No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[Berlancic]

3) Qwai will be even more of stalemate, unless they return the ability to repair bridges, with less ability to sustain assaults on the enemy's side of the river.
However, this could end up being quite fun since the team that controls the bridge(s) controls the offensive momentum of the round. I personally love fighting for strategic points that are not flags.

Bridges will be repairable in the upcoming update, I have heard. Well, not really repairable, but deployable possibly.

As for the No rally point, it sounds a challenge for some maps. There will be a much more heavier reliance on transport squads of any kind and since FOBs would be the only spawn point that could be deployed, nearly anywhere on the map, the rest of the team would be dependant on logistics squads.

I like how 1 crate can build an FOB but 2 are needed for assets.

Honestly, I actually cannot see what advantage the "No rally point" will bring. It seems to me people will just rush off an FOB, maybe more dependance on trans squads and logi squads, yes. I'm not saying the idea is stupid, I'm just wondering what it could solve.
And maybe the structure and teamwork will improve somehow, but I sure don't know how.

But you never really know until you try.

Since it's hard enough to get out of Korengal Main already, in some rounds, maybe we could rename Camp Murphy as Saigon.

[Ferris Bueller]

Honestly, I actually cannot see what advantage the "No rally point" will bring. It seems to me people will just rush off an FOB, maybe more dependance on trans squads and logi squads, yes.

QFT. Every single round I played today, this was the case. All anyone was doing with few exceptions was spawn, walk for 5 minutes, die, rinse, repeat. From what I've seen, the only thing that removing rally points has done is to add a 5 minute delay in between tard rushes, turning what could have been a 30 minute map into a 2+ hour map.

I was watching and listening to seasoned veterans getting bored and angry and quitting the entire time that I played today, which was from 3:30-8:00PM mountain time. Know how many maps we got through in that amount of time? less than three. I got on for the end of kozelsk. The russian team had 150 tickets when I jumped in. It took over an hour to end. The next map was qinling, and the british team got steamrolled by the chinese (we still had over 400 tickets when the bleed started) and it still took 45 minutes. Then jabal, which the US team won 8-0...after almost 3 hours. I said it before, but I feel like repeating myself again for emphasis: if I wanted to take 3 hours to play a single map and have to spend 99% of my time running across a map to get into combat, I'd go play ArmA.

[TMan]

Well, I'm certainly pleased. It really does slow down gameplay and makes a victory an actual victory. I was actually forced to pull my squad back from an attack after we had lost APC support and were down to three guys. Despite the fact that the enemy had beaten my squad in that instance, it was satisfying to retreat. The slower gameplay is definatley a plus.

I was watching and listening to seasoned veterans getting bored and angry and quitting the entire time that I played today, which was from 3:30-8:00PM mountain time. Know how many maps we got through in that amount of time? less than three. I got on for the end of kozelsk. The russian team had 150 tickets when I jumped in. It took over an hour to end. The next map was qinling, and the british team got steamrolled by the chinese (we still had over 400 tickets when the bleed started) and it still took 45 minutes. Then jabal, which the US team won 8-0...after almost 3 hours. I said it before, but I feel like repeating myself again for emphasis: if I wanted to take 3 hours to play a single map and have to spend 99% of my time running across a map to get into combat, I'd go play ArmA.

Not a comment of the mod, but the players. I totally agree that this changes the game into a more ARMAlike experience. That is a good thing for some, but it may put PR in more direct competition with ARMA without some of the more advanced features that ARMA brings since ARMA2 came out. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it appears from the play I have done with the beta test that it is a fact. That will cause some players to move on to other games, while attracting others to PR that haven't played it before.

I would also agree that some maps end after a massive, long and difficult fight for 3 hours while others end in a 300+ win within 30 minutes. There will have to be some rather large modifications to maps with the rule change on rallys.

