No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[TheSkudDestroyer]

Just remember that deploying FoB's inside other buildings or inside a wall is technically a game exploit and as such contrary to the "realism first" approach of TacticalGamer.

What's less realistic about reinforcing from a building?

[Rudd_medicman]

thats not true Orpal,

Last night I saw 3 MEC Troop Trucks Rush to try to get to Docks. Unsupported, thru enemy postions, and with out any sort of distraction. I thihnk one time it worked and they got a FB up.

I suggested ages ago on the PR forums that you should only be able to build near a friendly flag or at least not in an enemy flag

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-...ding-locations

but without the actual code, I would suggest making the rules would be very frustrating for everyone.

[orpal]

but without the actual code, I would suggest making the rules would be very frustrating for everyone.

Imagine the sheer nightmare for admins on that rule.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

now we have a 300m distance between 2 fobs, what about making a distance for a "new" fob, so you have to get forward on a smart way. you have to secure the "old" fb position, ...

for example, you can build fb in a radius of the flag or a distance between another fb.

300m of flag radius and 400 m to another fb. so no rushing behind enemy lines with fob. (also depends on size of map)

if we keep on playing without rp i suggest to make the distance between fb only 200m to each other (with same overrun system on 1k and 2k maps).

or delayed spawn, build fb, after 3 min its spawnable if defended.
its not good when you build a fb and half of the team is then overruning from behind (like muttrah).
also i have not seen that many "defend fb" things as i would. fob is still handled like a rp, now for the team and not for a squad but same way.

I would have to agree with this idea. It is a nice way to simulate a supply-line and keep the team progressing forward instead of just being scattered everywhere. Despite theories of keeping the entire team to one location with the new system, I've seen pretty much the opposite so far, with squads still scattered to the four winds on the map.

How about if FOBs must be built within cap radius of friendly flag (determined by map) or within 500m of another friendly FOB (with a minimum distance being 300m)? Defensive asset deployment radius should be bumped up to 200m from FOB. Once the FOB is built then it remains active regardless of flag status and is disabled by normal means, but it cannot be built unless it is in a secure area, which is what the flag cap in PR represents. This restriction would not hold true for Insurgency game mode, which should allow for FOBs to be built anywhere and for RPs to be dropped within a 300m radius from a FOB.

Essentially, you cannot deploy a spawn in an area that you do not basically control, but you can still get a spawn close to an area that you wish to attack so long as you have control of an area somewhat close by.

[mat552]

What's less realistic about reinforcing from a building?

He was more referring to glitching spawnpoints and whatnot. It's still possible to force a firebase to spawn inside of a building with just the tiniest corner sticking out for shoveling. While that corner is enough to be destroyed with an incendiary, it's near impossible to find if placed on a map without perfectly clean and uncluttered streets.

[MarineSeaknight]

I <3 Bullseye's idea as well. In some ways, the entire game is already built upon that same mechanic, with AAS mode making it so you have to "leapfrog" the flags, taking one while defending the last.

It'll be the same for firebases then, with one firebase serving as the defense/fallback, and the other being the forward/assault point. The distance requirement between them would have to be adjusted for different 2k/4m sized maps, but I think this idea has alot of potential to be refined.

[DiscoJedi]

I would have to agree with this idea. It is a nice way to simulate a supply-line and keep the team progressing forward instead of just being scattered everywhere. Despite theories of keeping the entire team to one location with the new system, I've seen pretty much the opposite so far, with squads still scattered to the four winds on the map.

How about if FOBs must be built within cap radius of friendly flag (determined by map) or within 500m of another friendly FOB (with a minimum distance being 300m)? Defensive asset deployment radius should be bumped up to 200m from FOB. Once the FOB is built then it remains active regardless of flag status and is disabled by normal means, but it cannot be built unless it is in a secure area, which is what the flag cap in PR represents. This restriction would not hold true for Insurgency game mode, which should allow for FOBs to be built anywhere and for RPs to be dropped within a 300m radius from a FOB.

Essentially, you cannot deploy a spawn in an area that you do not basically control, but you can still get a spawn close to an area that you wish to attack so long as you have control of an area somewhat close by.

Sounds good in theory, but what do we do on maps like Kashan, Quinling, and the many other 4 KM maps scheduled for release in 0.9? Flags on these maps can be several kilometers from one another. I don't see how a team can feasibly attack a defended flag in this case, seeing as how they would not be able to place their own spawn point anywhere within a kilometer of the target flag. Yes, you could theoretically build a string of FOBs from one flag to the next, but it could take 3 or 4 to cover the distance. Right now only 5 can be deployed, which means we would either have to raise that number to something far too high, or demolish all of the rearward FOB's, leaving even fewer areas to spawn, and creating even more of a "blob" type strategy.

