest, and only indicates, you got more people at objective point. You don't need a skill to come to objective, since most objective areas are too big.
Would be nice, if some objectives will have capture area only for 1 man. Or required to Activate it to capture. Activation may take 30 seconds.
With this system, attackers will have clear target to do, not just "come and sit for a while". Instead, they will need to come to objective, secure it, then take it. In a result, we will have more team play.

 

[Zetsumei]

Realistically talking a capture area would be an entire building and not a single room. Although making the rooms smaller stops the issue from happening, it limites the possible gameplay. And is more like a way to avoid the issue from happening by forcing a situation on everybody, rather than fixing it.

It shouldnt have to take skill to get to the objective area, it should take skill to gain control off it (atleast that is my opinion). And it should remain possible for defenders to effectively hold out somewhere and setup a defensive perimeter. Having 1 room to cap, seriously restricts a teams options and one of the main things i would like to see in maps is some more freedom.

Now by making a map consist of many smaller capzones like every room in a building, that could be nice but you could easily miss a single room in that case, forcing you to say walk into every room to cap them. And needing a visual information output somewhere what capzones are capped. (Although slight sectioning could already be better, like rather than making the entire building a capzone ala leningrad make every individual floor an individual capzone.)

I want to fight and defend things that make sense myself, not a single room somewhere unless my duty would be to defend a person from being killed.

Already in current ro i feel that supporting and helping a team cap outside of the capzone should be supported more making the capzones smaller is exactly the opposite of what i would prefer ( Which is a capturing mechanic thats mostly area focussed rather than capzone and playeramounts focussed) .

 

[Miro!]

I DO REALLY THINK deleting that progression bars @ capping would increase immersion and add much more intense situations to the game.

EXAMPLE
To cap an objective like a building, u got to take the control of the main entry room, and, while ur holding it with one or two other soldiers, u engage ur other squad mates to secure and clean the upper rooms in that building. And when each enemy in that zone has been killed, the objective is capped (maybe locked cuz of the difficulty of getting it capped with this new system ?)

This would be awesome ? what u guyz think ?

 

[LionbI4]

Realistically talking a capture area would be an entire building and not a single room.
...

Currently, it is now possible, that 5 people are sitting on 2nd floor, and 6 attackers are sitting on first floor, capturing the objective.
Or 10 defenders sitting inside a church, 12 attachers lie on a ground right before a church, and capturing objective (Church) just because they have more numbers. Most captures ends up with that.
"We just need more people here".
"I know the point, there I can capture the objective, while being safe".
You don't need to cover someone. You don't need to kill someone. Just come to objective with more numbers. I don't see this fun.

 

[LionbI4]

And when each enemy in that zone has been killed, the objective is capped (maybe locked cuz of the difficulty of getting it capped with this new system ?)

This would be awesome ? what u guyz think ?

So defending will ends up with camping in small well defended rooms.
Or camp so it will be difficult to find you.
Capturing - find camped defenders.
Yep, lets play hide-and-seek fps game.

I would prefer "come and use" objective style. Let's say there is a radio in special room in a building. You have to come and call for support, using this radio. Just as you use artillery support. If you are killed, during process, then capturing failed. If you succeeded, then objective is captured and you have new spawn point.