No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[PaintScratcher]

This will be very interesting to play.

With regard to this *possibly* being included with a main stream patch, surely couldn't it be made into an optional patch (ie, what it is now) for servers to use as they wish. That would solve the issue of some communities not liking it as much. Although it could pull the PR community in half

Maybe instead of completely removing RP's you could make them droppable by vehicles? Or somehow controlled by the commander? I haven't thought these through at all but I thought I'd throw it out here.

Although I do like the suggestions to lengthen the deploy interval time on RP, which might be a better solution.

[Axis_Sniper]

This update has transformed Bullseye from a good teamplayer to a god.

Bow before your new savior.

Anyways, I am kinda looking forward to this. It gives people the perspective of what an FOB is, not just some temporary spawn that can be used and built whenever or wherever you like. People have 5 FBs that can be build for your first, or next, objective. Once that is completed, or failed, you plan accordingly and move some of the FOBs to the next objective for defense/attack.

People now need to be ready to defend your FB, instead of just saying "The FB is going down" and continue to do absolutely nothing about it. Your FBs are your lifeline now, you either be ready to defend them, or replace them, or be prepared to get steamrolled by a team that built an enormous amount of momentum from pushing you off the flag.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Well, so far we've got a lot of conjecture and speculation but not a lot of real-world feedback. Let's get on the server and see how the changes really work out.

[snooggums]

This will be very interesting to play.

With regard to this *possibly* being included with a main stream patch, surely couldn't it be made into an optional patch (ie, what it is now) for servers to use as they wish. That would solve the issue of some communities not liking it as much. Although it could pull the PR community in half

Like the removal of the SL spawn this should be an all or nothing change. PR doesn't have multiple active versions.

Maybe instead of completely removing RP's you could make them droppable by vehicles? Or somehow controlled by the commander? I haven't thought these through at all but I thought I'd throw it out here.

Maybe these trucks could drop an object, such as a crate, that would allow a SL to drop a spawnable location. We could call that a FOB and even let others spawn on it!

(FYI, the commander used to be involved with FOB placement but I'm glad that was removed)

[VCDreves]

Haven't tried it yet but I guess the FOB Squads will cease to be "boring" now that they're even more important assets to the game.

I'll join the server later to try it, but to me, sounds like entirely removing RPs is kind of drastic. Maybe limiting them somehow; from the top of my head, I guess giving RPs a time limit would be a good idea, that way the "Rambo" problem would stop.

[DiscoJedi]

This update has transformed Bullseye from a good teamplayer to a god.

Bow before your new savior.

All hail the high and mighty Build Squad! Praise be to Bullseye, Lord of the Crate!


Off topic, I know, but I couldn't resist showering my compatriot with some well deserved praise.

[STealthBanana]

I have not played the beta version yet.
i'll hop on the server now.
If we really think about removing rally points
it should be much harder to destroy a FOB.
that was my first idea when I read through the post.
..testing now

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

I have not had the chance to try out the beta server yet. From reading what is stickied on the PR Forum and within the Realitymod.com website posting I am looking at this with a clear open mind and don't want any automatic speculation either negative or positive to jump to the front of the line.

With any new concept like this especially with it being tested on selected servers one can only go into a new feature like this one with an open mind, if you cloud your head with negative conceptions right off the bat, the minute you get into game you will be questioning everything and the experience will not be enjoyable no matter what.

*I am looking forward to seeing how this changes the game-play experience on Kashan, especially Kashan 32 and 64, if anything it will raise the amount of infantry squads, especially squads which are more than 4 players*

[AlmightyLion]

Ejod just ended - I didnt like it.

I think it was a bad call to just use infantry - all that open ground for the infantry to move over and all those apcs just sitting at main and rusting

[orpal]

Played for about 3-4 hours ( only 1 hour with people on the actual server (lol))

From my experience Infantry will have even harder role on a battle than it already has, if there is no APC or armor support you pretty much lose a FB and you're set back to main base .
It definitely doesn't give you any chance to do mistakes- one mistake and you're gone for 5-10 minutes out of the battlefield.