[STealthBanana]

as it has been said last night's rounds were really intense and very long.
tbh I already got used to play without rallys, but that's probably just me

[Jeepo]

I am looking forward to trying this out. Seems like a large glorified version of C&C almost. Only harder without the ability to use good stealth tactics, get close then hit them. Hmmm, I do like C&C though, but it was extremely had to organise without a large number of good, experiences players.....I look forward to trying this soon.....

[Wicks]

Right I have held off releasing my alter ego Captain Kneejerk Reaction as long as I could. For me it's an interesting change but I can't honestly say its any better than the supposedly flawed RP system. I am trying to really explore the concept before making judgement and I am slightly concerned that there is an element of Emperor's new clothes about this change as usual.

Are the differences that marked as a concept, you spawn off an FOB that's been plonked down rather than an RP, that's been plonked down. Major difference, anyone can spawn of it, requires a crate, someone else has placed it.

In real terms thus far the rounds have gone on too long, longer than the maps actually merit or are interesting to play. I have had less action, merely hanging around the same area of the map for 2 hours. The rounds have been more frustrating, as SL I am increasingly reliant on other squads. Now it's not very teamwork orientated but there are days when I don't want to be reliant on other squads. If I have switched teams for example and I simply want to use my squad to put as much pressure on the other team as possible, I used to like the flexibility and fluidity of the RP system, and the inherent independance that gave me as an SL.

I have found that teams/squads are now afraid to try any interesting small unit tactics for fear of dying too far away from a firebase. Oh yes all very 'realistic' I hear you cry, 'Oh yes how not very interesting' you'll hear me shout back.

The firefights I have had so far have not been as varied as before, they have been more traditional as it were. Much more "they are over there", "where", "there by that firebase of course". "Right fix bayonets, form a line chaps and lets march towards them".

This is still a game, it's based on a very flawed engine that has has some magnificent mod work done to it.

If the Dev's want to try to introduce the boredom and sporadic pant wetting fear of combat I suppose this is the route to go down, however it is my personal opinion that the game has so many other problems, so many other issues that mark it out, rightly as a game, that I feel it's a shame they are attempting to simulate the less interesting aspects of realism.

Sadly I think the dye has been cast on this one. It is clear the DEV's have been wanting to do this for a long time from the forum's and the previous changes to the RP system. Whilst I haven't decided that I'm totally against it I am certainly leaning that way. I also think that it speaks to the blob formation fans, a valid tactical strategy that I will do on occasion but don't want to do every map. Sometimes I want to use my squad as an individual unit, whilst still being part of the team. Demonstrating teamwork by completing team/CO objectives as efficiently as possible, in a manner I deem appropriate.

I also think that bad players will ruin games more readily now without really doing anything wrong or breaking any rules. With an RP system I can operate semi independently carrying out my orders with a degree of self reliance. Now I have to spawn off an FOB that is usually identified fairly quickly by the enemy, can I do it quietly, no because half the team in 2 man LMG squads is now spawning there to get to the action or because its the only choice other than main.

From a personal standpoint, when I play PR seriously, not just on an average day I am interested in trying to perfect small unit Inf tactics. Flanking, weapons handling, counter psychology etc. I think this change means that we are going towards the big battle grind , which will get old quickly and the player number limit will not adequately allow, or allow to be realistic.

It also feels like a bad mix of ARMA and an RTS with logistics now. I have both ARMA titles and the Mods and I don't play either so that tells you something.

Last nights rounds were enjoyable but I reached a pojint in each round where I thought, "ok that's enough now, this is just boring and frustrating'. I quit on Jabal as I simply got frustrated and slightly fed up. It was not as enjoyable as a normal Friday night's games for me, what can I say that's the bottom line. It was not as interesting as Inf as the regualr version.

Personally, stop messing about with stuf like this for the sake of realism when you have hordes of 2 man requestable kit squads running around. Sort out the LMG spam in PR and make requestable 'support' kits require at least 4 in a squad maybe more, then worry about realism (sorry that's off topic but it speaks to the realism angle and is my single biggest gripe about the current version, too many overpowered Rambo lmg's on the server).

