No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[orpal]

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

From what I've read of other players' experiences, I think that this change impacts Muttrah rather significantly. However, I haven't played it yet, so I will reserve comment until I've seen it in action from both sides. However, my educated guess is that the MEC will quickly adopt the strategy of rushing Docks to establish a FOB before the US can gain a foothold and will push the US off Docks while a few straggler squads cap flags behind the main MEC force. With only water behind them and 2 LAVs that must travel over 5 minutes in the water to get into the fight, the US has no flanking options nor mobility. The helicopters can be decimated quickly from AA positions and BTR fire. But again, this is purely speculation on my part.

Speaking from my experience today, I don't think I'll find Muttrah much changed. Today I found 5 nice spots for FB, so USMC got their spawnpoints with ease.

As of rushing Docks; it will prevent USMC to rush North City, West City or East city for that matter at the beginning and start thinking more of capturing-holding-advancing technique. Have 2 squads holding with 2 FB's and 2 squads sneaking to North city from South.
Its like AAS2 game mode- It will change the way players are use to play on every day basis, adapt or die.

[WDT_Alpha_s9]

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

The testing runs until November 30th, which should give the DEV team enough feedback of substance (re: not the knee-jerk reactions that seem to prevail right now) to make a decision as well as give the player base adequate time to get over the initial shock and get a real feeling if the change works or not.

I think it's a great change... but it's a major change. Like it's been said, many of the maps may require some modifications and it will take new strategies to overcome the "clumsy" feel that we'll have at first.

I think it also opens up some nice possibilities in future maps too. I've always felt that the flag capture can be rather pointless at times. With the rare exceptions of A) the capout and B) a particular flag that is located in such a defensible position that it becomes the center of the battlefield, teams tend to lose a lot of points due to "aggressive" squads that really, really... REALLY want a particular flag for no reason other than the fact that AAS says it's in play.

When and if they DO capture that point, they then move forward to the next objective as the rest of the team thinks "oh wow, i guess we should move up". Eventually this ends in half (or more) of the team being out of position.

With the removal of rallies, chokepoints on maps could become much more strategically valuable. For instance, if a map has two or three specific areas that allow logistic traffic (meaning anything that carries a crate used to build a FOB) but many ways for a squad to cross on foot it would create a situation where the team could concentrate on defending those chokepoints and no longer has to worry about a 6 man squad that infiltrated around those points continuously assaulting a flank with unlimited manpower... or at least until their rally is found.

I'm really looking forward to more Qwai rounds, because that is a prime example of the above. Even with the mobility of the Chinese to bring an assault down onto any of the control points, They still have to get across the river... and back... if they want to remain effective. To me this means the Towvee becomes more of a defensive weapon and APCs have to wait until it's destroyed or stay on their side of the river.

I'm hoping we see more "Strike Teams" assigned by commanders. This puts more value into the command seat by allowing him to do things like send in two squads transported by two APCs with a specific task in mind. Like, "break that control point so squad 5 can get a logi across" or "Squad 6 has provided intel as to the location of the towvee, i want you to go take it out so our APCs are free to transport troops across the river".

Now of course I realize this is asking a lot from the "new player" perspective, but one of the things I love most about PR is that experience is everything.

[Borisbr]

I've played Qiling and Al Basrah last night.

I think on Army vs Army maps will improve a lot the gameplay. Qiling was pretty fun, even with people still adapting to the new gameplay.

Al Basrah wasnt less fun, but from what I see, its gonna be even harder for the BluFor get the 10 caches. We had some great SL as british last night, at one point we had the Tank squad, APC (Viking Squad) and three other squads (Caffeine, Soccer and someonelse) working all together, and still took us a lot of time, tickets and a Arty to get the cache.

I liked what I saw so far, teamplay is even more essential now. I think Insurgency will have to be changed some how to give BluFor more chances to win.

[Startrekern]

Originally Posted by Borisbr

I've played Qiling and Al Basrah last night.

I think on Army vs Army maps will improve a lot the gameplay. Qiling was pretty fun, even with people still adapting to the new gameplay.

Al Basrah wasnt less fun, but from what I see, its gonna be even harder for the BluFor get the 10 caches. We had some great SL as british last night, at one point we had the Tank squad, APC (Viking Squad) and three other squads (Caffeine, Soccer and someonelse) working all together, and still took us a lot of time, tickets and a Arty to get the cache.

I liked what I saw so far, teamplay is even more essential now. I think Insurgency will have to be changed some how to give BluFor more chances to win.

