Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
C_D

Tears of the Desert - Reboot

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

200
[ONAVY]
Members
775 posts
6,317 battles

What do you guys think about getting a set of naval shore battery's to fight for control over while also trying for objectives? Random? Clan Battles?...might add a different dimension to  the battles if u could cap a very tight radius right around the battery and then it would fire on your enemy? 

 

 

1.thumb.jpg.892c761623e6a419f642aa451f5ea5c3.jpg

 

Edited by C_D
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,834 battles

No thankyou. WG have already demonstrated that these batteries are OP and bloody annoying as all hell in past modes.
At least not for random's, cause enough to worry about, without needing too worry about bot gun emplacements. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,874 posts
5,259 battles

I never got why people didn't like the shore batteries.  I thought the were fine.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,521
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,112 posts
12,671 battles

No shore batteries. They already tried this in a mode called Bastion, and it sucked bad. The batteries were either so inaccurate they felt pointless, or they were so accurate it felt like you couldn't get away from them. Both were bad for gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[O_O]
Members
792 posts
4,789 battles

Yeah.  Pure-RNG driven batteries are a pain in the neck, no matter what the accuracy modifier is for them.  Unless players can pull up, heave to, "send a shore party" and leave their ship idling while they control the shore battery, I don't know if there's much value to them in PVP games.

As Operations have demonstrated, PVE is a different matter entirely.

-R

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[ONAVY]
Members
775 posts
6,317 battles
10 minutes ago, Mister_Rawr said:

Yeah.  Pure-RNG driven batteries are a pain in the neck, no matter what the accuracy modifier is for them.  Unless players can pull up, heave to, "send a shore party" and leave their ship idling while they control the shore battery, I don't know if there's much value to them in PVP games.

As Operations have demonstrated, PVE is a different matter entirely.

-R

I like that idea like Battlefield where a player controls the Battery cool...I must have missed the bastion mode. Well thank you for the opinions...variety is the spice of life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[S0L0]
Members
879 posts
4,914 battles

I enjoyed Bastion, the only problem I had was with the RNCL's that came out at the same time. Completely impossible to damage them with the RN's "Improved" AP.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
786
[NG-NL]
Members
5,030 posts
8,269 battles

Bastion requires a different mindset than most of playerbase. Especially when the forts got railgun sights, it became a mess. Players, simply, did not want to change their playstyles nor adapt. WG ended up having to scrap the mode.

But what if the forts have railgun accuracy, but only fire once every 30 seconds? That should allow adequate time to flee unless overextended.

CVs couldn't do much about the forts as they had ridiculous AA and only DB could damage them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[ONAVY]
Members
775 posts
6,317 battles
2 minutes ago, Reymu said:

Bastion requires a different mindset than most of playerbase. Especially when the forts got railgun sights, it became a mess. Players, simply, did not want to change their playstyles nor adapt. WG ended up having to scrap the mode.

But what if the forts have railgun accuracy, but only fire once every 30 seconds? That should allow adequate time to flee unless overextended.

CVs couldn't do much about the forts as they had ridiculous AA and only DB could damage them.

Forgot the aspect of CV's on a map with them...might be good to have a "No Fly Zone" for whomever does not control one assuming they would be conquerable at all ...hummm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[-PVE-]
Members
117 posts
9,325 battles

It may be OK if we were to get XP for damaging the forts and guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,340
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,840 posts
9,589 battles
5 hours ago, C_D said:

I like that idea like Battlefield where a player controls the Battery cool...I must have missed the bastion mode. Well thank you for the opinions...variety is the spice of life. 

I could end a match in 1942 on Omaha Beach in about a minute by sinking the Allied DD, which was the only early game spawn point, with the defgun. 

I didn't need a spotter because I figured out exactly where to aim and the Destroyer spawned in the exact same spot every game.

I was both popular and unpopular with people because of this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
288
[POP]
Members
858 posts
9,816 battles

Forget shore guns mah friends...


