No rally point feedback thread - PR .874b

[Alpha_s9]

Lots of good comments on this topic already, but I wanted to add some notes from the commander perspective, strictly from the insurgency standpoint.

So far I've commanded a couple of rounds of insurgency and one round of Taliban.

Korengal:

We immediately deployed two squads to assault murphy, one squad to defend the exposed cache, and three squads to assault outpost.

Team 1:

One small squad was responsible for deploying IEDs and ambushing any and all vehicles leaving camp murphy. Priority kills were assigned to vehicles with weapons (humvees and strykers). The second full inf squad was assigned to flank and support the IED team's actions outside of murphy, including supplying ammo.

The two squads assigned to murphy were able to provide much needed intel of any logistics that actually made it out of the camp. Between that intel, the fact that we had cut the bridges, and "informants" waypoints I was able to track any logistics (for the most part) that did make it through.

Team 2:

One squad was assigned to defend the exposed cache. This squad went about setting up grenade traps and IED/mines to deter enemies that managed to slip through the cracks. Initially they did not see much contact due to the excellent job team 1 did of maintaining control over the exit from camp murphy.

Eventually a logi truck made it out and drove all the way down the main road to the western side of the map, and managed to build a FOB over there somewhere. That FOB created a lot of problems for our team because it required me to re-assign team 3 to engage it, and it allowed US to snag about 3 caches before we were able to finally destroy it.

Team 2 also did an excellent job of keeping defense on the exposed caches while also being well away from any hidden caches to avoid "giving it up".

Team 3:

Team 3's objective was originally to assualt and hold outpost. This team was the largest, and the most mobile of our forces with the exception of the two man sniper/grenadier squad assigned to provide overwatch for the operation.

Two infantry squads mobilized by techs with precision fire support from the hills above assaulted outpost and managed to gain control of the area, destroying a FOB in the process. After taking outpost I ordered the infantry squads on to other tasks, and left the two man sniper/grenadier on the hill to kill off any stragglers that continued to try and re-take outpost.

The "other tasks" for the infantry squad were briefly mentioned before. They included using their high mobility to assault the FOB on the western border of the map, as well as engaging the infantry that had already spawned there, and assisting team 2 with the defense of the exposed caches.

Once those tasks were completed, I assigned them to assist team 1 because it appeared that we had managed to clean up the map enough that there were no spawns outside of murphy. At that time we ended up with almost the entire team outside of murphy, keeping pressure on that chokepoint. When the area attack came up, the only viable target at that point was Murphy itself. I opted to retain the area attack in reserve rather than pound a limping horse. We eventually used it on a couple of FOBs that had managed to slip through.

I think someone called the game before it ended, final score was 60 or 70 (taliban) to 36? or so i think.

Personal Notes:

Aside from the above AAR (if you want to call it that) my personal impression was that the US team did not attempt to secure the main road out of murphy. And by this i mean that their TEAM did not attempt to secure it.

There were several attempts made, but they would consist of two humvees trying to get a logi out of the main, or a single stryker crewed up and trying to drive out far enough to engage us, only to eventually be brought down by IEDs or RPGs.

My opinion is, if the strykers and humvees had provided fire support while infantry moved up to occupy the road, cleaning out our hideout and infantry... then the US team would have been able to build a FOB and secure that chokepoint without too much trouble.

This would have required infantry actively defending that area, but at least they would then be able to get logistics out and build in unknown locations. Someone on the US side commented that they felt as though the US wasn't really trying, that they were just laying down because they thought they didn't stand a chance without rallies. I wasn't on that team so I can't say that was the case, but it did seem as though most of the effort was coming from one or two individual squads who seemed to be working together.

Closing:

I'd have to say that our ability to control the main road out of Murphy, and the apparent lack of team cohesion on the part of the US... were the main factors in our victory during this round. I'd also add that the taliban "rifleman/ammo" kits were invaluable in keeping supplies down to our guys with the IEDs and maintaining pressure on the Camp Murphy exit. This allowed us to bring down some serious explosive power without having a cache in the area for re-arms.

Now before anyone takes offense, I'm not trying to call anybody out on not working together. I know how tough it can be to get your entire team on the same page. I'm only pointing these things out to try and help foster a better understanding of the types of tactics that will be required with the removal of RPs.

I'd also like to thank the entire team that round for one of the most organized insurgency efforts I've ever witnessed. I think with the removal of RPs we're seeing more effort from the insurgents and less from the US. In my opinion this is all in the minds of the players and can be overcome.