Things degraded a lot when the CO left.

I was five feet from that cache we had to arty at one point

[csxgamerz]

My take:

Well BF2 was like crazy, spawns were like 10 seconds and people would storm, kill, die, respawn, cap a flag, and more spawn... So PR already took this to the next extent. Now one thing I noticed with this new system, is that it is indeed more realistic. The entire BF2 and PR is a game, and for the purpose to keep the game fun and gamelike, we can respawn. In RL you don't have a respawn but you can't really do that to a game. We have had games where we all agreed on no respawns and we all admit that they are more intensive in a sense.

I think that taking out the rallies is maybe a necessary thing. However I can't see it working in this game. Players are just not ready for it. When a soldier dies in RL, he is dead, game over, but in PR you can respawn since it is a game. With rally points, it doesn't really matter if you die because you know you will be back killing in seconds. However, without rallies, the life of a player will be valued more knowing that he will probably spawn away from the fight and have to make their ways back. I think this is good.

PR is still trying to make things more realistic. When soldiers are deployed, they spawn at bases, and FOB's are outpost like bases which makes its an appropriate spawn instead of a rally. Definition of rally is that people group up at it, not a spawning device like many have said.

However, this brings me back to my asset whoring post I keep making and we are all tired of, don't worry im not supporting it. ~ like many have said, alot of times we don't have skilled pilots, Logi squads, etc. If noobs screw up all the choppers on Barricuda, the US would automaticly lose because they can't build FOB's which in terms means no spawning.

Now heres on thing i thought about, rallies are balance factors. It is the upper hand that attackers have, If you are going to defend, most likely you will be dug in with FOB and defenses. You can't have FOB's supporting an attack.

Getting rid of rallies would basically be an - over-extreme thing to do for a game like PR. If you think about it, it only works for a few of us, the well coordinated people at TG. Because we know that we can expect bullseye to run logi, and have celestrial fly, followed by mix command, and have people like us lead squads. With something like that, it will work, but when one piece is missing, the game would suck.

And I also notice that it's squads that stick together and work together that usually make use for their rallies. Its usually the ones that rambo and split up in which rallies don't help.



SO WHATS MY CONCLUSION... RALLIES MAKE PR A GAME AND HENCE ARE NECESSARY, HOWEVER WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THAT SYSTEM

[Mix0lydian]

I think it may be necessary to apply the Fools Road Russian Bridge rule logic to the Jabal Bridge out of MEC main...

[Startrekern]

Originally Posted by Mix0lydian

I think it may be necessary to apply the Fools Road Russian Bridge rule logic to the Jabal Bridge out of MEC main...

Not really. You can get a truck to the rest of the map via west.

[orpal]

Originally Posted by Startrekern

Not really. You can get a truck to the rest of the map via west.

No, you can't.

[Startrekern]

Originally Posted by orpal

No, you can't.

Yes, you can :P West Beach -> Mountains

[orpal]

If so, send me a screenshot of that. I find it rather impossible or extremely hard to do it.

[Mix0lydian]

The way is shut.
It was made by those who are dead, and the Dead keep it.

It is very difficult to climb that mountain and most people don't know about the correct way up. Plus, if the US has a presence west of Dam while fighting for the flag, It can be impossible to get crates to South Bridge or Jabal, even though these are the first two flags the MEC possess...instead, the MEC trucks have to travel by two enemy held positions including a common LAV landing area.

The US blowing the bridge out of MEC main has always seemed like a weak tactic to me, and I feel without RP's the MEC absolutely need that bridge to stand a chance. And nobody wants to have to defend a back bridge for 2 hours.
I haven't played .874B Jabal yet, but I don't think the fate of a team should depend on a single bridge that can easily be destroyed by a single CE who thinks he's 1337 specops.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Originally Posted by Mix0lydian

And nobody wants to have to defend a back bridge for 2 hours.

I've done it. Shot down 2 choppers in the process and acquired some pretty cool kits along the way...

Originally Posted by Mix0lydian

I haven't played .874B Jabal yet, but I don't think the fate of a team should depend on a single bridge that can easily be destroyed by a single CE who thinks he's 1337 specops.

I would have to agree with this, but the bridge can also be defended. Let's see how it plays out and we'll adjust as necessary if blowing up the bridge is a big issue.

[warpig1292]

Originally Posted by Startrekern

Things degraded a lot when the CO left.

