Atomic Dog

This is EXACTLY what I feel most games are missing these days. +Rep!

__________________

Braidedheadman

@Sabre_Tooth_Tigger:
I wasn't suggesting that shooting spawning players (spawn camping) while conducting raids on rear CPs (disrupting supply lines) is acceptable. Moreover, that was not what the original argument was about, by and large. It was about people, A10 pilots particularly, destroying assets at rear flags (not UCBs) before they could be brought to the frontlines (consistent with supply line disruption).

In an ironic twist, I believe it was one of the PR staff members who pointed out that the vehicle spawn times were too long a wait for this tactic to be either fair or fun for the other team, hence the "Rear Flags = UCB" rule, which BTW, though while I respect and follow it, I still think is a load of bunk in a "reality" game.

Also don't forget that most BF2x maps are what, 4 kilometers square at the most? Someone help me out here. At any rate, I don't think it unfeasible in the least degree that any army might launch multi-pronged attacks along key areas given such a (relatively) confined battlefield. After all, we're only talking about a farm house here, a manufacturing plant there, and a small town center somewhere in between as geologically distinct areas of the map. A single squad or two could easily be sent take any one of those objectives alone. A farmhouse just isn't going to need and entire company of men to take.

This "Kelly's Heroes" business, apart from being a movie reference with no connection to reality whatsoever, might make sense if BF2 were played over a continent's worth of terrain, but this just isn't the case here. We are talking about objectives set at distances that, in the real world, men and assets could deploy to and secure in mere minutes if those objectives are left undefended by OPFOR. Even the larger maps that PR anticipates releasing would not rule out attacks from along multiple fronts.

Where are the real tactics of ceding control of one flag in favor of other more strategically important flags in the framework of a game like PR’s? They are swallowed up in AAS hard-rules and the, "No rear flags," rule, which itself is in the end not but an artificial, arcadey, soft-rule applied to a reality game.

As I see it, the rear flag rule was instituted to accomplish just two things:

1. Relieve pressure on spawning assets whose spawn times are far too long to make "real tactics" practical or fun for those on the receiving end. Note that since killing freshly spawned players at UCBs (not necessarily contested flags) has always been against the rules to begin with, it is not my suggestion that disrupting supply lines means or includes shooting player spawns; it does not factor into this argument one whit.
2. To funnel infantry and assets into one or two areas of the map at a time with a subset of goals being:
   1. The ensure that everyone participates in the Zerg-infested defense/offense skirmishes at said locations for "epic gunfights"
   2. To enforce defensive and offensive roles uniformly at said locations during said skirmishes throughout the server, leaving but one path to victory and/or defeat.

For my part, a Zerg-fest at one or two flags at a time is in no way representative of reality when there are other objectives free and clear to be taken. The modern battlefield has moved well beyond the trench warfare of WW1 or the line battles of American civil war eras.

@The Rest:
But this has all been discussed before and I don’t mean to reopen that debate. I only point it out to further illustrate the wide differences in opinion that people hold with regard to reality vs. gameplay and where "Fun" lies in between. I would, however, like to raise another thought for consideration as it applies to what is fun in "real" vs "arcarde" styles of gameplay.

From where I sit, the biggest draw back to a so called "reality" game like this is the loss of freedom where I would expect greater freedoms should have been granted. The freedom to enjoy the thrill of a successful supply lines raid with a special/covert ops team, for instance, is utterly suspended with the current rule set. When I downloaded PR, I was thinking to myself, "Finally! A game where the use of the spec.ops kit actually means deploying behind enemy lines to disrupt their flow of supplies, using stealth and a satchel charge as one’s best tools to get the job done." Imagine my disappointment when I learned this was not to be the case - due largely to complaints that asset respawn times were too long and the resultant pressure on the front lines too overwhelming for this to be fun or practical. I wanted to tear my hair out in frustration.

This and other the logical inconsistencies don’t sit well with me and I find it much harder to immerse myself in such a simulation than I would with what some consider to be a more arcadey alternative. Once again, for me, "reality" games are fun if, and only if, the whole package presents itself as being as real as possible - when the developer provides the environment; the actors and the stage props; leaves the audience to assume their roles as they please, and makes game play balance and tuning as transparent as possible. Freedom is what is most immersive in any game, regardless of its style.

Freedom - not the freedom to be a smacktard or to run wild in defiance of orders passed down a live CoC - to me, is the best yardstick I have for measuring "fun" in reality game. The freedom to allow my imagination to run free and to see my toon’s life through his eyes; to feel that the choices I make would in fact be the choices that my toon would make were our places and roles reversed; to feel that the interaction with other toons is really with other people rather than a collection of 1’s and 0’s, bits and bytes on my computer screen. These things make a game feel more real and more fun at the same time.

I want to be afraid when I hear an A10 pass overhead. I want to be cautious about approaching the crest of that next hill. I want to be suspicious of that crater, or that outcropping of rocks, or that clump of bushes over there. I want to feel the adrenaline when I see a tank approaching and find myself looking for cover. I want to feel surprised when I hear a bullet whip pass overhead. Apart from the freedom to choose my own path, these are things that PR does extremely well for the most part. I just believe that there are other things that can be done better and would improve the overall experience by making it truly immersive. Freedom is a big part of that immersive experience, IMHO.

I believe that giving the freedom to choose their own paths back to the players is one of the most important things that can be done. If the lengthy asset respawn times are an impediment to that because rear flag supply lines are being routinely raided, make them shorter - problem solved. And if as a result of their being raided they are kept off the front lines for X number of minutes, then the developer’s intended pace of the game is preserved in the end anyway without sacrificing player freedoms. I see it as a win-win situation for all involved.

In simplest terms, for any reality game that I play, I feel that [ Freedom*(Reality + GameBalance) = Fun ]

__________________