Also, I think a system like this would be too restrictive to be practical on even most 1K and 2K maps. People would spend too much time checking their distances between the Flag and the nearest FOB, looking for that magic spot between 500m and 300m. It's almost a return to 0.6 when you could only place a RP beyond 200m from a flag. People would walk towards a flag dropping RPs as they go until they found the barrier. I'm not saying this idea is without merit, but I don't think that creating extensive rules for FOB deployment is the right answer.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Sounds good in theory, but what do we do on maps like Kashan, Quinling, and the many other 4 KM maps scheduled for release in 0.9? Flags on these maps can be several kilometers from one another. I don't see how a team can feasibly attack a defended flag in this case, seeing as how they would not be able to place their own spawn point anywhere within a kilometer of the target flag. Yes, you could theoretically build a string of FOBs from one flag to the next, but it could take 3 or 4 to cover the distance. Right now only 5 can be deployed, which means we would either have to raise that number to something far too high, or demolish all of the rearward FOB's, leaving even fewer areas to spawn, and creating even more of a "blob" type strategy.

Also, I think a system like this would be too restrictive to be practical on even most 1K and 2K maps. People would spend too much time checking their distances between the Flag and the nearest FOB, looking for that magic spot between 500m and 300m. It's almost a return to 0.6 when you could only place a RP beyond 200m from a flag. People would walk towards a flag dropping RPs as they go until they found the barrier. I'm not saying this idea is without merit, but I don't think that creating extensive rules for FOB deployment is the right answer.

What's your idea then?

The numbers are just numbers - they can be increased or decreased at the whim of the developers. It's the theory behind it that would make sense. Don't focus on the numbers because what I say or what Bullseye says or what anyone else says doesn't matter. The developers will have final say, not us.

In any battle, lines of supply are the lifeblood of any assault or defense. Without logistical support, no force can attack or hold an area for long. What system does PR have in place currently to emulate that? None. Fire bases can be deployed wherever you want, as long as you have a crate, regardless of whether your forces actually have control of that area or not. The same goes with RPs; players would constantly find a way behind lines to drop an RP and have a steady stream of soldiers to assault the defending force. No logistical supplies necessary, just a SL and one other SM within 20m guarantees a stream of soldiers.

If FOBs represent controlled areas that are staging areas for forces then it would make sense that those are built somewhere near a controlled area. That is the main point of bullseye's post as well as mine.

[snooggums]

He was more referring to glitching spawnpoints and whatnot. It's still possible to force a firebase to spawn inside of a building with just the tiniest corner sticking out for shoveling. While that corner is enough to be destroyed with an incendiary, it's near impossible to find if placed on a map without perfectly clean and uncluttered streets.

No reason to consider that situation for game play, it is an exploit and therefore not a viable practice. Anyone doing so should be reported and and someone can go comm to remove the FOB.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

No reason to consider that situation for game play, it is an exploit and therefore not a viable practice. Anyone doing so should be reported and and someone can go comm to remove the FOB.

True, but most of these fire bases are not intentionally glitched anyway thanks to them "bouncing" off statics and the joy that is the BF2 engine.

Anyway, we can start a separate thread for discussing abuses of the build system if we want, let's keep this one to discussing the lack of RPs and the effect it has on society.

[DiscoJedi]

What's your idea then?

The numbers are just numbers - they can be increased or decreased at the whim of the developers. It's the theory behind it that would make sense. Don't focus on the numbers because what I say or what Bullseye says or what anyone else says doesn't matter. The developers will have final say, not us.

In any battle, lines of supply are the lifeblood of any assault or defense. Without logistical support, no force can attack or hold an area for long. What system does PR have in place currently to emulate that? None. Fire bases can be deployed wherever you want, as long as you have a crate, regardless of whether your forces actually have control of that area or not. The same goes with RPs; players would constantly find a way behind lines to drop an RP and have a steady stream of soldiers to assault the defending force. No logistical supplies necessary, just a SL and one other SM within 20m guarantees a stream of soldiers.

If FOBs represent controlled areas that are staging areas for forces then it would make sense that those are built somewhere near a controlled area. That is the main point of bullseye's post as well as mine.

My idea, since you ask, is actually to advocate against the removal of Rally Points and instead for an overhaul of the rally point system. I believe that the removal of RP's will too greatly effect the gameplay I have come to enjoy in PR and that in this case, some realism should be sacrificed in the name of maintaining an enjoyable game experience (granted the experience I am describing is enjoyable to me, others may have differing opinions).

However, in the interest of constructive feedback, I will offer the following alternative. If we are determined to remove rally points from PR, and leave only FoBs and mapper placed spawn points, here are some of the modifications I would make:

1km and 2km maps
Some 1km and 2km maps would have to be removed from PR entirely or seriously redesigned, as they simply do not offer enough open space to setup FOB's in useful locations.