I was five feet from that cache we had to arty at one point

Yeah i had alot of fun as commander last night. I just found it way more difficult to deal with the spawning issue. It seems as though in .86 and .87b the commander role has been needed much more than previously.

I would have kept commanding but my mic seemed it wanted to die in the middle of the game...

[Ferris Bueller]

Originally Posted by orpal

It makes players attack as a team in waves of 5-10 minutes intervals. Which is good. Squads were forced to wait for reinforcements and hold on their attack until they got fellow squad helping them along with BMP's, tanks etc.

Again, no mistakes allowed. Once you're wiped out you're wiped out for good. Forces you to rethink your plan and attack together.

Herein lies my main problem with the new system. PR is already a slow enough game. Anyone who has ever played on a decent map with two decent teams knows that a single round can last 2+ hours. I'm fine with that, but I'm also comfortable with it BECAUSE during that two hours of gameplay I get to see action on a regular basis and it keeps me interested and on my toes. The prospect of having to sit around main for 5 or 10 or 15 minutes at a time as an infantry squad because some lucky tank spotted my squad at a thousand meters and wiped us out isnt exactly my idea of fun.

Furthermore, to the last point, making mistakes are half the fun of the game. Trying new strategies, using infantry tactics to clear buildings, not having to ALWAYS be the superhero medic, and things of the like make the game fun. Personally, I dont want every game to play like a scrim. Sure, having the ultimate, no-mistakes, solid cohesion and discipline type rounds are nice SOMETIMES. But other times, I like to do things like going extreme driving with Dirtboy, being able to take a huge risk by plowing a supply truck through enemy lines to deliver supplies when I know theres a huge possibility that I wont make it, getting squad bombed into the middle of a hot landing area and wiping out the enemy because they cant figure out where we're coming from and how we got there. I dont want to have to scrutinize every move I make.

I play medic, and yes, I'll toot my own horn by saying I'm damn good at it. I've been playing that same role for almost 4 years now, so I better be at this point. But I'm good at it because I can objectively weigh the risks of death while also considering how close my nearest spawn point is and whether or not it's acceptable to run into a firefight to revive people. With the new system, that becomes impossible. The medic becomes the backbone of the squad. I cant take risks anymore because if I do, it might mean a 20 minute wait before my squad gets back into the action (if we havent been capped out by then). If my squad gets wiped out, I have to run and hide and hope to god the enemy doesnt find me so I can revive my squad after they're gone, while simultaneously watching the clock in hopes that the enemy goes on their merry way before the death timer runs out on my squadmates.

The new system is also going to create some incredible map-killing chokepoints on certain maps. Qwai is bad enough as it is when the bridges are blown for getting assets around the map. But at least now, infantry squads have the ability to sneak around and take out enemies. With the new system, that ability dries up and goes away and the landbridge becomes the chokepoint that is the single focus of the whole map. Control the only access to get assets to the other side of the map and you can keep any realistic forward progress down to zero. Enemy infantry can only really approach back flags from one direction, so good placement of FOBs to back flags keeps a steady spawn of friendly troops to them, wiping out any enemy incursion. Eventually, the enemy team gives uphaving to run halfway across the map to try and assault a flag and goes back to camping the landbridge.

Also, it is going to seriously encourage asset whoring. This is a problem that is already bad enough, but who wants to play infantry if you're going to be doing nothing for 15 minutes every time you get killed? Furthermore, on asset heavy maps like kashan, where infantry is a struggle anyway, it now becomes obsolete. Nobody is ever going to want to go into the bunker complex on foot, because FOBs there are almost impossible to defend in the face of one decent tank crew OR one decent chopper crew (depending on map version). The whining levels about people hoarding assets and stealing assets is going to increase by an order of magnitude on such maps simply because nobody is going to want to play infantry.

Now, keep in mind, this test is just that, a test. Its not solid and what goes on while the test is running is going to dictate whether or not it stays. But from the logic I can divine and experiences I can see and have seen with it, I smell disaster.

[Startrekern]

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Nobody is ever going to want to go into the bunker complex on foot, because FOBs there are almost impossible to defend in the face of one decent tank crew OR one decent chopper crew (depending on map version).

This is only partially true. APCs might actually be used as APCs now. As for the firebase, you can build it INSIDE the bunker (garage), completely block the exits to incoming fire that might take it out, and seal yourselves in fairly well.

It can even withstand plane bombs unless they're like .. perfect down to a 3-5x3-5 meter window.