Why not AAS? - Page 2

**Grunt 70** · 12-08-2006, 01:34 AM

tonight we had a great night of PRM fighting...At the max we had 30 people on with about 20 the usual average. Each map we agreed on one or two flags to fight over and the rounds were really intense. Excellent game play I thought.

fuzzhead · 12-08-2006, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asch

So a team with fewer CPs that happens to have a ticket advantage can win the round.

I like this.... its all about conserving your mens lives, digging in is a way to do that...

keep in mind if the defense fails, and they already have few CPs, that means they have EVEN LESS! so its a tactical decision to pull back... Also newer maps will have assets linked to CPs, meaning if you hold a majority of the CPs on a map, you will gain more armor/air/other assets in the future.

I think there is other ways to encourage aggresive behaviour BESIDES ticket bleed. I despise ticket bleed, I think it encourages rambo behaviour and constant attacking with little thought or care for defense. Not to mention I think it makes maps end way too early. Only in certain situations (Hills of Hamgyong, Mutrah City etc) I think ticket bleed is appropriate.

**asch** · 12-08-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

I like this.... its all about conserving your mens lives, digging in is a way to do that...

keep in mind if the defense fails, and they already have few CPs, that means they have EVEN LESS! so its a tactical decision to pull back... Also newer maps will have assets linked to CPs, meaning if you hold a majority of the CPs on a map, you will gain more armor/air/other assets in the future.

I think there is other ways to encourage aggresive behaviour BESIDES ticket bleed. I despise ticket bleed, I think it encourages rambo behaviour and constant attacking with little thought or care for defense. Not to mention I think it makes maps end way too early. Only in certain situations (Hills of Hamgyong, Mutrah City etc) I think ticket bleed is appropriate.

The objective to AAS is to push the other team off of the map, yet there is nothing in the AAS game mode that promotes this. It boils down to deaths (ticket count). A team could be ahead in tickets, but only have three of the nine CPs. They choose to defend because they have the ticket advantage and found themselves in an easily defendable CP.

So now we have a team that just won the round because of better shooting and defense... not because the completed the objective. So while I agree it's good to play defense and conserve lives, that is not the objective of AAS.

AAS ends up being about who can get the most deaths in the given time limit. Granted, if a team can push the other back to one flag they have bleed, but I personally haven't seen that very frequently on the public servers, and never saw it when TG ran AAS.

**BigGaayAl** · 12-08-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ale

Seeding:

Being in Europe, the TG servers are normally low pop when I play. This was fine with Vanilla and POE when the maps could handle low pops. Under the current setup, PR Conquest on low pops gives us the dreaded whack-a-mole problems unless the players can be gentlemanly.
This, we can sort out eventually I hope. My problem is seeding the PR Conquest server.

When starting an evening's play, the TG server is typicaly emtpy, so I'll try to seed it for 30 mins or so. If i'm lucky, I'll get someone to actually stick around and build on that. To often though, once there are 8 players or so are around, we get some bad eggs who just want to do their own thing like bomb everyone or take a back flag. I don't want to open the whole 'gentleman's agreement' can of worms. But this behaviour leads to good players leaving and the server not growing in pop, or just dying completely.
I wasn't on the server when it was just AAS, so I can't comment on whether it was better then, and I don't want to give the Admins more headache (btw thanks for the hard work). I'm just trying to let y'all know how things are from an early-evening (i.e. euro timezone) perspective.

May be BigGaayAl can testify to this, or maybe he'll disagree with me completely, but he's a European that gets the server going well.

I think that the way a server starts out is important for how things are during prime time, firstly in that it get started in the first place, and secondly in the quality of players that are in it: I believe that if you start of with good team work, that will carry on because team players will stay where there is good team play to be had.

I'm afraid I can't make any implementable suggestions however, this is just a rant.

Well I agree with you completely. We have had good games with no more then 2 TG players, and at least a squad or so on each side. We'd agreed at one time to fight over one flag. I had a squad on one side, Ale on the other side. Thus we could inform every joining player of the agreement and had a good few rounds. Then however the player count grew over 12 and new players started their own squad, and the **** hit the fan.

Only a bit later I had to leave (RL contingencies) and I couldn't help but feel sorry for ALe. When I checked the server again an hour later it was empty.

Well, it is unfortunate, but there's nothing much we can do about it. We should still be glad that we had some quality rounds. It is an effort though coaxing those random players to work with you. Pity there aren't any European TG admins (as far as I know).

fuzzhead · 12-08-2006, 07:42 PM

AAS rounds tend to be longer, and reward teams that prepare their defenses, fight off an attack, then make a swift counter attack of their own...

