No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[davemccr]

I still have not played this new version, but have been reading this thread with great attention, my computer shows up early next week so I'll be back on then... but.

Tactically, there are several problems with a lack of rally points. As I mentioned way earlier in this thread, it would seem as if infantry squads will be increasingly dependant on their other, more mobile counterparts what happens when all the transport is squandered. Another concern with this is, how difficult it is to establish FOB's that are truly forward. Would it be possible to have deployable mini FOB's with small footprints? Easier to place? Rally's could be placed anywhere, but FOB's have very limited placement options. I like the idea of being able to build based on a full 5-6 member squad regardless of crates. Once 5 - 6 members were within 10 - 25 yard radius, a firebase/spawn could be built. But, (not that I really like this suggestion) only outside of flag caps?

Assuming one can get a crate to a tactically "good" location, doesn't ensure that a base can be placed. I agree that having wave after wave of people attacking you even after you have eliminated the initial wave is irritating, but at the same time, it is a game, and sitting, waiting for a long time for an attack, or to attack, seems a whole lot less game like.

Ideally, all the people on a server are playing for the good of the team, but other than a rare few servers such as TG, that is a very rare occurrence.

How have the teams been shaping up lately? Are the rounds generally closer or more lopsided?

In the past, one or two good squads, with tactically placed rally's, were able to at least keep an otherwise weak team in the game. Thus, the loss of those squads ability to have influence over the flow of the game would appear to be neutered. Has this happened? Or are squads actually all working together for a common good?

See you all soon,
Dave

[llPANCHOll]

I agree that the Firebase footprint does not lend itself to being placed in Ideal locations..

What I would like to see for the future is when a new structure is made for PR that a Forward Outpost model of that building is also made.. this building would have sandbags in the windows and around the structure, basicly a fortified version of the building.

Similar to Vehicles and their "Wrecked" statics, when you deployed a firebase the building you were in.. it could be replaced witht he "Forward Outpost" static.

As much as I like the sound of my own idea, it has alot of drawbacks... every enterable building would have to have a "FO" version made.

This may not even be possible.. as it would probably require that every building also be destroyable for this to be implemented, and I know there is a problem with large numbers of destroyables in a map..

Just thinking out loud here.

[brettwad]

I stated earlier in this thread that I liked the deletion of RP's. I have played more and I like the deletion even more.
The folks who think tactically, are even more creative now. It seems as though the game play has improved quite a bit. You still have the blow outs and the uncoordinated team (which Skud and his squads seem to be stuck on more than not, LOL), but this is life and it happens. The FOB is a very strategic asset and is to be utilized in that way. I don't miss the RP's at all and if you have a team that is working together the FOB's are maintained. This also makes your box vehicles more important and the loss of a box vehicle or multiple box vehicles a little more cumbersome, hence your supply lines.
I am sure there are improvements to be made with assets and timing and all. But not having RP's have NOT ruined the game play and will likely not ruin the game play on any other server. Change is always hard to overcome and adapt too, some servers will be easier and some not but in the end change happens, I doubt that there will really be a lack of folks playing PR.
By testing this out the DEV's are really looking at improved game play and I think it has hit the mark.

[Skud]

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'.

Excellent post!

1. Teamwork was never absent here on TG. I don't understand how this enhances teamwork. Yes, you must rely more on your team, but that's a parasitic kind of relationship. Even more parasitic is 4 squads "working together" by todays standards is just a mass sharing of medics.

Teamwork is more than a large group of people using one spawn, effectively in the same area. If you all happen to move together you're just a large amoeba - and whenever someone goes down, there's already 4 medics getting their epipens out.

Is that really the direction we want to go?

2. So much of the map becomes unused now because it is pretty unsafe for a squad to move independently. And stop giving me the whole "well use tactics." Guess what? There are low-graphics users, terrain glitches, shadow glitches, sound/terrain problems with vehicles, etc. So now, the game seems to have become "build a bunch of FB's and huddle around them."

And after the team is done huddling/slaughtering the enemy wave, your wave starts, and you all move in a super-leet line formation holding down the trigger.

In the past, one or two good squads, with tactically placed rally's, were able to at least keep an otherwise weak team in the game. Thus, the loss of those squads ability to have influence over the flow of the game would appear to be neutered. Has this happened? Or are squads actually all working together for a common good?

See you all soon,
Dave

Squads that formerly were able to maneuver and win by guile seem to be forced to just KILL KILL KILL now. Not much sneaking onto a flag with squads, anymore, since you would have to walk, on your own, without a rally, and then make it to the flag.

Common good = Massive INF blob now.

If any of you have played Company of Heroes, you would know that the favorite US tactic is the RANGER BLOB. Anti-Tank and Anti-INF squads that also gain veteran and new weapons. They also have "buffs" and cannot be suppressed.

Pretty much what we have, on quite a few occasions, now.

[Startrekern]

I agree that the Firebase footprint does not lend itself to being placed in Ideal locations..

