OUT OF BOUNDS! Call it what you like, it needs to change.

[Twrecks]

Be nice if there was an option in the UDK for spawn protection volumes so the mapper could alter the death timer based on the map. ( and a seperate one for Vehicles).

[Drecks]

Originally Posted by LordKhaine

They just need to delay the activation of a spawn protection zone by say, 30-45 seconds. That gives people a chance to get out of the zone before the screen goes red and they face imminent death.

This I did on Rakowice's latest update. To bad in classic nobody makes it
to the 2th cap to noitce it. I used about 15 seconds and a textwarning. So the player could retreat without the red screen. He can decide to stay.......

Originally Posted by Twrecks

Be nice if there was an option in the UDK for spawn protection volumes so the mapper could alter the death timer based on the map. ( and a seperate one for Vehicles).

A spawnprotection for vehicles..... This I posted a few times already. In previous versions one could set the deathttime.
And if i remember correct even the type. Could be in RO1.... I'm getting old to remember.

[dcooptroop]

yeah i total agree with you

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...QOI5gd3a11Zlvg



MAUS best tank of ww2

[Gut_You_Up]

Will post tomorrow with more insight.

I'm lost for words playing realism game and I can't stay put and flank.

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Originally Posted by Gut_You_Up

Will post tomorrow with more insight.

I'm lost for words playing realism game and I can't stay put and flank.

Keep in mind, there may be off map forces from an extended front that may keep you from flanking, but because of limiations, can't really be done on a 64 player map.

Not that your topic is without merit or need of answers

[Shadrach]

Spawn protection and blocking zones are there for a reason and if properly implemented are absolutely needed to avoid exploiters and control gameplay.

I don't care how good you think you are with a rifle and how good you are at sniping the flanks of the enemy or "infiltrating" - for the sake of your team winning the match your task is to at all times either be inside a cap zone or on the way to one.

If you are "flanking" you are not playing the game right, plain and simple. That is the reason mappers want to put up these barriers, and yes, they are necessary.

It annoys me... these types of players have such a high regard of their own skill with a rifle the actual goal of winning the match doesn't matter to them any more.

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by Shadrach

I don't care how good you think you are with a rifle and how good you are at sniping the flanks of the enemy or "infiltrating" - for the sake of your team winning the match your task is to at all times either be inside a cap zone or on the way to one.

Absolutely untrue. Your task is to keep the enemy out of the cap zone. There is far too much tactically-important terrain around the cap zones to focus purely on getting into them, and interdicting enemy reinforcements helps out hugely. For example: in Grain Elevator, one of the best positions to have while trying to take B as the Germans is back in A, covering the approach to B. Someone with a semi-auto or SMG, or better yet, a MG, can greatly relieve the pressure on B, making it much easier to your team to get in. For that matter, you should have a couple riflemen covering the windows of the main building itself to keep them from gunning down your guys with impunity, a few more giving security to the MG team in A, and possibly a few soldiers hitting the side entrance to the main building to tie the enemy up there. All of these aid your team in taking B, despite never entering the point themselves.

If there's one tactic that I've seen lose more games than any other, it's people obsessively rushing the point rather than fighting to control the terrain around it.

[Sulman]

Originally Posted by Shadrach

Spawn protection and blocking zones are there for a reason and if properly implemented are absolutely needed to avoid exploiters and control gameplay.

I don't care how good you think you are with a rifle and how good you are at sniping the flanks of the enemy or "infiltrating" - for the sake of your team winning the match your task is to at all times either be inside a cap zone or on the way to one.

If you are "flanking" you are not playing the game right, plain and simple. That is the reason mappers want to put up these barriers, and yes, they are necessary.

It annoys me... these types of players have such a high regard of their own skill with a rifle the actual goal of winning the match doesn't matter to them any more.

What about cutting off players moving back to cap areas, like you can do on Mamayev and Red October Factory? It's an important and pretty much standard tactic since the dawn of warfare.

[Shadrach]

Originally Posted by PhoenixDragon

Absolutely untrue. Your task is to keep the enemy out of the cap zone. There is far too much tactically-important terrain around the cap zones to focus purely on getting into them, and interdicting enemy reinforcements helps out hugely.

Sure, what you're saying is partially correct - that is; *if* there was an actual tactical plan about it: "Set up an MG position there, and send a squad to the right flank, to cut off enemy reinforcements while the rest of the team caps". Instead there's just a bunch of guys going randomly all over the place except where they need to be for their team to win.

In my opinion the job of cutting off the approaches to the cap belongs to the Commander and artillery strikes, and this is much more effective as well. The rest of us, well, we're just cannon fodder, meant to "get in that trench or die trying"...

You need to think like this; OK I decide to do this, but what if everyone else on my team does the same? If no-one gets to the cap zone, whether defending or attacking, it is left up to chance if we lose it or capture it.

[PhoenixDragon]

Originally Posted by Shadrach

In my opinion the job of cutting off the approaches to the cap belongs to the Commander and artillery strikes, and this is much more effective as well. The rest of us, well, we're just cannon fodder, meant to "get in that trench or die trying"...

When I mentioned the one tactic that I've seen lose more games, this is the one I was talking about. This costs teams their victory. Getting everyone to rush the point, while relying on artillery that can block off only part of the approach for <1/3 the time, is giving the enemy a huge tactical advantage. If you're quick and lucky, you might grab that first point before the enemy gets in position. If not, you get most of your attacking force killed, and let the enemy setup in supporting positions that have now pushed the active fighting area past their objective, forcing you to make your way through more combat area before you reach the cap. Congratulations, you've made it worse.

You're probably better off with people doing their own thing. There are still plenty of people who think "rush the cap" is the only right way to play, so you might as well make yourself more useful by fighting to control the territory around the cap so those suicidal chargers at least have a chance of getting in the cap and surviving.

Yes, if literally every single person decides to capture the surrounding areas, nobody caps. But if literally every single person decides to rush the cap... the results are probably the same, particularly if the enemy is playing smart and taking that uncontested terrain to more easily massacre your forces.

In either case, the idea that the only right way to play is to always be trying to get into the cap zone is still utterly wrong.

[Sulman]

Rushing in RO2 is usually a terrible idea if there's the least bit if experience on the opposing team. A good example is Bridges; Allies can literally rush (and do) all game long and they will keep getting killed by a couple of guys. Certain xp farmers depend on it