No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[DiscoJedi]

One of my biggest annoyances, however, is the fact that the FOB can be overrun even if there are defenders close by or at the FOB location. Perhaps it should be made so that if there are x number of players within y distance of FOB, the FOB cannot be overrun. This would make FOB defense a viable and extremely useful move.

This will definitely have to change for the RP-less system to work. I can only hypothesize, but if it were up to me I would start by shrinking the over-run radius around FOBs to 25m and increase the number of enemy needed from 2 to 3. The purpose of the FOB overrun, when it was originally implemented, was to help prevent spawn-camping. This revised system should still be able to accomplish that goal.

[OriginalWarrior]

Good idea Jedi,how about you cannot overrun the FB unless enemy to friendly ratio is atleast 2:1 like the flag cap? I can see a problem with a whole squad defending a FB and 3 people walk near it and its overrun, thats a bit unfair.

[Taip3n]

Some other maps played: Mutrah (twice), Barracuda, Asad

Main roles: SL, Medic, LMG

Tactics:

I am employing alot more in squad tactics for example squad formations (single line, staggered double line up a street, diamond), than the usual simple extended line or a loose let it go. Spacing has become more an issue. Movement like skirmage, position of roles and manoeuvring in squad, or fire and manoeuvre. Defence, all round defence, finding firepoints, arcs of fire, zones where one person defends anothers’ area, all now play a larger part. Construction of FoBs are also of course a part of this. Inter squad manoeuvring is also up.

I feel an achievement to get to the end of a street or into a building now. Propping up fire positions an so on. The slow pace, stealth, timing, manouvering and hightened intensity of success or failure is much more absorbing. I am enjoying it.

I like the ideas coming out about over-run FoBs and agree a system change is needed here. A 3:1 ratio and a 25 metre area sounds about right. Tough call, can’t see a perfect method on this due to varying situations.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

** Note **

I've made a few tweaks to our maplist based on game play results with the no rally point system.

* Muttrah 16 seeder is now Muttrah 64 (US side needs apcs to have some mobility)
* removed Korengal (just won't work no matter what without rallies)

Keep playing, keep adapting, keep the feedback coming on the change. I think I'm seeing that almost all of our regular players have adapted quite nicely, and we're seeing quite a few new faces to the server that are great players. Keep it up guys!!

[Mix0lydian]

^side note: server's gametracker ranking has moved up 4 spots (53-49) since the beginning of the testing

[orpal]

and we're seeing quite a few new faces to the server that are great players. Keep it up guys!!

And we seed much faster now. I like it, at least I won't shoot birds anymore (or anxiously search for alleged bear on Asad, I've got live targets now).

[Akaz]

I only played on a insurgency map but here are some quick observations from a noob:

1. The balance of map has shifted towards insurgents simply because blufor has lost a tool while insurgents have lost nothing. One simple solution to rebalance would be to reduce number of caches that need to be destroyed in order to win. I suggest this because blufor progress will be slower and need to be more methodical. I dont know if the right number is 9 or 5 but that can be tested out.
2. Thinking about some other maps, two things pop up in my mind (already mentioned in this thread a few times). Map changes are a must particularly in maps where trucks can be bottled up (particularly if a bridge is blown). Second FOB placement system needs to be addressed. Perhaps with more commander involvement. I am not sure!

I hope to play a lot more on the weekend to get a better feel though!

[Alpha_s9]

** Note **

* removed Korengal (just won't work no matter what without rallies)

Booooo! I think this is one of the maps where a strategy change would help fix the problem.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Booooo! I think this is one of the maps where a strategy change would help fix the problem.

Really? I have to respectfully disagree on this one Alpha. Until the new version of Korengal comes out I just don't see it as very balanced for the BluFor as long as we're playing without rallies. It is far too easy for the Taliban to cut off the US troops enroute to a cache and make them start over from their main. With the terrain as it is and the road system limited at best, the ability to build FOBs is terribly limited and their locations are even more limited, forcing the US team to utilize their main as their only spawn point. Once the Taliban have boxed the US team into their main it is all over.

Of all of the maps in PR, this is the one that just won't work without major changes to the map itself without rally points.

[johnflenaly]

Really? I have to respectfully disagree on this one Alpha. Until the new version of Korengal comes out I just don't see it as very balanced for the BluFor as long as we're playing without rallies. It is far too easy for the Taliban to cut off the US troops enroute to a cache and make them start over from their main. With the terrain as it is and the road system limited at best, the ability to build FOBs is terribly limited and their locations are even more limited, forcing the US team to utilize their main as their only spawn point. Once the Taliban have boxed the US team into their main it is all over.

Of all of the maps in PR, this is the one that just won't work without major changes to the map itself without rally points.