[Startrekern]

In response to the Fools Road AAR:

My squad set up an HMG, technical, and two PKMs on the hill while squad 9 (Beermug's) pushed in on you. We eventually pushed them out of airbase and once their firebase to the east was gone it got really quiet and the battle shifted to the south. Really good firefight there though.

--

Now, the thing with the two-man BUILD squads that I don't like is that they (some of them, not all, there are good ones) mostly roam around and build firebases without regard to positioning or ease of defense of the infantry squads that are going to be forced to be there. Oftentimes they just drop them on a hill or next to a building and drive off, leaving the infantry stuck with a mediocre firebase that gets overrun and destroyed.

[TMan]

[QUOTE=Delta*RandyShugart*;1387940]^Huge plus/incentive for mumble and how it can be used properly and effectively.

Mumble - it is not part of PR or BF2.

Yes or No?

Last time I checked beta testing consisted of checking software to see if it met requirements. This does not include evaluating how external software interacts with the software you are evaluating.

If there is any external software (mumble, teamspeak) that is required for this mod to function or to perform in use, than I think it is a failure. The software should function self-contained serving all of the functions required of the software or game within the program.

If we are saying we need to use mumble to make PR work, that is the wrong answer, at least from the beta testing perspective.

Are we providing comments on the current mod "as is" or are we commenting on the mod considering all of the other programs we use to make PR work on a daily basis including mumble and team speak and anything else? I think a defining of what we are talking about from a software and program perspective is in order.

T

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

[QUOTE=O=T-M-A-N=O;1387993]

^Huge plus/incentive for mumble and how it can be used properly and effectively.

Mumble - it is not part of PR or BF2.

Yes or No?

Last time I checked beta testing consisted of checking software to see if it met requirements. This does not include evaluating how external software interacts with the software you are evaluating.

If there is any external software (mumble, teamspeak) that is required for this mod to function or to perform in use, than I think it is a failure. The software should function self-contained serving all of the functions required of the software or game within the program.

If we are saying we need to use mumble to make PR work, that is the wrong answer, at least from the beta testing perspective.

Are we providing comments on the current mod "as is" or are we commenting on the mod considering all of the other programs we use to make PR work on a daily basis including mumble and team speak and anything else? I think a defining of what we are taking about from a software and program perspective is in order.

T

i'll edit that part of my post.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

^Huge plus/incentive for mumble and how it can be used properly and effectively.

Mumble - it is not part of PR or BF2.

Yes or No?

Last time I checked beta testing consisted of checking software to see if it met requirements. This does not include evaluating how external software interacts with the software you are evaluating.

If there is any external software (mumble, teamspeak) that is required for this mod to function or to perform in use, than I think it is a failure. The software should function self-contained serving all of the functions required of the software or game within the program.

If we are saying we need to use mumble to make PR work, that is the wrong answer, at least from the beta testing perspective.

Are we providing comments on the current mod "as is" or are we commenting on the mod considering all of the other programs we use to make PR work on a daily basis including mumble and team speak and anything else? I think a defining of what we are taking about from a software and program perspective is in order.

T

T - can you explain how the usage of mumble or any other VOIP software has anything to do with removal of rally points? I've already explained in a prior post that the BF2 engine and the mods PR has made to it allow players to effectively communicate their needs without using 3rd party software, so I'm completely confused on your focus on VOIP software somehow invalidating this change and PR itself. VOIP software such as mumble or TS (again, wholly endorsed and supported at TG ever since I've been a member) only act to enhance the teamwork and immersion that we experience playing this game.

Help me to understand...


And after re-reading your point, here's the answer:

It has nothing to do with it. The software that we are beta-testing, or more specifically a change to the functions of that software, is the removal of the ability for a squad leader to set a rally point, or specifically a player-deployed spawn point.

Looking specifically at that change, I think the jury is still out. Personally, I think I've already adapted to the change and have still found the game playable and perhaps even more enjoyable. This opinion is based purely on in-game experience to date and has nothing to do with my communications with my teammates.

Now, as for mumble itself, I think that this external element to the testing is a non-factor regardless of it's usage or lack thereof. Why? Because the same players playing .874b and using mumble for coordination also used that same software a mere 4 days ago when we were playing .874. It is a constant and has no impact whatsoever when we are factoring our experience in testing this change. If this change was a complete and utter failure, it would be so regardless of whether I could speak with another player using Mumble, Team Speak, VOIP provided by BF2 or via carrier pigeons. Therefore, I feel that the usage of mumble or non-usage of mumble is really not a factor in the overall evaluation, but if players are using it to promote teamwork and coordination then isn't our server a better place because of it?

