Sayton

Sounds like a cool experiment to me.

Ivan_the_bad

First thing i wanna say, is every one had some good opinions, and this shouldnt turn into a flamewar as its not wat i was trying to do, i just read that thread and wanted to see what the more 'experienced' people thought

Agnew and disposable no offense taken here at all, its open discussion and im happy to listen to every ones opinions and hear why rally points are a necessity, or a disaster

Donagel, i think you experienced with me 1st hand yesterday, how crazy it was for us to defend the train depot, with constant waves of inantry spawning in the forest, and by the time we took their rally, another squad capped the flag and set a new one lol :P and we had to then hunt them.

But I have read every ones reply and i can understand why we would need rally points. How ever since removing them is a complete no go for most ppl including most the devs lol, Wouldnt it be good to some how change them Ei. only being able to set 3, have a big delay between setting another one or a new method of some sort.

Elwenil

The interesting thing here is that Ivan argues against rally points as though the enemy uses them in some way that his squad can't, which we all know is not the case. If everyone had to spawn at the main, it would be the same as too little reinforcement too late. It would take forever to get across the battlefield to where the soldiers need to be and by then the enemy would have probably swept half the map. On maps with aircraft, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel to destroy all the cargo trucks and APCs leaving the main loaded with soldiers. Does the Highway of Death mean anything to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

Plain and simple, this would kill all large "epic" sized maps. The length of time and danger to be endured just to get back into battle would take way too long and people would get frustrated and quit playing. I agree that the SL spawn was unrealistic and I am glad it was taken out, but not giving us somewhere to spawn somewhat close to the battle at hand would kill the game dynamics and throw the whole thing into chaos. Squad tactics would be a thing of the past since you would frequently have situations where most of your squad has died and is taking 20 minutes to get back to you. This idea would probably work if we were allowed to have 120 people per team and have 15 people per squad but with the small 6 man squads, having half the squad on the other side of the map at the main would render it ineffective on the battlefield.

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

@Ivan:

No, I don't think so, because limiting them will eventually put most squads in the same position as removing them entirely. They would be scattered across the map or be forced to walk for 10 minutes to reach their objective because there isn't enough transport.

I use rallies as a tactical element of game play - trying to put them in a position where they won't be found easily (which usually means further away from the objective than what I would like) but still able to keep my squad in the fight. I also use them for people who join the squad late and we're already on the move. I drop the rally so they can spawn in and join the squad. Since SL and APC spawning has been eliminated, this is the only viable alternative to keep my squad together without waiting in the main until the squad fills up. Rallies also provide my squad with essential tools (kits) they might need to meet a certain situation encountered in a very dynamic battlefield.

Rallies serve a vital role in PR and are just a simple visual representation of what is in reality a much more complex system of reinforcements and supply lines.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

<1sk>Headshot

If you want to walk for 2 and a half hours on a 3 hour map go for it.

__________________
"It's just a ride.. And we can change it anytime we want."

Ferris Bueller

I agree completely with disposable. Imagine how bad it would be if you were playing kashan with no rally points. You spend 45 minutes on a hardcore defense of one of the bunkers and get squad-wiped. Now, you have to run all the way from main to re-establish your defense, which takes a LONG time. Meanwhile, the other team has grabbed the flag, so you're effectively SOL.

I've had the opportunity to play with some of the most organized PR players out there. I'm talking about people who use strict fireteam logic, movement to contact on every run, covering fire and proper cover proceedures. The problem is that even with the most experienced and professional players, all it takes is one lucky grenade, or one sniper on a hilltop and all that effort means nothing. With or without rally points, the fighting is going to remain exactly the same, but a lot more people are going to be extremely unhappy about having to run 3km to reach their objective every time they die.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

Amdak

Perhaps, but im quite sure that no sane commander would realistically just send an entire platoon behind enemy lines to attack and that it would pass as easily and as undetected as a 3-6 man squad...


Best option IMO would be if there would be 2 borders that are dynamical in the game :
1) A line on the map from either N-S or W-E depending on its layout, past which any RP placed would not be possible to spawn on.
2) A smaller border-ish well, border, that allows RPs to be spawned on beyond the line.

The line would basically be controlled by either bunkers or just having a flag fully capped while the border would be generated as a line between all the FBs the team has.

RPs could be placed anywhere on the map, but unless the RP is on/behind the main line or within the FB border it wouldnt be possible to spawn on them.
Sure, you could just put the FBs at a few points across the map borders and have a huge border, but for that a script could be added so that if a FB is near the map borders it would tell you that you cant deploy it there.

For the sake of preventing players from being dumb arses with FBs, to deploy a FB it could require a truck and atleast 2 deployed squad RPs within 75 meters of where you want to deploy the FB, which would make those RPs spawnable.
Of course that you could just place FBs in a way that creates a border that surrounds the enemy flag(s) so you could place RPs anywhere around it, but you would still need the forward FBs built for those RPs to actually be usable.

