Denied [MRP] Map Specific Game Mechanics | Afghan/Airfield Usage

[L.Saint]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
This suggestion aims to add unique mechanics/rules to different MRP maps, this specific suggestion aims for JAF/SWB to stockpile either 1 or 2 helis on the pads in airfield if they own the point, as well as adding a heli resupply point near those 2 pads as well. To balance this, these helis would be subject to destruction when the lane is in use in war or a nearby FOB is being assaulted.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I am aware of.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
+Increases player retention by adding new content that rotates out each map.
+Increases interest in aerial regiments and increases their presence/significance in the server.
+Adds a risk/reward system to stockpiles.
+Doesn't require a lot of dev time.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
-Time would need to be spent editing the rules and placing (S.Admin+) entities.
-Could become unbalanced if left unregulated.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This is a low complexity and resource friendly way to add more content/game mechanics to the server, this change will also increase the appeal, activity and significance of both JAF/SWB.

 

[Toni]

+Support

 

[Harry]

+Support

As the current mapper for MRP id be more than happy and willing to make specific changes to the map files as required for a specific edge on the opponents. I believe it could be a very good system and is already used by VWAR but doesn’t have ample rewards for the points. For example mortars are a benefit of owning a certain point.

 

[drako dormus]

neutral

the protection of these places will prob land to aor or rmp and we are already pretty short staffed. also a joint task force for SRS/AOR is a no go we had one named sic and it only worked for 3 weeks before i had to shut it down

 

[Oceanus]

Looks well thought out, is realistic, and is rewarding for whichever side controls the airfield. On top of that, the protection of the places doesn't necessarily have to be RMP/AOR, but could also be SAS/STS too, as well as a joint effort by both. I personally believe that the latter is the best option, as it takes that burden off of both regiments while still being protected.

+Support

 

[ZLT49A]

Massive + support, there are no real downsides to this.

 

[MLGMagicHoodini]

+support
Better than the M2 Perk we get now

 

[Hersh]

To be fair, this may not even require staff intervention (In regards to allowing helis placed at AirField)
If both NHC and NWO High Command can come to an agreement and formalise a 'binding' agreement we could probably get something like this sorted asap. This would also keep this suggestion in the realms of 'RP' rather than a server rule.

In regards to the Heli supply at Airfield as well. It's been a while since I've had access the Vwar, however I'm fairly certain only one re-supply can be added per team, it's just how it's coded.

 

[MLGMagicHoodini]

To be fair, this may not even require staff intervention (In regards to allowing helis placed at AirField)
If both NHC and NWO High Command can come to an agreement and formalise a 'binding' agreement we could probably get something like this sorted asap. This would also keep this suggestion in the realms of 'RP' rather than a server rule.

In regards to the Heli supply at Airfield as well. It's been a while since I've had access the Vwar, however I'm fairly certain only one re-supply can be added per team, it's just how it's coded.

The first part would be good for RP Scenarios and etc, but I feel like some brats and minges would just go there, and ruin the fun for people or destroy stuff, but other than that I agree

Also the VWAR can probably just be changed to allow multiple Supply Depots? Shouldn't be that hard, if the CN Team has access to VWAR Code

 

[Mate Blackwood]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi Saint, Your suggestion has been denied.Although this change sounds like a good idea, We feel like It'd be one of those things that would be heavily used by one side that is currently dominating during conquest wars and constantly owns the territory. Therefore this change will not be considered. Thank you for taking the time to make a suggestion​