[fuzzhead]

Off topic but:

Developing software or systems that depend on unsupported external resources is not a good thing, especally if we are giving feedback on beta testing a modification to an already sucessful mod. Relying on mumble without consideration to it not being a part of the PR mod is not a good testing platform.

We are adding mumble to the PR installer for v0.9, so it should be even easier for players to join up and start using it. Hopefully we can get some other features included with mumble in time for release, but its a big undertaking and may not be ready. Eventually if possible, the intention is to have mumble auto-load and load into the correct channel when joining servers, taking all the extra manual work a player has to do currently, out of the equation. In order to get to this point though, it will be alot of work but I dont doubt the teams skills or devotion.

[TMan]

Now, the thing with the two-man BUILD squads that I don't like is that they (some of them, not all, there are good ones) mostly roam around and build firebases without regard to positioning or ease of defense of the infantry squads that are going to be forced to be there. Oftentimes they just drop them on a hill or next to a building and drive off, leaving the infantry stuck with a mediocre firebase that gets overrun and destroyed.

"BUILD" squads will start to dictate where, when and how squads will win maps. This is not acceptable. I will not lead an Infantry squad and wait for Mr. Truck to show up and tell me where to fight. Infantry SLs need to have the ability to determine where, when or how they fight and engage the enemy. Unless you want to have everyone in a big jumble mess of force morfing around the field in a big blob with no intelligent leadership at the squad level. That is what I have a problem with this system. Removing spawn points eliminates the SL ability to independently act on the field.

If we are after getting mumble instated as the official communication method for PR, then do it. Otherwise, last time I checked, mumble was optional.

Until it is part of the game system, then it is not.



T

[csxgamerz]

I think i mentioned this before? Oh no that was on reality forums... yes well:

I think that logi trucks should require crewman or officer kits. And then bunp the officer kit requirement to 2 members + SL for kit request. This way only SL from squads and crewman from logi and armor squads can use them...

Yes i know wah wah wah all you snipers and hattorz... oh well... trucks werent made to ditch anyway.

[fuzzhead]

then do it

As I had said, its easier said then done, I'll just say "were workin on it"....

[Alpha_s9]

"BUILD" squads will start to dictate where, when and how squads will win maps. This is not acceptable. I will not lead an Infantry squad and wait for Mr. Truck to show up and tell me where to fight. Infantry SLs need to have the ability to determine where, when or how they fight and engage the enemy. Unless you want to have everyone in a big jumble mess of force morfing around the field in a big blob with no intelligent leadership at the squad level. That is what I have a problem with this system. Removing spawn points eliminates the SL ability to independently act on the field.

T

This is a valid point. A commander solves this problem, but for the times without a commander I've noticed that a lot of squads can't or don't build FOBs that benefit the team so much as provide their squad with a fallback point. In general that fallback point is close enough to their squad's objective that it benefits the team. In practice it seems as though most of those FOBs are TOO close to the objective and are easily overrun.

In my mind that's where the build squad comes in. As long as they aren't building too close to the action, they can provide a TEAM fallback. Park loaded trans trucks there, and it could be a quick way to get your squad back into the fight at your objective. So I guess we should define a build squad.

A build squad should be more than 2 or three guys running around dropping FOBs. They should be retrieving the transport trucks that squads used to move up into the fight and parking them somewhere safe in case that squad (or any other) gets wiped out and needs to move from the rear. They should be taking trucks to the guys that are stranded and out of position. They should be dropping crates for other squads to build if they need it. They should always have crates on standby for the TEAM... not necessarily "just to build a FOB".

With all that in mind, the individual SLs have to retreat from the old thinking of "that's my squad's transportation!" and more into "damn squad 3, i really wish you hadn't needed that trans truck... now we're walking 300m".

People building FOBs in bad locations will always be a debate. That which is a golden fallback for squad 1 will be too far away for squad 2. With the increase to 5 FOBs total, and the limited means of obtaining a crate on a lot of the maps I don't think it's a terrible problem... yet. That doesn't mean once tactics change we won't need to address it however.

If this change stays in place, the flow of the battle could literally become controlled by the ability to get a crate in play. Ambush teams assaulting the supply lines become a concern, and that means increased security. This is pretty obvious already with insurgency.

