So today I ran into the issue I had built a MG nest near the front of an obj. defending, we lost it and I was looking to build another next time I spawned my engineers but the old one still existed now out of reach in the gray zone, preventing this. I would like to suggest that these and the other buildables work like the rally and ammo boxes and just destroy one to make room for the new ones.
23 Likes
this is a problem cause what if enemy captured your MG/AT/AA and is currently using it? you could easily despawn your structure mid use.
2 Likes
True, but this could be dealt with by automatically preventing reconstruction if the building is being used.
“Your previous structure is being used, you can’t dismantle it now.”
12 Likes
At that point, and only that point, say that you are unable to build another.
2 Likes
well i understand from game perspective it is annoying to not have structures available, but on other hand it simulates what happens when you leave your equipment in disorganized retreat. but then again it is stupid to have it available for building again when someone destroys it. seems like it is implemented halfheartedly, so i dont care either way.
I agree, they should make it where rebuilding already placed buildables has a cost penalty for retrieval. (So an MG. AA, AT, being 50% more expensive to place)
And like others have mentioned, this shouldnt be an option if used already by another player
4 Likes
But when it’s in the grey zone and can’t be used by neither friendlies nor enemies, maybe it can be 25% more expensive since you’re not just rebuilding a new one because you like it better here, but because there’s physically no chance for you to go and dismantle the old one.
By the way, what is the current resources cashback for dismantling a buildable?
1 Like
You actually get the build placement back once the greyzone goes over. It isn’t instant but not too bad of a wait. I think 50% is okay because it gives more reason to actually use the engineer squads and have them leveled in order to circumvent the penalty a bit, but I do get your point. The sweet spot is definitely between the two.
I believe it is a 50% return currently.
As far as the cost goes, I get what you are saying, and I would ALMOST agree, except for ONE thing:
When you deconstruct the fortification, you get back 50% of the materials it took to build it. HOWEVER, if it is destroyed, like it would be in this situation, you do NOT get the 50% of materials back. So technically you are already paying a penalty for nor properly removing it in the first place.
Its not like (H)MG nests and other emplacements are cheap either. Unless you have the perk on that engineer, its going to cost you everything you have anyways without an additional penalty.
Its not like (H)MG nests and other emplacements are cheap either. Unless you have the perk on that engineer, its going to cost you everything you have anyways without an additional penalty.
I actually had made a post about this some time ago, and here were the following values at double (100%):
Barbed wire: 1 → 2
Sand Bags: 1 → 2
Hedgehogs: 2 → 4
AT Gun: 8 → 16
AA Gun: 6 → 12
LMG: 10 → 20
HMG: 12 → 24
Only the HMG would be an emplacement requiring the extra materials perk since the default build materials is 20 and that’s only if you increase it 100%. Either way, I don’t find it unreasonable since this would just encourage the use of an engineer squad, which mitigates the issue because of how much material you have between each engineer at that point.
you get back 50% of the materials it took to build it. HOWEVER, if it is destroyed, like it would be in this situation, you do NOT get the 50% of materials back. So technically you are already paying a penalty for nor properly removing it in the first place.
In this case, I think you have the wrong perspective. I wouldn’t consider it as a penalty for having it destroyed, but rather a reward for taking the time to deconstruct your structures. Having it destroyed just means the enemy denies you the reward of getting your materials back but that still opens up the slot again for you.
With the penalty in place, it at least allows you to still reconstruct structures that you need without having to wait for the grey-zone to creep forward or running across the map to deconstruct it, which realistically since both options aren’t ideal in a live match, it just ends up leaving the emplacement slot unavailable for a long while.
The problem that I have with it, is that with the “penalty” players are even less likely to set up support structures and ONLY focus on building their (H)MG emplacements. Ammo, Rallies, Sandbags, barbwire, they all have their uses, but people rarely use them as is. Yet you want to add even more hindrance to them by penalizing players for having to fall back?
That just sounds outright wrong to me. In most games, there is usually VERY few people that do anything more than ammo and rallies. Yet you want to reduce their capabilities even further. This is going the OPPOSITE direction of what it should, given how few set up fortifications to begin with. The idea of the original post would have maybe drawn a few more, but with that penalty, I honestly think it would cause a few to quit.
The ONLY way I could see an increased cost being OK is if you were allowed to build more than 1 at a time, but each additional one cost double. However, if the cap is staying at 1, the price should not exceed 1x of that item.
But that is the thing, this wouldn’t be reducing their ability at all. Everything would essentially function the same, It would just provide a convenience to the player, for a cost. A player can do more with their engineers under this system because now they don’t need to worry if they forgot.
There are two options:
Either you just leave it and wait for it to be destroyed or despawn by grayzone (taking however long that might be)
or
You ‘Retrieve’ or ‘Remanufacture’ new emplacements with an increased cost. (With immediate placement when you need it)
Yet you want to add even more hindrance to them by penalizing players for having to fall back?
Thats the thing, that is already the case currently. You get penalized by not deconstructing your items prior to falling back (and sometimes you cant even do it because you died) so you are then stuck without the ability to place that emplacement whatsoever for a long period of time.
Which I think is a much bigger hindrance than having to use a little more materials to build and replace an object, which you don’t even need to do if you deconstruct the emplacements yourself which rewards good engineer play.
Why nerf material cost
1 Like
Had’nt thought of that honestly, It would be bad to have them just vanish on someone using it, Serpiko and Chicky have offered solutions I would be happy with though.
This is a nice way to balance out skipping the deconstruct timer I like it.
1 Like
I find it interesting that you are trying to argue that it is “a little more materials to build and replace an object”, yet you are asking for DOUBLE the cost.
I’m not saying that the current system of waiting for the greyzone to get it is a good solution, but I really don’t think that making it cost MORE to replace it is a good solution either. The cost should either remain the same or go up ONLY by one or two material points as a cost of replacement. Definitively not 50-100% more.