Well I haven't played the new version yet,(Been on the three day Dragon Age bender) I still have to agree with dispo here. Even before with rally points it was far to easy for the opfor side to win this one. The map is one big valley, and the taliban start in a position that can limit any and all US vehicles
moving anywhere in the valley with limited risk of retaliation. This cuts back US to main and the outpost if they manage to hold onto it.



As a way to fix this, I would limit opfor to there random starting posistion with the ability to over run them. That way you could cap the out so to speak.

[Diligent_BF2]

Interesting test. I'm curious to see how it all pans out.

(Some background: I've just returned to the game recently after a year off. To brush up on some maps, and because I often have less than an hour to play, I've been logging onto other PR servers and have tried to pick my way across the map solo, finding safer routes and entry/choke points. You end up taking more time, checking things out, keeping track of where ammo,etc. can be found, and generally being more cautious, as it's apparent testers here have found. So I guess I've been playing without RPs for a few weeks now.)

I do think this test has brought some new faces (although in-game they look the same, especially if you're on MEC, it seems...) and interested parties to the server and this forum. That must be good, regardless of how the test turns out.

One effect on gameplay that I think could happen, but that won't show up in a beta test on TG's server, is that no RPs could likely result in *more* lonewolfing (on servers that don't require players to be in a squad, that is), as there would be more attention to building FBs by the core of the team, and so the lonewolf will have a choice of (hopefully well planned/placed) FBs to spawn from, rather than having to stick with a squad. (Of course there are caveats as to said lonewolf's survival chances on his own, especially if "No RPs" shifts the average player to more conservative style of play.)

So, for the sake of the test, and in the same sense as Mumble usage/not being relevant to the test experience, I guess I'd suggest that testing players/developers consider (at times) what the No RP change would be like if players didn't have to join a squad.

[Alpha_s9]

Really? I have to respectfully disagree on this one Alpha. Until the new version of Korengal comes out I just don't see it as very balanced for the BluFor as long as we're playing without rallies. It is far too easy for the Taliban to cut off the US troops enroute to a cache and make them start over from their main. With the terrain as it is and the road system limited at best, the ability to build FOBs is terribly limited and their locations are even more limited, forcing the US team to utilize their main as their only spawn point. Once the Taliban have boxed the US team into their main it is all over.

Of all of the maps in PR, this is the one that just won't work without major changes to the map itself without rally points.

I believe it, I just haven't had the US experience yet and I still have that "HOOAH" attitude I guess. I've only been able to play US once so far, and that was a different map.

Win or lose, I think the firefight right outside murphy would be worth it though!

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Even though I have yet to participate in some Helo intensive/Mech INF intensive maps, I must say that adapting to the no RP scenario has been a lot smoother than many of us might have previously thought. Even non-TG server/non-PR regulars are adapting in a quicker pace than I figured they would.

The game play itself has been a lot more intense and structured. I may be jumping the gun a bit early but, in the opinion of this PR player taking away the RP option is a good move.

As others have stated, these past few days I have witnessed a huge amount of coordination between squads, which with a few exceptions I have only seen first hand during IWS, internal scrims, scrims against other servers. Now don't get me wrong I have been apart of regular public rounds where coordination has been tactically awesome, but with the removal of the spawn-able rally point squads have to depend on one another more and it only enhances the realism aspect and teamwork levels.

Could the CO option of placing a "way point" while in the CP be removed and a "rally point" marker be added instead?

^ The above is in regards some reading I have recently come across in infantry manuals.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...1-9/chap10.htm

I don't fully agree with suggestion of not being allowed to place a FOB within the flag radius, but I do agree with the suggestion of raising the amount of players it takes to make a FOB unspawn-able.

The positioning of FOB's are now more than ever important, and the option to build defenses at that particular FOB is great(one crate = just a FOB, 2 crates = FOB + Defenses), because on one hand you can have a fire base set up with no defenses acting as a "Rallying Point" or even as a decoy and have another 300+ meters away acting as the primary point of entry/defense/offense. With this new option from a tactical standpoint you can create several new types of strategies.

As Taipan pointed out, the availability of inter squad tactics and cooperation, deploying squad formations can be used with greater effect and success, and with the availability of "external voice communication programs" different SL's and squad members can talk to one another and execute those formations easier while and coordinating on the battlefield, while not having to worry about if the other SL saw it typed in team chat.

Now if only there was a phone attached to the rear of the Abrams or Bradley like the Patton tank had where a SL could talk to the tank commander (in this case the driver or the SL of the tank).

This new feature is awesome, the normal style of game play which we were all used to last week and in previous versions has drastically changed, and forces players to become team orientated. Those who don't, won't last, they will become bored very quickly and will leave. But then again this mod isn't for everyone.

[<1sk>Headshot]

APC and heli transport will turn into a complete admin s**tstorm.

[mat552]

APC and heli transport will turn into a complete admin s**tstorm.

I've actually seen more responsible drivers and pilots, now that they start to realize how much they are needed, as opposed to looked on as an annoyance.