Presuming that PR would have paratrooper maps at some point (Spawn points being waaay up in the sky and all spawn kits get a parachute.) it could just have a map specific rule where RPs could be spawnable regardless of any bunkers/FBs built.
Same would apply to the Militia faction.




No, thats bunkers and FBs.
RPs are basically unrealistic nonsense.

If the RPs are the representation of reinforcements and supply lines then just what the hell are the FBs?

d1sp0sabl3H3r0

So, using Kashan as an example, you would assault one of the bunkers in the middle complex with just 6 soldiers?

Go back and re-read the posts explaining what rally points represent.

Bunkers and fire bases are much more than spawn points. Regardless of name, they are in reality a fire base, with ammo, defensive structures (razor, sandbags, aa emplacements) and a lot more troops available (hence the whole team can spawn there) than a forward operating base/staging area, which is what I believe rallies are intended to represent.

Please explain what aspect of this game is realistic? The ability to remove a mine using a pistol and pushing it while laying prone? Laying in grass to hide from enemies and not being able to see them, but they can see you because the grass doesn't render from a distance of 90m? Lying behind a ridge line only to appear to be hovering above that ridge line in plain sight of an enemy soldier or tank 500 m away and getting sniped? Shock-paddling a soldier shot multiple times with a large-caliber weapon, holding a bag next to him, and having him get up and run at full sprint immediately afterwards?

I could go on, but I hope my point is clear.

__________________
|TG-X|d1sp0sabl3

Gabbane

Two things should be considered: to spawn in waves and to limite the number of people that can spawn on a RP.

RP's are meant to supply the inability to have the proper number of soldiers involved in the fight, yes. I think removing them will be catastrophic, but(magic word) If you want to show off a squad working as a team, spawn time should be in waves, and If you want to make PR more realistic obviously the lack of people on a server/squad does not help, nowadays to get more than 64 people on a server is quite difficult... to be clear the number of people spawning on a RP must be limited, what do I mean? (I don't know the standard number of people in a squad, probably between 20 and 30?) the maxium of players that can spawn on a RP is 20-30 or whatever, (strange voice):what if you run out of reinforcements?, don't panic! easy as this:you must get back to a Bunker/FB or main base, and reinforce your squad.

Is just my modest opinion.

ZaBoo

The RP is a very important game mechanic, without it it will be first ones killed lose. Similar to the Kufrah Oilfield tank battle - but with infantry. There is not enough players for large scale maps without reinforcement points.

I think the biggest problems with rally points is sometimes it feels like your fighting a ghost army. Particularly the smaller forest & urban combat maps. Two things I think they could fool around with:

* Making RP's much easier to find. Perhaps placing a permanent colored smoke grenade could alert the other team where the source is coming from (Delayed to ensure attack position is not revealed)
* Making RP's expire after a number of uses (By SL or SM)

I don't know.. may be stupid ideas

Amdak

And with an RP youre attacking with more than 6 players...? Either way your squad in the game has 6 players at most, for more you need to use other squads.

Bunkers are just a flag spawn point, sand bags, wire, AA, etc. Represent fortifications, the bunker basicaly just acts as a spawn point which represents defending infantry in numbers large enough to avoid forcing an entire team on a flag.

FBs represent several things, an outpost, a staging area, a long distance fire-support position and a supply line.

RPs represent the rest of the squad which due to engine limits cant be included.
Which is all good and nice, until it becomes ridiculous since a single squad seems to include dozens of soldiers.
RPs would only represent a staging area if theyre all grouped right next to the other.
Although that if SLs were spawn points and RPs were just for ammo and kits with no spawn point, it would make for a much more suitable representation of larger squads. Sure, its silly to have the SL pull squad-mates out of his arse like that, but IMO its far better for gameplay to deal with that than to deal with enemies just appearing behind you.

A staging area is the main, which naturally isnt going to be close enough to the main battle after the start of the battle to provide reinforcements and supplies at a steady flow, for that you would have front outposts/bases, which is what the bunkers and FBs represent.

Ferris Bueller

Wave spawning is a very bad idea. You cant control the logic for TKs, suicides, etc with wave spawning.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

Ivan_the_bad

Amdak i liked some of your ideas, how ever i think the border thing is abit too much, and if something like that was incorporated it would have to be greatly simplified.

Lol at what disposable said about the unrealistic things, But that is just the Engine.

I do see how the rally is useful and is used as a 'game way' for reinforcements, how ever, its abit too much of an arcade'ish factor. I believe the rally 'will' be kept on, How ever i think it slightly needs to be altered so that it cant be used as a rape tool. any suggestions

gijoe

Someone start a poll! I agree completly with everyone that said RP's are good. Lets just see about whether or not disposable is right. I personally think he is.

__________________

llPANCHOll

the assets alocated in game are not typical for 32 sodiers, so if you look at the total number of deaths on the entire map.. each player dies an average of 10 times, that is only 320 soldiers represented, that is still a low number for the number of assets alocated, I think the "representation of reinforcements" is a valid one. Rally points are essential, and cant see them removing them completely.

__________________