SarahNautili

I could see skybridges being pretty awkward, especially on helicopter maps (another complication for low flying helicopters defending their base, potentially blocking shots against enemy helicopters) Plus, only a couple maps I can think of where the large buildings are close enough together for it to work? like, I don't think you could bridge the gap between the War Factory and the Refinery on Camos without it looking awkard as hell... or the soviet PP to Refinery or PP to War Factory on Zama...

asthetically I kinda like the idea of the airfield being behind the base and the refil cluster being kinda in a line next to its tower. Of course that risks hinds and yaks sharing the same airspace a bit too much. also, well, Siege already has a problem with its bases feeling a bit too big so I rather prefer the idea of it replacing the radar dome... and maybe that hill getting flattened out a bit to make an easier approach? I'd also argue as a temporary measure, since no MiG yet, put the dome's tank terminals in the airfield / tie them to the airfield. I mean it sorta makes sense that the airfield would have the sorta communications equipment to call for reinforcements anyway since it'd have to do air traffic control duties

frankly I wouldn't mind seeing them as a capturable objective on a map, something like Pipeline's Oil Derricks. Looking forward to seeing how this new HW plays out

admittedly it is a huge gamble with... no payoff, pretty often. Although I'd argue that's as much on the spy being pretty useless in general just as anything else. not like knowing there's three heavy tanks and a mammoth on the field is gonna do anyone much good, especially if those tanks have already been spotted by other means.

Wait wait, we have to refavorite our vehicles? Damn, that's gonna be really annoying for those of us with favorited random drop only vehicles.

this would effectively murder stealthy spy flaring, which is already super hard to pull off anyway

nah, not really, I was just being dumb.

This is something that's bothered me for a bit - it doesn't really make sense that in a missile silo that only has room to arm and fuel one missile at a time, you can wait double the arming time and launch two missiles back to back. Would it be possible / worth doing to make it so the 5 minute countdown to create the next flare only starts on the previous missile launching?

I need that hitbeep.

Honestly Push I'd go with some mixture of maybe a small amount of "most of the above" or "all of the above". Even arties, the things Yaks were supposed to help counter, have no trouble hitting yaks because they've basically gotta dive straight at the arty to do any real damage, a minimum of twice, and can be seen coming from miles away anyway. Add to that that yes the AA gun placement gives the Yaks no room to maneuver besides basically straight long the allied front lines, putting them in the line of fire of pretty much the entire allied team for as long as possible so it's super doubtful they'll even get a second strafing run on an arty... At this point they're more of a detriment to the soviets than a help. 800 credits to maybe take out a single 900 credit arty, maybe, but much more likely die a firey death near instantly isn't exactly an amazing deal.

Nice job breaking it

That still leaves the problem of yaks taking off from the same runway that both other yaks and helis are landing on. Tight fit. Maybe have a trio of little hangars off to one side of the runway, just big enough for a yak or hind to fit inside, that the planes and helis spawn in? Still, that requires said hangers to be modeled... and a door modeled / animated (unless you could steal the War Factory door?)... and script changes to make it possible for helis and planes to spawn inside said hangars instead of fly in... blegh, sounds like a pain in the ass.

Creepy? More like sad. If I lost a friend on my birthday I'd never be able to separate the two. Hell, I lost my lil bro a exactly a month before *my* birthday and it still bums me out every year. Double whammy.

There's the other part of the detriment, where, inevitably, on flare maps, at *least* two people will grab spies come ~4 minutes into the match, and spend the rest of the match doing nothing but spy flaring... which 9 times out of 10, or more, just gives the soviets free points and leaves the allies down players.

the same arguments fished up back in beta, for the overpowered beta sniper, and they only ring slightly more true today - there's plenty of bases that don't have enough cover (pipeline), plenty of places where the cover's only good for one direction (so two snipers means there's basically no cover) and, again, war factory down? Also the bunnyhopping thing doesn't matter when they only need to land one headshot or three bodyshots to end the battle, so the other infantry can't risk *not* bunnyhopping. Even at point blank range they're hard to fight.

That's great in theory, but almost never happens in practice, more likely the sniper is camping without care for what his team is doing, or worse, in smaller games taking up a player spot that could be doing a lot more useful things than snipe rifle soldiers hanging around the base.

And the nuke sniper was a pretty terrible unit even for a LOL map since he could just keep units locked inside their bases for the entire match. But yeah if we're removing the grenadier for being an annoying (but counterable) "building sniper" it makes no sense to not also get rid of the actual sniper, which is a lot harder to counter - "get vehicles" works well till the War Factory goes down and doesn't work at all on infantry maps, and "get cover" doesn't work well on maps like Pipeline with no cover in the bases, or if there's multiple snipers at good angles for a crossfire (that one match of pacific threat earlier), and "get hinds" works until there's a single rocket soldier within about a mile of the sniper, and that's if you can even find the sniper in the first place (again, pacific threat)

you're about the only one that does so, most of the time I've seen them used it's just for easy k/d whoring on maps like Pacific threat

Seriously, they're nothing but a killwhore tool. They contribute nothing to the game but cheap instant kills that are hard to defend against.

This is a terrible, TERRIBLE, idea and will just cause *more* ragequitting. Imagine if that was you, you're helping your team, you're doing well, and then boom, just because you've got a lower score (which is easily possible if you're in a role like mechanic or engineer anti-mine support) the bot decides you should be on the other team? At *best* it'll cause more ragequits, at worse the swapped players will now start doing their best to fuck up the team they're stuck on.

losing all your points for stat purposes would suck for people who crash, for people who get called away right before the match ends... hell I know it'd personally suck for me because I've got a medical condition that means I have to bathroom break *often* and sometimes I figure I'll be away long enough that it's better to leave and let someone else join on my team who will be active. Honestly the best way to keep people from ragequitting is keep the game from being extremely unfun. Which Delta has gone a long way towards doing with the faster economy, faster infantry movement, more survivable infantry, etc etc. not much more to do.

You know singular "their" works just as well as "his/her/their". Also referring to someone as "it" is pretty dehumanizing. Even if they are an asshole? I wouldn't know haven't seen them enough to have an opinion on them.