I personally don't feel this is anywhere near as tactical or as much of an improvement as people believe, it's just different.

[orpal]

I also think that bad players will ruin games more readily now without really doing anything wrong or breaking any rules. With an RP system I can operate semi independently carrying out my orders with a degree of self reliance. Now I have to spawn off an FOB that is usually identified fairly quickly by the enemy, can I do it quietly, no because half the team in 2 man LMG squads is now spawning there to get to the action or because its the only choice other than main.

Can't agree more on the bold part of the quote. Sure it's it's a good thing trying to enforce teamwork, but it has it's limits.
''team working together''- it sounds good, but if FB is taken down by some reason, not only one squad is set back, but the whole team is pushed back. Sometimes I just don't want to stay on the FB and defend it, and I know if I'm not on the server late at night (No disrespect to Euros,we're great ), no one will. Making my only spawnpoint vulnerable if I don't defend it, thus preventing me to attack.
Teams need to be well organized in order to do a simple flanking maneuver, or to attack. So highly respectable players who know their way in PR usually like the idea because they know how to organize teams well. For us average joes, this is a bit harder and I lost my cool several times this week trying to get my team to work together towards same objective. Fact is people won't accommodate to to this kind of gameplay in near future, at least low end players won't.

Idea is great, just tell them (me) how it should be played and we'll (I'll) do it.
I'm pretty sure once most players get a hang of it it will make PR a far better place.

[TMan]

Don't worry, you don't have to lead the charge alone. I agree with you almost totally after several days of play.

Are the differences that marked as a concept, you spawn off an FOB that's been plonked down rather than an RP, that's been plonked down. Major difference, anyone can spawn of it, requires a crate, someone else has placed it.

Agreed. I very much dislike having my independent movement restricted by someone elses firebase placement. The desert / open maps are the worst.

The rounds have been more frustrating, as SL I am increasingly reliant on other squads. Now it's not very teamwork orientated but there are days when I don't want to be reliant on other squads. ...I used to like the flexibility and fluidity of the RP system, and the inherent independance that gave me as an SL.

Independence has been lost to the new system without additional changes that require a commander or some type of in game leadership capability to replace the current commander system. SL kits have lost almost all value, other than to place the FB and to have pretty colored smoke and a pistol. I usually dump the kit now once the FB situation is in place, opting for a rope or a machine gun.

This is still a game, it's based on a very flawed engine that has has some magnificent mod work done to it.

Agreed totally. Any attempt to make this more ArmA like without all of the cool ArmA capabilities will fall short, not due to the DEVs abilities (you guys are AWESOME!) but due to limitations in the BF2 engine.

I also think that it speaks to the blob formation fans, a valid tactical strategy that I will do on occasion but don't want to do every map. Sometimes I want to use my squad as an individual unit, whilst still being part of the team. Demonstrating teamwork by completing team/CO objectives as efficiently as possible, in a manner I deem appropriate.

Totally agreed. I like PR because I can lead a group of players on a mission of my choosing, where and how I want to as an SL. Lack of RP makes that way more dangerous and less likely to succeed, and I find myself walking alot from the main. I have often thought, "if I only had a rally point". Perhaps making the SL only have 2 rallys per life could be a better solution?

With an RP system I can operate semi independently carrying out my orders with a degree of self reliance. Now I have to spawn off an FOB that is usually identified fairly quickly by the enemy, can I do it quietly, no because half the team in 2 man LMG squads is now spawning there to get to the action or because its the only choice other than main.

I also think it is either luck or "who you know" as to who gets crates. You are also spawning in the same place, over and over. That creates stagnation in the game play.

It was not as interesting as Inf as the regualr version.

Agreed. I think that is why I see less pure infantry squads - if that was even possible :-)

Great comments.

[Skud]

After giving it a fair shake, I can't say it's a move I agree with.