Ive been playing PR since AAS was introduced and have wiped many teams off the map completely, as well as have them bleed out on the last flag. Ive done this on every single map many times over....

Just last night we won Hills of Hamgyong as the british by wiping them off the map, as well as Al Fallujah as USMC. Its not impossible it just requires coordination, and especially a good CO.

I know the same can be said for conquest, but constantly chasing the ticket bleed to me feels a bit too 'gamey'. Id rather be more concerned with my squad's lives than with an arbitrary counter in the corner of the screen telling you your losing, when meanwhile your squad hasnt had a single casualty yet but has taken their objectives.

Im going to try TG server again tonight maybe this time it will change my mind

I think a map that would be really great to try on conquest is Gulf of Oman (32)..... would be terrific

Santa · 12-08-2006, 07:58 PM

Those rounds where one team gets wiped out would have happened in conquest or AAS regardless. The teams simply werent even.

In AAS there is absolutly no incentive to advance. Attacking means you are probably losing more tickets then they are, and since theres no bleed, ya might as well stay on defense at the most easily defendeable CP.

Like Asch said, one team could be down to 3 flags with the other at 9. However, the team with 3 flags happens to be back at a very easy to defend CP. The team with 9 flags is attempting the objective (pushing the other side off the map) yet they lose because its easier to defend than to attack. You could say "Well just dont attack". Should we say this to both teams? It would just degenerate into a sniper/200 yard shot fest with bombing runs mixed in.

At the moment, AAS in PR just seems flawed. I think to make it a feasible option, they need to overhaul it. First, i suggest the flag radii be gigantic and be scaled differently based on how many people are in the server. The flag logic could be something like Tacmod's, where the flag wont go up one way or the other unless one side has 90% (thats arbitrary) more units within the capture radius. Also, bleed has to be incorporated more, and probably at a 50% + 1 CP. Finally, fighting over 4 flags (2 to defend for each team) would spread the battle out conquest style, but not allow teams to cap back flags (though graying out back flags to cut off supplies would be neat). This could be scaled back to just the regular 2 CPs when there are less than ~40 players on the server.

**asch** · 12-08-2006, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

Im going to try TG server again tonight maybe this time it will change my mind

fuzzhead.... we should probably try to coordinate a night when TGers will actually be on the server. We have a huge internet televised scrimmage Saturday night so many of our players are organizing and planning for that.

fuzzhead · 12-09-2006, 12:49 AM

yea asch you were right, another case of bad timing on my part

i was on the TG server tonite from 7PM - 1230AM EST..... the same old crap from vanilla....

Unfortunately it feels like TG server attracts all the vanilla cretons. I know this isnt typical TG style play, the nilla heads must just recognize the name Tactical Gamer and flock to it like flys to a light bulb. My squad encountered stuff that most of us havnt seen since our vanilla days almost a year ago, including: noob tubing (firing a grenade at your feet to kill your enemy and yourself), suicide bomber cars to destroy tanks (NOT the insurgents), rampant teamkilling, teamkilling for requested kits, stealing of vehicles and just a complete disregard for any sort of tactics.

The main reason I stuck around for as long as I did was because my crew was with me and we made it interesting.... we prety much just picked a point for the whole round to defend, and not once did our our decided defensive point ever fall into enemy hands! props out to WAC squad members for their patience and skill! During a round of Qwai River we only had one engagement for the entire round! It lasted a whole 10 seconds, as a car full of TG members decided it would be a good idea to drive right into our compound... one heavy AT rocket later and we were back to twiddling our thumbs.... but hey we managed to keep ourselves occupied the whole round and everyone maintaned watch on their firing arcs, which is more than I can say for most clans Ive seen.

Anyways, thanks for having me, Ill keep an eye out for a coordinated group nite on these forums, peace.

Finestyle · 12-09-2006, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

It lasted a whole 10 seconds, as a car full of TG members decided it would be a good idea to drive right into our compound... one heavy AT rocket later and we were back to twiddling our thumbs....

OK... firstly... Over acting is an understatement here!... When this happened, there was only 3 TG guys on the whole team!... At which point you started shouting... TG ARE ALL NOOBS!! TG PLAY LIKE VANILLA NOOBS!! TG DONT DEFEND... or some crap like that.
If you would have taken the time to actually see who was on the server you would see that there was only about 5 to 6 guys on wearing TG tags period. And you received some pretty "colorful" responses to your flaming, which may have gotten out of hand if Asch hadn't had stepped in as admin and politely reminded everyone to watch their language.