This.
JODMBEF.gif

Edited by Gerbertz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[S0L0]
Members
879 posts
4,914 battles
48 minutes ago, HazardDrake said:

I could end a match in 1942 on Omaha Beach in about a minute by sinking the Allied DD, which was the only early game spawn point, with the defgun. 

I didn't need a spotter because I figured out exactly where to aim and the Destroyer spawned in the exact same spot every game.

I was both popular and unpopular with people because of this.

Got accused of hacking 1942 and BF: Vietnam all the time with indirect fire. I had a transparent grid overlay I could physically put on the screen and a notebook of coordinates keyed by map, weapon and firing point (generally right by an ammo can.) I may have been the only person on the server to actually use the M110 as an artillery weapon... :cap_haloween:

Nothing like dropping an 8" round into the red spawn 9 out of 10 shots...

 

Matt

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
725
[0456]
[0456]
Members
2,809 posts
7,992 battles
6 hours ago, TheDreadnought said:

I never got why people didn't like the shore batteries.  I thought the were fine.

It prevented people from being able to go their favourite way... 

I'm with you though I didn't mind it and found the additional challenge annoying but refreshing. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,340
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,840 posts
9,589 battles
2 hours ago, mobryan said:

Got accused of hacking 1942 and BF: Vietnam all the time with indirect fire. I had a transparent grid overlay I could physically put on the screen and a notebook of coordinates keyed by map, weapon and firing point (generally right by an ammo can.) I may have been the only person on the server to actually use the M110 as an artillery weapon... :cap_haloween:

Nothing like dropping an 8" round into the red spawn 9 out of 10 shots...

 

Matt

Oh wow. That is fantastic. Bravo to you.

When the Desert Combat Mod came out, my thing soon became abusing the RPG mechanics. In 42 the Bazooka and Panzerschreck went about 20' and weren't terribly useful at range. The SMAW and RPG-7 were much faster and flatter shooting. For those who never played DC mod: You only got, IIRC, 3 MANPAD shots and it took 2 hits to take down a plane or the larger helos. 3 shots if your shot wasn't good. The Littlebirds, by contrast, were made of cardboard and failure. They were one-shot kills with a MANPAD. Even a near miss would take their health to the point that they couldn't fly.:cap_rambo:

Anyway. While you got only 3 MANPAD shots you had about 7 RPG/SMAW shots. The only real difference in terms of flight and function was that MANPADs flew straight with no drop and had proximity fuses. RPG/SMAW shots had drop and you had to actually hit the plane/helo for it to detonate. So no matter what you had to lead shots. The MAJOR difference was that the RPG/SMAW was a 1 hit kill on anything that flew if you could land a direct hit. Well, I and others got good enough to land those hits. Very soon the helo and bomber pilots were having to fly a lot higher when they strafed and made their drops, greatly reducing their accuracy.:cap_like:

Of course the fun could never last. Just like how the "Suicide Jeep full of Dynamite" trick got patched out, eventually the damage RPG/SMAW shots did to aircraft in flight was slashed to a fraction what it was.:Smile_sad:

Of course I still abused the fact that a 120mm tank shell couldn't go through a sandbag to play reverse whack-a-mole with tanks.

Edited by HazardDrake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[XBRTC]
Members
1,423 posts
7,451 battles
11 hours ago, C_D said:

What do you guys think about getting a set of naval shore battery's to fight for control over while also trying for objectives? Random? Clan Battles?...might add a different dimension to  the battles if u could cap a very tight radius right around the battery and then it would fire on your enemy? 

 

No. Hell no. We already played that game mode and it sucked. It sucked badly enough that WG took it back out of the game.

 

 

11 hours ago, TheDreadnought said:

I never got why people didn't like the shore batteries.  I thought the were fine.

 

The only people who said that were the ones who never actually spent any time in an enemy cap in Bastion mode.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×