4km maps
The DEV's have said it, 4km maps are the future of PR. With that in mind, any changes to the spawning system should be geared towards gameplay on the largest battlefields. As such, I don't believe that any system requiring FOB's to be placed in proximity of flag zones will be feasible. Such a system would also invariably raise issues with the following topic.

Insurgency Mode
Insurgency is here to stay, and using an FOB deployment system that works completely different on Insurgency maps versus Conventional maps seems like a waste of development resources to me.

Lines of Supply
It's true that PR does not currently have a way of simulating the effects of strategic military supply on the battlefield; only ammunition is finite. And while it may be unrealistic to have Helicopters drop a crate behind enemy lines and build an FOB to spawn waves of troops, I can't say I like the alternative. A system which restricts the deployment of FOB's in a "front-line" type way would only continue the blob mentality that so many have decried on the server of late. We need to be able to flank and attack from different angles, and because of the limitations of having 31 players per team, the only way to accurately simulate an effective flanking force is to allow that force to deploy a spawn point.

Conclusion
If we are determined to remove rally points from PR, the following needs to be done.

1. smaller maps must either be removed or redesigned to accomodate FOB only gameplay
2. FOB's must be easily deployable to ensure adequate spawn coverage for both teams
3. The FOB overrun system should be tweaked to better balance the defense of FOB's

[Berlancic]

That sounds about right. I haven't played Korengal yet, or many 1k maps. I assume they're hell.

[llPANCHOll]

What's your idea then?

The numbers are just numbers - they can be increased or decreased at the whim of the developers. It's the theory behind it that would make sense. Don't focus on the numbers because what I say or what Bullseye says or what anyone else says doesn't matter. The developers will have final say, not us.

In any battle, lines of supply are the lifeblood of any assault or defense. Without logistical support, no force can attack or hold an area for long. What system does PR have in place currently to emulate that? None. Fire bases can be deployed wherever you want, as long as you have a crate, regardless of whether your forces actually have control of that area or not. The same goes with RPs; players would constantly find a way behind lines to drop an RP and have a steady stream of soldiers to assault the defending force. No logistical supplies necessary, just a SL and one other SM within 20m guarantees a stream of soldiers.

If FOBs represent controlled areas that are staging areas for forces then it would make sense that those are built somewhere near a controlled area. That is the main point of bullseye's post as well as mine.

Perhaps coding the firebases so they require resupply.. say 1 crate of ammo every so often, perhaps the math could be based on number of players spawned off of it, or off of a timer.. timer would probably be easier.. give the firebases a bleed and if they are not fed ammo... or an ammo crate that also acts like a repair crate then they bleed out and die.. this would require some sort of line of support.. One crate must be delivered every "X" number of minutes or the FB goes down... and no amount of shoveling will get it back up.

[ZaBoo]

I personally think it would be interesting to see some ownership/permission system to the firebases. What I would propose is firebases would be built as they are currently, but not everyone can spawn at them immediately. Your squad would first need to gain permission to spawn there. To do this, your squad leader [or member(s)?] would need to walk within X meters to the FOB. This would allow a supply line, but you would have to work your way to reinforcement line if you want to spawn in it.

This would prevent two people building, and a mass spawning behind enemy lines. The obvious problem with this solution is it maybe completely overcomplicated. An intuitive user-interface would need to be implemented (on the map?)

Could also do things like having a timer (5min?) to grant access to all squads.

[DiscoJedi]

Perhaps coding the firebases so they require resupply.. say 1 crate of ammo every so often, perhaps the math could be based on number of players spawned off of it, or off of a timer.. timer would probably be easier.. give the firebases a bleed and if they are not fed ammo... or an ammo crate that also acts like a repair crate then they bleed out and die.. this would require some sort of line of support.. One crate must be delivered every "X" number of minutes or the FB goes down... and no amount of shoveling will get it back up.

I personally think it would be interesting to see some ownership/permission system to the firebases. What I would propose is firebases would be built as they are currently, but not everyone can spawn at them immediately. Your squad would first need to gain permission to spawn there. To do this, your squad leader [or member(s)?] would need to walk within X meters to the FOB. This would allow a supply line, but you would have to work your way to reinforcement line if you want to spawn in it.

This would prevent two people building, and a mass spawning behind enemy lines. The obvious problem with this solution is it maybe completely overcomplicated. An intuitive user-interface would need to be implemented (on the map?)

Could also do things like having a timer (5min?) to grant access to all squads.

Again, both of these ideas sound cool in principle, but I have to wonder at their feasibility...

First off, feeding ammo to firebases? Nevermind the nightmare of coding that would likely cause, but I doubt even Bullseye would volunteer for that mission on a regular basis. Can you imagine if your job in PR was to drive back and fourth from the FOB to the Supply station to get more ammo for the FOB? Here's a good example of the hype that change could bring...
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReKUSzo8Y-s[/media]

This video may be a satire, but the truth behind the humor is that there really is such a thing as too much realism.

Last but not least: LOL at the Wii M249...