No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[Jeepo]

Played for the first time yesterday. I can understand both sides and want to play more. However, from what I have seen, I am in favour so far, but only just. It is harder. I died more (typical) and I can no longer go on my little forraging trips to kill RPS BUT it is more hardcore on a squad level, you and the other 5 guys MUST use tacticas to win your engagement or you get punished. That is what I think the devs aimed for. Now on maps like fallujah it MAY turn into a spam spawn scenario when blufor start dieing, and all spawning on the same FB, but so far I like it......need more time though.....

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

So, do we like the change or see potential in it or not?

Debating philosophies with each other is just a big circle jerk at this point and I think half of it is people reading into other comments what they want to see and not what is really being said, and I see it's going nowhere.

Taking my own advice, here are some brief AARs from last night to contrast no RP with RP play:

Barracuda - PLA

We deployed east of North Rock to cover Rudd's squad on their east flank (Rudd was at North Rock, Cougar on South Rock). I had my squad spawn at the beach while I brought a truck to them to build a FOB. We managed to do this with success. While I was returning to the squad with the truck, the US team landed in the old Supplies flag (to set up the entirely routine ambush point in the S curve on the road) and constructed a FO. We moved on this position to take out the FO and hopefully stop the ambush. In the meantime the US CAS was devastating Cougar and Rudd, so we could do nothing to assist them with that problem.

We moved to Supplies without being detected and set up observation to try to find the FO before attacking. Unfortunately there was a blue guy there who decided to run around us and got us spotted. We lose the first engagement.

No RP: We are forced to spawn back on our FO that we constructed previously and hike it back to Supplies.

With RP: We respawn on our RP that would have been placed about half way to the objective.

Net Result: About 3 minutes less walking.

On our second approach, I order one of my squad members to bring a rope because this time we're going to use the tunnels. We manage to move to the tunnel entrance undetected, thanks to the persistent buzz of the US SAW far above us to cover the noise of the grappling hook. We get into the tunnels, secure a location and send one squad member on a scouting mission through the tunnels to find the enemy FO. Eventually we find it, take it out and kill one or two stragglers from the US team still near their FO.

No RP: Successful mission. Objective accomplished and no more US presence because they can't spawn there any more.

With RP: Successful mission, but I would have put one in the cave entrance so we could stay close to the action this time. We probably would have had to go rally hunting to completely wipe out the US presence in the area and would have spent the next 15 minutes in sporadic contact.

Shortly after this point, both of our Rock flags fall into enemy control and we decide to consolidate our defenses at Bridge flag. The flag is ringed with FOs and AA positions to defend this part of the map from the harassment of US CAS. My squad was to hold the docks, Rudd was on the bridge and Cougar was somewhere in there. Eventually things ground to a halt and over the half the server wanted the next map. The round ended in a draw as both sides had the same number of tickets.

No RP: No much different than what we would have done with RPs. We collapsed our defenses onto Bridge, which is a very defensible point. Blob? Nope, no different than how the PLA have played defense on this map since it's release. I can't speak for the US side as I wasn't privy to their plans or if they formed a blue mass or not.

With RP: See above.


Muttrah - US

Arranged transportation for my squad into North City to hold off the MEC team while the rest of our team made it into Docks to build and secure that flag. This worked really well, as we were able to actually capture the North City flag and get a couple of squads into North City to assist us. We were eventually overrun as the MEC team found our location and swarmed us, disabling the spawn on the FO and surrounding our building. It was just a matter of time through attrition (and lack of any APC support from our team) that we would lose our hold on North City.

No RP: Kind of hosed. Despite having a full squad right next to the FO, the enemy disabled it by being across the street from us, making our defeat inevitable. Lesson learned: Don't be a dope and sit right on top of your FO!!! I know better than this, but I did it anyway. Grrrrrr!!!

With RP: Who cares if we lose our FO?!? We've got a RP stashed several blocks away, so we'll just respawn and move to a different area, still in the cap radius. Until the enemy stumbles onto our pile of bags, we're still holding North City and that gives our teammates a chance to keep moving south to take away other parts of the city. Things are much more fluid and random like this, and I really like better - the unorganized/organized assault and capture of a large metropolitan area.