This is specially recognizable in maps medium size(Ejod). It takes a considerable time to walk from main base and any FB is exposed to an enemy. Making it hard to survive with your squad when you barely have somewhere to spawn. Makes the game more realistic and removes that arcade taste we've got in PR, but then again ask yourself; don't you play PR because its a perfect mixture of arcade game and reality ?


It makes players building fortresses and defending. We should see drastic decrease of players attacking an objective and drastic increase of players defending. Which is good right ? Wrong, quite frankly people want to play ''hero'' roles and have as much action as possible. ( don't get me wrong I can sit in one place for 2 hours straight, no problem. But I'm thinking as an average player would think).

I don't know maybe I started this with a wrong foot but I see more problems (server population) ahead if we're going to pursue the no rally system. However I see this as a good thing in large maps with a lot of cover, where you won't have to be dealing with wave after wave of infantry. Once they're dead, they're gone for good.

And that's the final verdict;

New rally system punishes every mistake you've made with great punishment and giving great players advantage they couldn't use before.
People will start defending more making gameplay more dull, on the other hand it can revolve in a teamwork mania seen on all servers.

But from my experience TG has nothing to fear about as long as we keep up the standard we've been maintaining for years.

[Alpha_s9]

Played two rounds today... pretty awesome so far.

I think this will make the sniper kit a bit more valuable now too, less of the "medic respawn and revive the rest". I noticed people that were pretty far out from a fob gave up a lot quicker than usual.

I also noticed that once a fob has been compromised (ie, sniper coverage... apc camping), it can really hurt a team to keep spawning on it. That should make the commander seat a little more beneficial as they can remove fobs to avoid bleeding tickets at an overrun position.

[Razcsak]

Would it be possible to set it so that rallies only allow a certain amount of spawns, say, six to ten, before they're automatically destroyed? And is it possible to set it so that a SL can only lay a RP once (or maybe twice) without "resupplying" at a FOB? With those two, you'd remove the "trickle" effect while still providing some flexibility and allowing more sustained attacks. You'd get one squad "wipe" before you'd have to hike from a FOB again.

[Mix0lydian]

Just thought this needed to be reposted.

We appreciate everyone's cooperation during this test and we hope that everyone feel privileged to have our server selected to try this change out. We should be seeing a lot of new faces around as players from other servers and communities hop on our server to see what the changes are about. Please treat these players with respect, encourage them to visit our web site, and educate them on our rules and philosophies where necessary. We will try to have as much of an increased presence of admins as we can during this time, especially during the first week or so of this change being put into place.

As many of you are aware, TG used to consistently be in the top 10 for all BF2 servers (in terms of average population) and the undisputed #1 PR server. After further growth in the popularity of PR and the appearance of more PR servers, server population has struggled at times.

This isn't a big problem or anything; I understand that we do not sacrifice rules and gameplay for server population. But I remember back in the day when the server was packed almost 24/7 and you could hop on to TG anytime to have a good time. It was during this period that I decided to buy my SM.

The public beta testing on our server is a great oppurtunity to attract new members (the future of TG!) to our forums with our maturity and style of play. Heck, even if they choose not to stay at TG, we could do the entire PR community a great service by sending them back home to their favorite server with a better understanding of tactics ("trickle down", anyone?) and more likely to contribute to better gameplay on that server.

[Axis_Sniper]

Played Qwai, and I felt like it was turtle fight. Chinese defended the entire round, and the US did the first half. It probably would of played better if it wasn't stacked to high heavens.

What I would suggest for this new type of gameplay is to give the teams a reason to attack. As of now there is no benefit and all risk for attacking, other than a slim chance of capping out the other team.

[CR8Z]

Those are all good points and well stated. I haven't played yet, but I'm looking forward to it.

I would suspect that more people would want to build fob's now so they can control where they spawn, no? Much more important now for the CO to manage this.

Question: Are we still regulated to 4 HMGs and 2 AAs on the battlefield?