As for all the other things you rant on about... I didn't see much if any of the things you mention "noob tubing (firing a grenade at your feet to kill your enemy and yourself), suicide bomber cars to destroy tanks (NOT the insurgents), rampant teamkilling, teamkilling for requested kits, stealing of vehicles and just a complete disregard for any sort of tactics."
Now I'm not saying those things didn't happen... but I didnt see it... probably because I was in the TG guys squad DEFENDING points and making STRATIGIC movements most of the time.

But my point is that there was no need for you to flame the TG community for the generally bad performance of our side when you could clearly see that the vast majority of players on the server were not TG members!

Tonight was surprisingly slow in terms of TG people on the server, but I can assure you that most of the time its not like this... you just happened to pick the wrong night to play on there. I've spent many of nights on both the POE and PR TG server where I have been involved in some high quality tactical rounds.

But please, try thinking a little in future before you flame off, or better still, keep your thoughts to yourself.
But do come back another night when more TGers are on and see for yourself the high level of team play.

Food for thought my friend.

fuzzhead · 12-09-2006, 06:54 AM

I dont think I was 'overacting'. It was indeed a full car of 6 troops, 3 of which did appear to be TG members (we know it was 6 because our AT gunner had previously zero kills, and pressing TAB revealed the most obvious 6 dead players). So I assumed the TG members were running the show in that squad/attack.

Yes I was dissing you guys big time and your right I probably should have kept my mouth shut, I didnt mean anything personally to the TG community it was simply smack talk after the kill. I recieve flak all day long in the servers I regularly play at, Im used to it hehhe.... but really what I was trying to do was piss you TG guys off enough so that you'd come hunt us down and we could have some good competition, but it never happened

Next time I wont resort to low blows to piss you off, Ill just make bad yo momma jokes I guess lol

As for the nilla tactics, I was not exagerrating all those things (and more!) happened during my 5 hour play period. I dont know why its happening on this server more than the others, but it sucked I hope some adminning can straighten these new players out (temp ban anyone???)....

**BigGaayAl** · 12-09-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Santa

At the moment, AAS in PR just seems flawed. I think to make it a feasible option, they need to overhaul it. First, i suggest the flag radii be gigantic and be scaled differently based on how many people are in the server. The flag logic could be something like Tacmod's, where the flag wont go up one way or the other unless one side has 90% (that's arbitrary) more units within the capture radius. Also, bleed has to be incorporated more, and probably at a 50% + 1 CP. Finally, fighting over 4 flags (2 to defend for each team) would spread the battle out conquest style, but not allow teams to cap back flags (though graying out back flags to cut off supplies would be neat). This could be scaled back to just the regular 2 CPs when there are less than ~40 players on the server.

Pretty much agree all the way. The flag timers are awful, since defenders often get two or three respawns when their flag is attacked. This makes it too easy to defend for disorganised pubbies. They just respawn behind your back and... PWNAge hahahha L33t ... you know the drill (a lot of l33t players on yesterday.

If flags were easier to grey you could be rewarded for doing a lengthy and stealthy flanking attack, as we did yesterday when I took over e-male's squad, to no effect at all.

(Although yesterday the reason we were pummelled was that we chose to attack a flag where a whole army of pubbies seemed to have been waiting for tanks etc. Squad did a great job getting there, greyed the flag before being spotted and then we were flooded...astonishing where they'd all come from.)

12-08-2006, 01:34 AM	#16 (permalink)
Grunt 70 Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Massachusetts Age: 43 Posts: 2,504	Re: Why not AAS? tonight we had a great night of PRM fighting...At the max we had 30 people on with about 20 the usual average. Each map we agreed on one or two flags to fight over and the rounds were really intense. Excellent game play I thought. __________________ \|TG-22nd\|Grunt "When force is necessary, it must be applied boldly, decisively, and completely. But one must know the limitations of force; one must know when to blend force with maneuver" - Leon Trotsky