We're forced to respawn on the carrier because we have no FO on docks. Why? Because as we were flying in on our initial assault we flew over a MEC truck heading to the docks to forward deploy the standard FO/AA combination to shoot down all of our choppers. Predictable. Anyway, I digress. We make it to the warehouse area and deploy our FO. I drop every wire in my arsenal to try to seal off the area from the silent BTRs but run out. Not to worry! I put my squad in a great position to defend the flag from, but the damn server crashes before we try valiantly to stem the great MEC tide that is surely surging our way!

No RP: We would have eventually died at the warehouses because, once again, our FO would have been neutralized before we fired a shot in defense. The game was probably soon to being over for the US. Again, we had no communication with the APCs and we never even had one in the fight. Not a good round at all.

With RP: Well, with RPs the US team is most likely never pushed off the city at all, as there is always a straggler squad left behind to take back North City. Surely with RPs we never would have lost North City in the first place, and APC support wouldn't have been the issue it was last night as we could have went into stealth mode and snuck around the flag control area without being detected.


So, I guess PR either wants to be a modern, "realistic" war game or it wants you to be ninjas.

[mat552]

New observational data: Rounds are either really good, or really bad now. I cannot say I've played any rounds that are simply meh now. (With the new system)

Anyone support/deny this?

[chrisweb89]

The one thing that is slightly annoying for me is the round length. Don't get me wrong I like the occasional 3 hour round and the constant 1 and a half hour to 2 hour round, but with the new system it seams like everymap lats 3 hours and I want to play more than 1 map everynight. I know that the no rallies slows gameplay like it should and makes people think more but sometimes its just too slow and the two teams sit on their FOBs with noone pushing out because they don't have a backup spawn.

I'm still not sure which system I like more, but there are ups and downs for both when it comes to gameplay and realism.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Since the new system is essentially CnC with AAS mixed in, perhaps the new CnC is this system - without rallies - and standard AAS continues with rallies or some modified type of rallies? I've come to the conclusion that insurgency just doesn't work without rally points though.

[Ferris Bueller]

I would think that would be the best mix dispo. As several people have pointed out, the current map system just isnt designed for this kind of thing.

Now, I think there is a happy medium to be found in that regard:
Some maps/map layers have rally points, others dont. A few examples:
Maps that need RPs:
Korengal (no realistic FOB placements, map is suited to small squad "seek and destroy" tactics)
Fallujah (small squad tactics are far more realistic)
Qinling (map is just TOO big, has too many assets that can slaughter inf from range and a huge ticket count that necessitates smaller infantry formations to be able to move with some impunity)
Maps that dont need RPs:
Jabal (large map with good FOB locations for both sides, no severe running distances)
Qwai (same as jabal)
Muttrah (tossup really, works either way and I've seen balanced matches with and without them)
Layer differences:
Kashan:
32/64 needs RPs. The rationale is that there are multiple flags on one of the largest maps in the game, along with assets that can easily neutralize infantry from extremely long range. Terrain is WIDE open and crossing any stretch of ground means being completely exposed for long periods of time. Simply makes for a long and boring game of spawn-run-die-repeat for anyone not in a tank/chopper/jet/apc.
16 does not need RPs. infantry and transport only and only one flag complex to assault. a no-RP scenario is completely viable.

Now, I know this kind of thing means more work for the devs, but hey, if they can overhaul AAS and come up with completely new game modes, I figure the ability to code rally points on map or layer dependency shouldnt be any big challenge. Now, if fuzzhead or some nice dev who reads our forums can give me a list of the maps that are staying in .9 and those that arent (i.e. i know that a lot of the "classic" maps like kyongan ni and ejod are going bye bye, but dont have the full spec), I could write up a full list of what I think would be RP/Non-RP appropriate maps and layers.

[Alpha_s9]

So, do we like the change or see potential in it or not?

Love it... but it's gonna take some work on both the players' parts (tactics and strategy) and some reworking of the maps to fix some balance issues that have jumped out with this change.

So I guess that's a "see potential", even though I already love the fact that there are no more rallies hiding around behind enemy lines applying constant pressure to any defense (and not to mention pulling valuable resources from the main fights and pouring them into obscure locations).

[Golgo13]

What I do like about no RP, most players value their life more, it isnt just one or 2 squads avoiding costly rushs anymore, but most players, no longer am I left behind by squadmades, as they run through the city and only look for cover when they are getting shot at.
Medics care a lot more about reviving blue guys as well, which is still tough on them, seen as there is no way to tell a corpse from wounded.
Also the squads are less dispersed.

What I do not like about it: Rally points and the many tickets helped simulate the fact that hundreds of soldiers are involved, but with no rallies you only need to clear out 6 - 12 guys unless they are sitting on an outpost.
What I would like to see is rally points and people playing as if they wouldnt have any.

But for a final statement it is still too soon, seen as the use of outposts will improve later on when rallypoints have been gone for a while.

[Skud]

Like the direction, but not the method of change. There needs to be changes to both the RP system, the kit system, FB system, and ultimately some map changes need to be made...

There's got to be a better way than it is currently now - hence a beta. We all know the merits, but the things that need fixing before such a change can occur...

1. FB logic/overrunning logic.
2. Default kit loadouts.
3. There needs to be something to keep the team together but not in the form of an INF BLOB.
4. If RPs stay, they need some new logic.
5. There needs to be a clear benefit to no rallies other than a mass INF Blob. Right now much of the maps areas go unused, which is a shame.
6. Games need to keep a GOOD pace comparable to the pace we had with rally points. Not everyone has 3 hours to play ONE map! Believe it or not, some people WORK.

Does not mean you can take away my right to moan at every chance.

[Dreadnought]

This is hardly comprehensive, and I can't say I'm being completely objective using only anecdotal evidence, but I consider rally removal a great improvement in every game I've played. Infantry location intelligence is much more realistic. There is no clearing out an area and then people jumping up behind you. (Very unrealistic)

As a whole I'd say it adds a modest amount of fun while removing a modest amount of fantasy from the game. It's only negative that I could imagine is less convenience for strategy or game-play styles that rely heavily on a lack of reality. (Which should be frowned upon anyway)

[Celestial1]

I agree with Dread's statement.

I think the only thing that needs to be changed for this to be implemented entirely as is is overrun logic.

[Camlost]

So far; chaotic round of Kashan, though I enjoyed the hightened realism. With more effort to teamwork, that round wouldn't have been bad at all. I noticed how transport squads suddenly were popular(even though some of the pilots were rubbish); hopefully no RPs will make more players better pilots, and also making the job of being a transport pilot more thankful.

Bi Ming; had probably my best round as rifleman, got something under 20 kills without dying until the server crashed. Because of a great medic, good teamwork and probably much better gameplay on my part(due to dying actually having some consequences) the round was awesome.

I think the immediate positive effects of removing RPs will be seen first in smaller infantry maps such as Bi Ming; good SLs and good medics are essential for that to work, but luckily, we often have plenty of both on the TG server. As people become used to a change of teamplay in which transport becomes essential, I think no RPs will greatly benefit gameplay on larger maps such as Kashan as well.

Frankly, I was surprised to find that removing RPs seem to have the potential to dramatically change the way this game is played in a positive way.

[Berlancic]

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.

That's what a commander is for. Cant really see mixed games with too much co-ordination like that without a commander.

Anyway, I see the potential in it, if its tweaked a bit that is. If it is tweaked for the new version with tougher (more people to overunn) FOBs or whatever I'd be happy. I realize now that it needs some work. The problem I see with having maps/layers of maps with RPs or without is that some maps will not be played as often perhaps. Or that more people will leave on the less-desired type of RP restriction (No RP or RP galore).

Just to summarize, it is a good change IMO, but it needs to be tweaked for the next version. It does not work with this version as well; there is not enough beta changes to support it better.

[Golgo13]

. There is no clearing out an area and then people jumping up behind you. (Very unrealistic)

Infantery DOES jump up behind you if you did not properly clear out an area, obviously you overlooked the space where the rally was.

[Celestial1]

Infantery DOES jump up behind you if you did not properly clear out an area, obviously you overlooked the space where the rally was.

Rally can be 100m away from the area, but they can sprint there in a half minute and catch up to you within a minute.

If you clear an area, it's cleared; not cleared but there's a bag of backpacks that will cause them to spring out of the ground like zombies behind you.