The playerbase is not ready. You always see the DEV's saying that "players are hardcoded." Well, yes, we are. Yeah, there are some really cheap tactics and snide things can be said about some players "tactical" play, but at the end of the day the PR playerbase is one of, if not, the best out there... Generally Speaking.

The players are hardcoded because they work for a living. Because they have families. Because they have a few hours a week, sometimes, to play their favorite game. At the end of the day, this was meant to be a realism mod, not a simulator. Most of us played BF2 because, well, it was the bomb. Then we wanted something more, so most of us found PR. And well, it's the bomb. And those who wanted even more may have moved on to some simulators - because that's the bomb for them.

But unfortunately, not everyone has 2-3 hours for one map.
Not everyone wants to spend 30 minutes getting "organized" (Usually results in an INF BLOB) just to get blown up and wait another 20 minutes to do it all over again. If I have limited play time, which would I rather be doing - actively playing PR or just discussing tactics before imminent death?
Not everyone wants a simulator - the PR playerbase seems pretty comfortable being a realism game with focus on tactics - not a simulator.

Now...

+ I think INS works better without rallies.
+ I think SOME maps could have rallies disabled - some maps really do well with the gameplay...SOME maps.

[Alpha_s9]

I have found that teams/squads are now afraid to try any interesting small unit tactics for fear of dying too far away from a firebase. Oh yes all very 'realistic' I hear you cry, 'Oh yes how not very interesting' you'll hear me shout back.

Logical and I ran a two man squad the other day... sniper and AR. We immediately went around the enemy with an extreme flank and ended up well behind enemy lines. Yeah, this is pretty far from the firebases but it's not bad if you don't die. :P

Anyway we ended up something like 35-2 as a squad and took town about 2 or 3 rear firebases. Now this could be considered team oriented or not, but at any point if our team had managed to take down the FOB we were behind it would have meant a major breach in enemy lines, putting them on the defensive.

I mention this because like you said, sometimes you don't want to run a full squad or a squad that has it's every action hinge on the rest of the team. It IS still relying on the rest of the team however, because they now determine where your targets are mostly holding up.

This also brings up something interesting I thought about while behind the enemy line on fool's road last night. Our small three man team managed to identify 2 enemy FOBs during our hike through the woods. Our first instinct was to take them out, and we did.

However, with that intel there is another option. If your commander knows where the FOBs are, you also know where the enemy is going to come from. Taking out an FOB you just identified might not be the best option for your team because as of now a FOB can guarantee that there are no OTHER spawn points for 300 meters. And please people... burn the crates, guard the dead FOB until it disappears... not the other way around. Otherwise you'll be sitting around staring at a crate for a very long time.

If your team wants to make a push and there are more than one firebases in your way, taking them down at approximately the same time seems like a better strategy.

I hate to keep posting so much in this thread, but it spawns so many new experiences that we could have a whole separate thread on tactic changes, logistics, firebase placement, medics, lack of medics, teamstacking, and anything else you could think of.

[Sabre_Tooth_Tigger]

Agreed. I very much dislike having my independent movement restricted by someone elses firebase placement.

I'd like the radius fb can be placed at to be reduced, maybe all the way to zero. But the restriction on the deployables be kept the same or similar.
5 fb would be enough for every squad to decide where its best to place one

If that was done I guess it makes them much more similar to rp except commander can control these fb and even delete them if say a random squad places one by the enemy main base when its out of play as sometimes happens with fb or rp

And please people... burn the crates, guard the dead FOB until it disappears... not the other way around. Otherwise you'll be sitting around staring at a crate for a very long time.

We had that last night on ramiel. Every time we lost the fb, we kept the crates and just rebuilt it on the exact same spot and unfortunately thats a massive mistake as they just swarmed the spot continually reducing our tickets.

If the 5 fb are continually rotated in their usage it'd work much better however that requires a massive increase in logistics compared to most pub games.
Thats why korengal is worse effected, its supply route is throttled very easily and it starves the team.

On kashan last night we very nearly lost the game from a dominant position mostly from losing the firebases.
It looked like it was very much a loss of fb first then the flags and I think while losing the flags we still had the firepower upperhand from an attack heli so the game reversal was all about the logistics as far as I can tell.

Its a big change in emphasis, I quite like it but its not pr as we knew it and pubbers will need new tactics. If the fb exclusion radius were reduced, it would be more pub friendly I think

SL kits have lost almost all value,

The laser is very useful and I like it for the 3 patches on insurgency especially.
Maybe this is a move to much bigger maps, I think the fb thing makes more sense then. If ming and ejod are gone it might not make sense fully till next version every squad must have apc support for transport and the smaller maps that remain are mostly skirmish type with a couple permanent spawn points

Might be best to test this on the tournament teams also to see if it works better

[Skud]

Logical and I ran a two man squad the other day... sniper and AR.

2 man AR teams should be addressed before rallies.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

One man's loss of freedom is another man's coordination and being forced to work with your team.

I'm not buying into the whole "loss of freedom" stuff at all. I SL all the time and 95% of that is spent as an infantry SL. Not once during this test have I ever been upset about the inability to spawn a rally point out. Instead, I've focused on how to best position my squad, keeping them together and alive, working with my team to achieve an objective. I've spent several rounds of this new beta without dying once, either as a SM or SL. Isn't that the point? You are to value your life, immerse yourself in the game and play it realistically? Isn't that part of our primer? I thought it was.

While it is true that you are somewhat restricted by what your teammates do or don't do as far as building FOBs go, that is part of the whole "teamwork" thing. It's like football: If you do your job and you trust your teammates to do their jobs, you watch each others' backs and work hard, you will be successful. I still enjoy the autonomy that the game provides me as a SL, but I enjoy that within the framework of the team. If the arguments against not having RPs are simply because you can't spawn where you want then I really feel that the big picture is being missed. It isn't just about you and your squad, but instead it is about how you and your squad fit in with the other squads on your team trying to achieve your goals.

As far as the length of the games go, I have to agree. I just got done with an almost 3 hour Qwai slugfest that was a heck of a lot of fun, but I've got blisters on my ass for sitting so long. I feel drained. But it's a good kind of drained, you know what I mean? I really feel like we accomplished something during that match. Would it have been over quicker with rallies? Yeah, it would have. Why? Because endless wave after wave of infantry would have assaulted and eventually overran the US position near processing facility from spawning on their bags. Instead, the river posed a real barrier to both teams and was a major obstacle to be overcome - kind of like the real thing. Both teams worked very hard to control the river and access across it, and both teams launched assaults on each other that ended up being stopped because of logistical issues - kind of like the real deal. It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but this round has been contrasted just as often with complete blow-outs where teams are capped out without either team losing more than 30 or 40 lives in the process. It's all about maneuverability and logistics. Also, changes to the assets on each map would obviously have to be made to give this change a fair shake. If anything is not "fair" about this test it is that the game play dynamics have been altered in an imbalanced way and the proper assets are not in place to conduct a fair evaluation of the new spawn system.

[Googol]

It's like football: If you do your job and you trust your teammates to do their jobs, you watch each others' backs and work hard, you will be successful.

This is the problem with your argument. Many (if not most) SLs don't have the luxury of trusting their team-mates in an average game of PR.

[Wicks]

[QUOTE=WDT_Alpha_s9;1389171]Logical and I ran a two man squad the other day... sniper and AR. We immediately went around the enemy with an extreme flank and ended up well behind enemy lines. Yeah, this is pretty far from the firebases but it's not bad if you don't die. :P

This is precisely the sort of thing I was not referring to, I was referring to small unit inf tactics, i.e. single 6 man squad tactics as opposed to platoon/blob formations, not lone wolf stuff I would like to see the game prevent.