Accepted Disallow pathfinder FOB assaults if there's not at least 8 non afk people on both teams

This suggestion has been accepted for future development.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vladislav

Vladislav

Moderator
Moderator
Donator
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Aug 5, 2021
161
29
111
Youre mothers bedroom
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

add the rule in the title

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

no


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

gives the opposing team a chance to defend the assaulted fob


disallows rule bending when war is skipped and new peacetime starts

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

makes it a bit harder to assault fob

( considering oh how dreadfully hard it is to make an announcement and then place a 15 second c4 it hardly makes a difference)

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

because it makes sense
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Jason M.

Jason M.

Civil Gamers Expert
Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Jul 10, 2021
420
82
91
-Support

See, if the Playerbase had 8+ people on most times of the day I would be more than happy to +Support, but as of right now, this suggestion feels like its coming more from a place of NWO not having active people for pathfinder, while NATO does.

Sure, pathfinder can be hard to play against somehow, but this suggestion would instead return us to the stages of FOB placement that whichever side has a player on earliest gets the best FOB placements.
Pathfinder brings a better gameplay loop to FOB building, atleast in my opinion.
 
Vladislav

Vladislav

Moderator
Moderator
Donator
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Aug 5, 2021
161
29
111
Youre mothers bedroom
Jason M. said:
-Support

See, if the Playerbase had 8+ people on most times of the day I would be more than happy to +Support, but as of right now, this suggestion feels like its coming more from a place of NWO not having active people for pathfinder, while NATO does.

Sure, pathfinder can be hard to play against somehow, but this suggestion would instead return us to the stages of FOB placement that whichever side has a player on earliest gets the best FOB placements.
Pathfinder brings a better gameplay loop to FOB building, atleast in my opinion.
Click to expand...
so because nwo doesnt have numbers and im asking for a bit of balance ur calling bias?


sure!!!!!
 
Jason M.

Jason M.

Civil Gamers Expert
Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Jul 10, 2021
420
82
91
If you are asking for literal bias for NWO, I am not gonna support your suggestion..

If you'd choose to edit this suggestion in order to make the rule that it can only be done when there are 8+ people on BOTH sides, I'd agree.
Just because NATO are better are utilising something, does not mean the server needs to become 1984 rule RP. It means you need to adjust to it, train and practice.
 
shaun11103

shaun11103

MRP War Veteran
Two Year Club
Mar 13, 2022
266
72
91
Jason M. said:
If you are asking for literal bias for NWO, I am not gonna support your suggestion..

If you'd choose to edit this suggestion in order to make the rule that it can only be done when there are 8+ people on BOTH sides, I'd agree.
Just because NATO are better are utilising something, does not mean the server needs to become 1984 rule RP. It means you need to adjust to it, train and practice.
Click to expand...
yeah train and practice at being on the server behave ?
 
Umbra

Umbra

Blacklisted Player
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club
Apr 3, 2021
89
25
111
-support



Willing to +support provided its 8 people both sides not one







Pathfinder creates an active operations job for a regiment who's sole purpose is to fly, however through my time in JAF we have many grounds troops who love this feature, it allows me to involve our ground troops in ops., missions etc and makes peacetime/ prewar better for my ground troops, I can't speak for SWB but its worked wonders for JAF.
 
Vladislav

Vladislav

Moderator
Moderator
Donator
One Year Club Two Year Club Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Aug 5, 2021
161
29
111
Youre mothers bedroom
Jason M. said:
If you are asking for literal bias for NWO, I am not gonna support your suggestion..

If you'd choose to edit this suggestion in order to make the rule that it can only be done when there are 8+ people on BOTH sides, I'd agree.
Just because NATO are better are utilising something, does not mean the server needs to become 1984 rule RP. It means you need to adjust to it, train and practice.
Click to expand...
Just as notice to any platform team members this is my final response to jason if it happens so that he responds again.

I think you dont get the idea of this suggestion. If for example NATO have 8 non afk people on the server SWB can do a Pathfinder assault and vice versa for JAF. Its not needed to have 8 non afk on both sides because attackers team cant intervene, but ofc that can work too if you want it so bad though that means even if you have enough jaf members on if theres not enough NATO you cant assault. I literally don't see how its NWO bias, unless you mean what happened yesterday in which case i can really easily say that the only reason you are -supporting this suggestion is because you can abuse the fact that NWO is struggling with numbers so you can get on 6am to do as many assaults as you need.

Oh and did i mention that one day NATO also can struggle with numbers, its happened before low activity isnt a NWO only problem and as i see you fail to see that too

And i dont see how you can adjust and train to waking up at 6 am to defend an FOB
 
Nathaniel Brown

Nathaniel Brown

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter
Mar 6, 2022
121
1
40
111
the Netherlands
+/- Neutral Support

As I do think Pathfinders are very OP I dont understand the part where you're only referencing to one team only.
In case this suggestion is getting accepted please make it so you can only pathfinder when both teams have at least 8 non afk people on the server.

example given:
NATO have 10 people who are non-afk, NWO has 5.
This means NWO is able to use pathfinders but NATO cant, till NWO reach at least 8 non afk's.
With the current player issue in NWO this can take a long time till it fills up to 8 which makes this suggestion give an advantage to the team with less then 8 non afk's earlier in the morning.

The chance of successfully defending a Pathfinder assault are 0 to none. A better suggestion to counter this is that an assault has to be called out from base before going to the FOB that is going to be assaulted. And this suggestion would make it even better if you can only assault when there are at least 8 non AFK players on both teams.

@Vladislav I'd like to hear your opinion on this tbf
 
Jamal Dingle

Jamal Dingle

Civil Gamers Expert
One Year Club Two Year Club Conversation Starter
May 14, 2022
189
27
111
+ Support
I'm leaving a support on this suggestion as it balances a powerful job. But I believe it should only be accepted if both sides are required to have 8+ non-afk players
Regardless good luck.

- Balances a very powerful job that can change the winning side of a war that select few people have
 
Jason M.

Jason M.

Civil Gamers Expert
Three Year Club Conversation Starter
Jul 10, 2021
420
82
91
Vladislav said:
Just as notice to any platform team members this is my final response to jason if it happens so that he responds again.

I think you dont get the idea of this suggestion. If for example NATO have 8 non afk people on the server SWB can do a Pathfinder assault and vice versa for JAF. Its not needed to have 8 non afk on both sides because attackers team cant intervene, but ofc that can work too if you want it so bad though that means even if you have enough jaf members on if theres not enough NATO you cant assault. I literally don't see how its NWO bias, unless you mean what happened yesterday in which case i can really easily say that the only reason you are -supporting this suggestion is because you can abuse the fact that NWO is struggling with numbers so you can get on 6am to do as many assaults as you need.

Oh and did i mention that one day NATO also can struggle with numbers, its happened before low activity isnt a NWO only problem and as i see you fail to see that too

And i dont see how you can adjust and train to waking up at 6 am to defend an FOB
Click to expand...
I don't even know what you're referring to. I'm gonna stop replyin to this thread because it's making my head hurty.

-Support (for the last time). Unless you change the suggestion to accommodate 8 active players on both sides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom