No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[Taip3n]

To the first, there was a map that had airborn british forces landing waay back. Called Airport.

Ahh the memories of sitting there with my clapperboard giving scores to newcomers and welcoming them to PR, on that map

<sniff>

It was so beautiful.

\o/ on airborn! Has anyone found the flap key yet?

[Gore]

I think this works pretty much like it should, keeping the team together. Though I'm still believing that if this is implemented on a regular "just play" server, it would bring it down sooner or later.

Ahh the memories of sitting there with my clapperboard giving scores to newcomers and welcoming them to PR, on that map

<sniff>

It was so beautiful.

\o/ on airborn! Has anyone found the flap key yet?

I think the German community faction are making an airborne assault map.

[Skud]

The argument I keep seeing is the following: The team with the better teamwork should always win.

[Hypothetical, but similar things have already happened]

Ok. So Skud's on team full of invalids - but he has a good squad, who's working well together and has gone 30-0 so far. Well the invalids go belly up at the flag they were defending, and they lose a FB right under their noses (2 leet dudes knife it, incendiary it, and incindiary the crates [bye bye firebase]) The team had 15 friendlies within 30m of the FB, and even had 2 guys within 10m talking on mumble, face to face (because they're immersed, you know?) So the flag starts getting overrun, but unfortunately, one of skud's squad members is killed and cannot be revived in some manner. Meanwhile, the team is screaming "CRATES CRATES CRATES?!?!!?!?!?" Some guy, a good guy, decides to go and get the crates. He gets a truck from main and starts driving towards the former FB location. The team is dropping like flies. Skud's guy has no spawn, and he was medic. He was an awesome medic, too. A real team player. That guy who was driving from main get's tailed by a TOW Right outside of main. Kinda borderline, but whatever. Well, now we have no crates. The team starts dying off. Skud's guy is left with no spawn.

The other team was obviously superior because they got rid of the spawn, outsmarted people with 83 IQ's, and was able to lock down the transport trucks. Wow, that must be the greatest team on the planet. Skud's left with no spawn, and ultimately withers away.

So skud's perfectly good, communicating, disciplined squad is neutered because he just happened to be on the same team with MATT DAMON DUUURRRRS.

Cmmon. Anybody? Anybody?!

Whatever, Skud's in the primary anyway.

[Startrekern]

The argument I keep seeing is the following: The team with the better teamwork should always win.

Ok. So Skud's on team full of invalids - but he has a good squad, who's working well together and has gone 30-0 so far. Well the invalids go belly up at the flag they were defending, and they lose a FB right under their noses (2 leet dudes knife it, incendiary it, and incindiary the crates [bye bye firebase]) The team had 15 friendlies within 30m of the FB, and even had 2 guys within 10m talking on mumble, face to face (because they're immersed, you know?) So the flag starts getting overrun, but unfortunately, one of skud's squad members is killed and cannot be revived in some manner. Meanwhile, the team is screaming "CRATES CRATES CRATES?!?!!?!?!?" Some guy, a good guy, decides to go and get the crates. He gets a truck from main and starts driving towards the former FB location. The team is dropping like flies. Skud's guy has no spawn, and he was medic. He was an awesome medic, too. A real team player. That guy who was driving from main get's tailed by a TOW Right outside of main. Kinda borderline, but whatever. Well, now we have no crates. The team starts dying off. Skud's guy is left with no spawn.

The other team was obviously superior because they got rid of the spawn, outsmarted people with 83 IQ's, and was able to lock down the transport trucks. Wow, that must be the greatest team on the planet. Skud's left with no spawn, and ultimately withers away.

So skud's perfectly good, communicating, disciplined squad is neutered because he just happened to be on the same team with MATT DAMON DUUURRRRS.

Cmmon.

Then your team should have changed it's tactics. Multiple firebases in an area, a fallback firebase, backup crates squirreled away to build a new one if necessary.

Block off routes for the TOW humvee to travel, mine the landbridge, have a squad defending it.

[Skud]

But in the end, Skud's great squad is penalized for being on the same team as MATT DAMON DURRRR

I know it's selfish. But seriously!

[snooggums]

But in the end, Skud's great squad is penalized for being on the same team as MATT DAMON DURRRR

I know it's selfish. But seriously!

Yes, losing because of teammates is part of a team game.

In baseball someone dropping a ball can cost a game. In football a fumble can lose a game. In Futball (soccer) a slip by a goalie can lose a game. In Hockey there's an example but I don't know how brawls affect scores

Anyway, yeah, losing because of someone else is part of the game. I screwed up the other night on OGT by deleting a poorly placed firebase to build a new one at an inopportune time and lost the game, it was entirely my fault. Last night on Fool's Road my squad transported the infantry squads after capping a flag with a single APC and another squad's tank, then held off defenders while another squad took Hilltop, then we worked together to arty the Chech main and rush it without much intersquad chatter other than enemy site reps (we only had a comm for the arty strike) because everyone just knew where they needed to be and worked very well as a team.

So yeah, one mistake can cost a game and good teamwork should win every time. Losing as an insurgent to a lucky artillery barrage that kills three spawning caches when your team has been working very well as a team is frustrating. The spawn change both rewards teamwork and punishes the lone effective squad, but a single effective squad should not be able to win on their own anyway...

[Taip3n]

I think Skud has an excellent point (probably because I agree with him and wrote about it earlier). I am cautious as to the 'house of cards effect' firebases and no other spawn has to the game. If a firebase goes down, there is a general collapse of that team, with no real ability to reply. This leads to that team moving to the next firebase defendable - not necessarily the flag that is next and its firebase as that may already be under strong attack and about to go down.

This 'collapse' of the team can be very swift. If no rallies are to continue (and I agree with those that believe it is already certain it will be implemented, no matter, as the only thing stopping it was if it was one huge ugly mess, which it is not), then some sort of ability to place firebases in closer proximity or a higher number may be the only viable option, as I understand say what Star just said above, but I am unsure the current system works for this. I enjoy the fighting and moving without rallies but to me, this 'house of cards effect' is a huge problem for PR which must be resolved. I know we have spoken about it before in the thread. What then, would be good dynamics if FB placement? How long to dig? Strength (is one incendary enough)? Crates? Overun area?Number of people required to overrun? I am therefore at a loss as to what may be a good solution but I am hoping you guys have the answer. I am certain though, that the no rally system will be implemented. I am also certain that these sort of firebase questions in order for game dynamics to be inclusive - as a house of cards effect is exclusive to gameplay at the moment, it does produce massive collapse and A to B gameplay which is extremely detrimental to the game - must be top of the list, and perhaps require a second beta test with these thought out changes in place and tested.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

So, the whole reason to keep rally points is because we can't rely on our teammates? No one is capable of doing anything reasonably right at all on our teams except for the 6 players in our squads?

What is so wrong with relying on your teammates? Snoogums raises excellent points in his post, and, although I'm not in the military I would have to believe that you rely on your teammates in the military to accomplish goals as well, right? Why is it that we need to have little 6-man armies running around who are independent of one another? Beyond that, what has changed with this test other than the fact that you cannot spawn on a rally point? Don't we still use the same coordination and teamwork that we've used on TG before? Why does it seem that TG members are now arguing against teamwork and coordination? It's insane! Madness!

I would think that this change would have been an easy adoption for us here because of how we've always played. Maybe it has been. I just am completely confused about the arguments against the change being that it makes squad A depend on squad B or squad C, or heaven forbid a commander to be successful. Well, isn't that what a teamwork orientated game is supposed to do? Of course the team with better coordination should be rewarded with victory!

Let's take a different approach: Why should the squad that is defending a point be punished for holding that point? After all, we all know the attackers have the advantage for several reasons:

1) Their spawn point is far enough away so as not to be over-run by the defenders but certainly close enough that they can easily get back to the fight.
2) The attackers will undoubtedly over-run the defenders spawn points (rally or FOB) on their first wave, and most likely will spend some time hunting the defenders rally before attacking to ensure the advantage.
3) The defenders have little or no time to med the fallen because they are under constant pressure from the zombie horde rushing their position. The attackers can probably med because the defenders are hunkered down under cover, awaiting the next wave.

Let's not forget about the wonderful tactic of forward flag rushing to prevent a team from advancing the flag cycle. For instance, Jabal, with it's fixed flags, is a wonderful map for either team to put troops into position on the enemy's first or second flag in the cycle to prevent them from capping and gaining a decided advantage. This is a heck of a lot easier to do with the RP, but a hell of a lot harder with the current system.

I could go on, but we've all been there, done that, right? AAS maps are always a rush against time to get the next flag neutral before your defenders are overwhelmed at their flag. I think it is a lot better without rally points. The "gamier" elements of PR have been neutralized somewhat and it makes for a better game that rewards either team for executing tactics in attack or defense of their objectives.

[Wicks]

Dispo I agree with many of your points, what I don't subscribe to is that no RP's equals immediate teamwork nor does it necessarily reward teamwork per se. I think that point of view is simplistic. Is it realistic or tactical to take a truck and vehicle charge with one willing shovel to one corner of the map behind enemy lines, drop a FB and have that one guy shovel it while the SL watches and then have the whole team spawn in. Now I realise this could be done under the old system it's just then it was less likely as squads had the alternative of rolling RP's, as waypoints of a sort, and could make there own way to the front. Why bother spawning at main at all, can't we all just wait for the first FOB now as we know for damn sure that some poor person will set one up.

Teamwork is perfectly possible with RP's, or have we had no Teamwork on this server up to this glorious change.

I do agree this is possibly one of the best places to test this out and maybe there are some fantastic rounds being played, but the results are far from conclusive yet and I have seen enough of the same old nonsense on the server in the past few days to lead me to believe it hasn't magically injected some of our visitors with Uber Teamwork Nanobots.

[snooggums]

I don't think dispo is saying that no rallies = teamwork, I read his comments as 'we already have intersquad teamwork so changing to a system that requires intersquad teamwork to spawn should be easy'.

I agree, removing APC spawns didn't ruin the teamwork. Removing SL spawn didn't cause a squad to get separated as players still had to walk from the rally. Making htem spawn at a FOB is just the next step in slowing the spawn close and tard rush mentality.

Let's take Mestia for example (I'll be sad to see that map go):

At one point the SL could have hunkered down in the saferoom of the towers while the other team assaulted (I don't recall if the map was that old or if rallies could be placed inside and not overrun). Players would spawn on the SL and the attackers often were denied that foothold to stop the bleed because of magically spawning waves of defenders. The change to rallies that could be overrun made the defending players spawn a short distance away and then have to trickle in, allowing the attackers a chance to actually push them off and capture the flag. All this change does is make it one step further: The defenders have to have a single point of reinforcement near the objective, and the enemy can overwhelm them and not have to overwhelm the reinforcements too if they knock out the one FOB instead of 3 hidden rallies.

Yes, some maps fail utterly with the simple change and no adjustments, the Devs are fully aware of this. They even changed the crate requirements and may change the requirements again (please make it 6 players within 25m to build a FOB and crates for extras, please!) and may even change the overrun requirements to make the FOBs a little more solid. But the change in how soldiers approach the battlefield should not favor one side over the other just because they can spawn and rush faster. When the two sides meet the victor should be determined by whether the assaulting side or defending side did their job better. This change does take the game closer to that goal.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

I don't think I'm necessarily saying that no rps = teamwork. I do believe that no rp = you'd better have teamwork to succeed.

Yes, we did have teamwork with rps. I'd like to think we have better teamwork now because there aren't rps to fall back on and we're more dependent on one another.

Also, I'm not 100% sold on this change, especially on insurgency. But I do see some promise in the change and the fact that the community seems to have adapted to it rather nicely.

Lastly - realism in rushing behind lines to drop a FOB is the same as realism in rushing behind enemy lines and dropping a rally. Heck, there were plenty of times on maps like Qwai where the US or the PLA would rush the other side of the river to drop a FOB before this change - it's not like it's a new tactic, it's just emphasized more because of the lack of rps.

[Wicks]

Ok that's a good comeback.

[browna3]

having only played for about 2 hours with this new system. (slowly starting to play more PR)
I like the idea behind it, but like most people have already said it doesn't work on all maps. especialy insurgency.

However one good thing to come out of this, is that the TG PR server has been given some great publicity from the PR devs by them giving this opportunity to us.

[Skud]

As long as they rework FB logic or RP logic, I could care less. I was just pointing out that it's just not working right now

[Taip3n]

Indeed. We have simply been tasked to test the no rally point system. We all know the pro's. However this must be balanced against the cons. Although we are not tasked to do so, we must also conclude how the public, not TG style will apeal to it, and what tweaks can be applied to ensure the game is not disjointed. We here can sure up the teamwork to iron out the changes in gameplay, and act accordingly to threats and counterthreats. We're doing it already for a week.

What I am not afraid of is not having rallies. In fact, I enjoy it more. However, a dynamic which people like myself Skud, Wicks and TMAN have said is that 'fluidity' can be disjointed. Although we may seem to be arguing for rallies, or less teamwork, we are not – we already know that we are not bothered by the first in the slightest in our own performance and all for the second. However it is not our performance that is at issue – it is the game’s.

It seems to me the removal of rallies is not an elixir per se; even if it has made the game enjoyable on so many more levels. Removing the rallies to me is not the point of the matter. The point of the matter is game quality. My brief is to test the game at all levels. So far, one major point of review is what I choose to term ‘the house of cards effect’. I am not saying it is not circumnavigable, nor an issue for me per se in game. It is, I guess, what the DEVS want with the game direction. I am sure they are judging the reports from all three servers. I believe many servers will stay afloat and TG will be the best team in PR if it goes down the rout we are taking now. I look to my peers and know we are the best at this game as a team. I am looking forward to the skrim you Admins are setting up already! If PR is to go down this rout then I will liken it to my original posts in this thread – like a chess game. And now, like chess, you have many levels or proficiency from (excluding noobs/ragers and all that) novice to grandmaster. I like it a lot because of this level PR has reached and my affinity has become stronger because of it.

What I can see though, is a devolvement of the sinew and tendons of the game as it stands. It seems bleaker in its body and identity. What people are saying about rallies, to me, is that rallies served as this. My worry, is what I have identified as ‘the house of cards effect’, it is like the skeleton of a body disappearing all of a sudden. The sack just collapses to the ground. This brittleness was enforced with the skeleton, sinew and muscle of the rally point, the body operated, now these are gone what is left is brittle bones, all stressed because they take the load – until they collapse themselves. These brittle bones are the firebases and I agree they need a change in dynamics. I would agree with Snoog + Skud (what they talk about just up) a first port of call then is the kind of specs they suggest in order to evolve and counter this loss of sinew.

It is as such, if there are to be no rallies – then what replaces the sinew? I can hear the answer ‘teamwork’ being yelled back, but to me and I believe others, this is a non-argument. We are not talking about this and have to agree that teamwork based replies do not answer our concern. The argument therefore becomes circular – especially because we agree with you on teamwork – but this is not our point.

Star said a good method of how to deal with this in a teamwork aspect. I would and do readily adhere to his suggested methods. Yes we have discovered chess, it’s called PR. Now, like Chess that went through an evolution, what is the best method to get the pieces on the board working properly? I believe even the Knight was relatively recently in time changed in its style of moving, as was the Queen herself. So we are not talking pro-rallies – we are talking about the sinews of the game. No rallies and Firebase reliance is quintessential to this move forward, and I think it’s a great step forward. But it must be a measured pace – we have not met the nirvana of PR Chess, not in the least – we have identified a huge gap that has opened and are stating this must be reviewed for the state of the game and its evolution into the best online shooter game, on a par with chess even: that’s why we love it, that’s why we’re all here. It is then aspects around firebases and crates are a must to keep the sinew of the game in piece because as it stands the sinew is gone.

Edit: just like to add I agree with what Snoog said, and his point 'This change does take the game closer to that goal'.