What I would like to see for the future is when a new structure is made for PR that a Forward Outpost model of that building is also made.. this building would have sandbags in the windows and around the structure, basicly a fortified version of the building.

Similar to Vehicles and their "Wrecked" statics, when you deployed a firebase the building you were in.. it could be replaced witht he "Forward Outpost" static.

As much as I like the sound of my own idea, it has alot of drawbacks... every enterable building would have to have a "FO" version made.

This may not even be possible.. as it would probably require that every building also be destroyable for this to be implemented, and I know there is a problem with large numbers of destroyables in a map..

Just thinking out loud here.

Unfortunately, this would be impossible as far as I can reason.. The statics that are actually in the map are placed by the mapper and unchangable. DYNAMIC statics can take damage to be destroyed but if you used that system to place FOBs that would mean any building that took damage would be a FOB and that just can't work right :P

Plus, there's a dynamic object limit.

[Ferris Bueller]

Skud makes some very good points, and one thing I'd like to point out to all the people who are repeatedly saying that this move promotes better teamwork:
Take a look at our scrim history.

Thats right, go back and read some strategies. Watch some videos. Read some AARs. We played TTP a bunch of times in an ultimate battle of tactical mastery and teamplay. We won...every time. We've scrimmed LOTS of other gaming communities and participated in PR tournaments. The overwhelming majority of the time, our teamwork and tactical play won. The interesting thing to note is that NONE of the strategies that we employed relied on a massive blob pushing the enemy back. They relied heavily on communications, coordinated attacks, intel gathering, key positioning and team responsiveness. We worked as a team and won as a team. I defy ANYONE to explain to me how we could have done better or demonstrated a higher degree of teamwork by removing RPs from the equation (which would have nullified our tactics to a large degree in many of those matches).

Teamwork hasnt ever been a problem around here. In fact, its what we pride ourselves on. Removing rally points doesnt necessarily enhance that, especially in this vestige of PR. This version of the game wasnt designed for this kind of change and we get to see the results on lots of maps. Take Korengal, for example. There is no doubt in my mind that korengal is the most beautifully designed map PR has ever seen. Korengal INTRODUCED things like underground tunnels, collapsible terrain, and to-date is the best mountain map in the game. Its a shame that it just doesnt work without rally points. Other maps dont have the necessary transport assets to get the job done effectively. Theres a wide variety of reasons for it. The fact that we've pseudo-adapted to it means nothing. We wont see a true test of what its like until we play it on maps specifically designed for the change.

I guess my point is that the "enhanced teamwork" argument is a bunch of hogwash. It simply boils down to a matter of preference. Do you prefer a team-coordinated multi-objective push to win a map, or do you prefer to duke it out 1776 style by lining up the troops and firing at each others front lines? All I have to say is that it's going to be very interesting for whomever takes the task of being the strategy planner for our next scrim.

[Namebot]

Are there no tactics to counter a large number of infantry moving together in a group? I imagine there should be some. What did you do before when there were rallies to stop the "blob"?

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Are there no tactics to counter a large number of infantry moving together in a group? I imagine there should be some. What did you do before when their were rallies to stop the "blob"?

I tended to stop, turn around and run the other way with my hands flailing up in the air, but then again I was very new and it happened on Dalian Plant and scared the bejesus out of me when I walked upon a blob of probably 2 squads.

[Ferris Bueller]

Are there no tactics to counter a large number of infantry moving together in a group? I imagine there should be some. What did you do before when there were rallies to stop the "blob"?

Generally, unless it was end-game and one team was down to their last flag and the entire team was assaulting a single final CP to end the round, there wasnt a blob. Maybe 2-3 squads at most moving into a point, which a single well organized squad could take care of until reinforcements arrived. But it wasnt a full team surge from flag to flag like it is now.

[zebra.actual]

I like no rallies.

[Namebot]

Generally, unless it was end-game and one team was down to their last flag and the entire team was assaulting a single final CP to end the round, there wasnt a blob. Maybe 2-3 squads at most moving into a point, which a single well organized squad could take care of until reinforcements arrived. But it wasnt a full team surge from flag to flag like it is now.

If we go back to having rallies is there anything stopping this same tactic from being used?

[Ferris Bueller]

No, but it probably wouldnt be, considering squads would have the mobility to utilize non-blob tactics. Of course, its always a possibility, just not a likely one.

[Portable.Cougar]

I feel so out of touch with the vocal majority on here.

[Ferris Bueller]

Thats just cause you're wierd cougar. When the question is "do you like the 'no RP' change or not?" and you answer "COOKIES!", you're going to feel a little out of place.

[sapientiea]

ok my 2 Cents;

Yesterday I played the no rally for the first time. I liked it, although I was slapped in the face with my 'old' tactics. Although I agree with the fact that this does not necessarily promote teamwork , it does contribute to less , lets call it "running into dead and respawn". It made me think twice to run or fly half the map and dying quick.

Other nice thing is that it makes the medic even more important.

It goes back to the time (for me) of Medal of Honor AA, where you spawned with your team and you had to wait if you died until that game was over.

So yes I like it!