12-08-2006, 07:42 PM	#20 (permalink)
fuzzhead Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 579	Re: Why not AAS? AAS rounds tend to be longer, and reward teams that prepare their defenses, fight off an attack, then make a swift counter attack of their own... Ive been playing PR since AAS was introduced and have wiped many teams off the map completely, as well as have them bleed out on the last flag. Ive done this on every single map many times over.... Just last night we won Hills of Hamgyong as the british by wiping them off the map, as well as Al Fallujah as USMC. Its not impossible it just requires coordination, and especially a good CO. I know the same can be said for conquest, but constantly chasing the ticket bleed to me feels a bit too 'gamey'. Id rather be more concerned with my squad's lives than with an arbitrary counter in the corner of the screen telling you your losing, when meanwhile your squad hasnt had a single casualty yet but has taken their objectives. Im going to try TG server again tonight maybe this time it will change my mind I think a map that would be really great to try on conquest is Gulf of Oman (32)..... would be terrific

12-08-2006, 07:58 PM	#21 (permalink)
Santa Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Age: 19 Posts: 3,355	Re: Why not AAS? Those rounds where one team gets wiped out would have happened in conquest or AAS regardless. The teams simply werent even. In AAS there is absolutly no incentive to advance. Attacking means you are probably losing more tickets then they are, and since theres no bleed, ya might as well stay on defense at the most easily defendeable CP. Like Asch said, one team could be down to 3 flags with the other at 9. However, the team with 3 flags happens to be back at a very easy to defend CP. The team with 9 flags is attempting the objective (pushing the other side off the map) yet they lose because its easier to defend than to attack. You could say "Well just dont attack". Should we say this to both teams? It would just degenerate into a sniper/200 yard shot fest with bombing runs mixed in. At the moment, AAS in PR just seems flawed. I think to make it a feasible option, they need to overhaul it. First, i suggest the flag radii be gigantic and be scaled differently based on how many people are in the server. The flag logic could be something like Tacmod's, where the flag wont go up one way or the other unless one side has 90% (thats arbitrary) more units within the capture radius. Also, bleed has to be incorporated more, and probably at a 50% + 1 CP. Finally, fighting over 4 flags (2 to defend for each team) would spread the battle out conquest style, but not allow teams to cap back flags (though graying out back flags to cut off supplies would be neat). This could be scaled back to just the regular 2 CPs when there are less than ~40 players on the server.

12-09-2006, 12:49 AM	#23 (permalink)
fuzzhead Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 579	Re: Why not AAS? yea asch you were right, another case of bad timing on my part i was on the TG server tonite from 7PM - 1230AM EST..... the same old crap from vanilla.... Unfortunately it feels like TG server attracts all the vanilla cretons. I know this isnt typical TG style play, the nilla heads must just recognize the name Tactical Gamer and flock to it like flys to a light bulb. My squad encountered stuff that most of us havnt seen since our vanilla days almost a year ago, including: noob tubing (firing a grenade at your feet to kill your enemy and yourself), suicide bomber cars to destroy tanks (NOT the insurgents), rampant teamkilling, teamkilling for requested kits, stealing of vehicles and just a complete disregard for any sort of tactics. The main reason I stuck around for as long as I did was because my crew was with me and we made it interesting.... we prety much just picked a point for the whole round to defend, and not once did our our decided defensive point ever fall into enemy hands! props out to WAC squad members for their patience and skill! During a round of Qwai River we only had one engagement for the entire round! It lasted a whole 10 seconds, as a car full of TG members decided it would be a good idea to drive right into our compound... one heavy AT rocket later and we were back to twiddling our thumbs.... but hey we managed to keep ourselves occupied the whole round and everyone maintaned watch on their firing arcs, which is more than I can say for most clans Ive seen. Anyways, thanks for having me, Ill keep an eye out for a coordinated group nite on these forums, peace.

12-09-2006, 06:54 AM	#25 (permalink)
fuzzhead Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 579	Re: Why not AAS? I dont think I was 'overacting'. It was indeed a full car of 6 troops, 3 of which did appear to be TG members (we know it was 6 because our AT gunner had previously zero kills, and pressing TAB revealed the most obvious 6 dead players). So I assumed the TG members were running the show in that squad/attack. Yes I was dissing you guys big time and your right I probably should have kept my mouth shut, I didnt mean anything personally to the TG community it was simply smack talk after the kill. I recieve flak all day long in the servers I regularly play at, Im used to it hehhe.... but really what I was trying to do was piss you TG guys off enough so that you'd come hunt us down and we could have some good competition, but it never happened Next time I wont resort to low blows to piss you off, Ill just make bad yo momma jokes I guess lol As for the nilla tactics, I was not exagerrating all those things (and more!) happened during my 5 hour play period. I dont know why its happening on this server more than the others, but it sucked I hope some adminning can straighten these new players out (temp ban anyone???)....

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links