A few map changes as simple as how many transport and logistic trucks a team gets may be all that's needed. In some cases the logistical routes are decided by a single bridge. I think we would have to reconsider bridge repair or make alternate routes available in those situations. Those could be somewhat avoided in the beta by temporary rule changes disallowing destruction of certain bridges beyond those which current rules apply.

As another possible solution, lowering the distance required between FOBs seems like it may become a necessity.

[Namebot]

I think that is the idea T-MAN.

They want the teams in PR to work as a team, not as a number of independent squads. You may have to rely on someone else. It may be another squad or a operator in an asset providing transport, fire support, or a forward spawn.

If those people are poor at their job IT WILL AFFECT YOU.

[Startrekern]

This is a valid point. A commander solves this problem, but for the times without a commander I've noticed that a lot of squads can't or don't build FOBs that benefit the team so much as provide their squad with a fallback point. In general that fallback point is close enough to their squad's objective that it benefits the team. In practice it seems as though most of those FOBs are TOO close to the objective and are easily overrun.

Firebases should be used as a defensive mechanism more than a fallback point. There's a reason you get a buttload of wire and HMGs that you can deploy with them. This is especially true in urban maps.

Though for forest maps, yeah, FOBs as fallbacks works well. (See: Fools Road)

[Alpha_s9]

Firebases should be used as a defensive mechanism more than a fallback point. There's a reason you get a buttload of wire and HMGs that you can deploy with them. This is especially true in urban maps.

Though for forest maps, yeah, FOBs as fallbacks works well. (See: Fools Road)

As far as I know there is a battlefield limitation on HMGs and AA, i'm not sure on the wire and foxholes though. And I agree that you should have a defensive firebase at all times if possible. However, on some maps that may be one firebase at your first flag, and then forward operation bases closer to the front lines.

In that situation, a team bringing all the trucks up to the defensive firebase means less time to get back into the fight when one of the forwards goes down.

[Ferris Bueller]

Well, I played a couple non-rp rounds since my post back on pg 5, and while I can see some positives right now, I'm sticking to what I said there pretty solidly. But since the medic thing keeps coming up in just about every post, I'm going to rant on it a bit further.

The medic kit which IMHO is the most underrated kit in PR, is now really put to the test which it deserves, with being a medic comes patience from the player and the players waiting to be revived. a The medic kit will now have more of an impact on the round being played and as we have seen on previous maps can change the outcome of the round, especially if a fire-base has been overrun, or simply with no rally points.

All I play is medic unless absolutely necessary. Everyone who has ever been in a squad with me pretty much knows that. Now, while I'm probably not the only person who plays PR to have this role, its not very common. Most people know how to play medic (mostly), but few are really adept at it. Those of us who are, dont need another "test" for how to play the role. What other class can singlehandedly decide the fate of a team through its competency on EVERY SINGLE MAP, regardless of assets or not? None of them. The medic kit is absolutely an underrated kit, and you hit the nail on the head with it randy. Even WITH rally points, 90% of the people who pick it up dont understand the real difficulty of playing the role effectively. So here we go again with making it harder to play still.

Go back through the PR forum here and look at the various changelog threads where the medic has been altered. Some of the changes have been epic (i.e. the ability to "resuscitate" players, which has saved me hundreds of thousands of otherwise wasted bandages since its inception), some of them have been somewhat tedious (the radar changes making it 500% harder to find a downed squadmate who is more than 10m away from you). But overall, the medic is a kit that has become progressively harder over the last few years to play.

What exactly do i mean by this? Lets analyze it a bit.

The medic used to be an open kit. There were times I would see two or three medics in a squad. Now, for an organized squad using fireteams and proper MTC proceedures, this would be acceptable. For your average squad, not so much. But the medic was really more of a run and gun kit back then anyway, seeing as there was probably another medic around to revive you, and even if he wasnt in your squad, he could easily spot you on radar.

Fast forward to just recently (pre-RP changes). The medic is now a master of patience. This patience comes in many forms. First, every single time someone takes a single bullet, they come rushing in for heals because their screen is obscured by the blood effect. Second, anytime someone goes down, you get to play a game of scavenger hunt to find them. Third, you get to attempt to "resuscitate" them out of terrain bugs so they can be revived, healed and functional. Fourth, you are responsible for educating anyone who needs you on where they need to run (trust me, using the "follow me" command on the medic bag rose doesnt do squat), where they need to hide, and what direction they need to be covering. You then get to pray (while healing said people) that they actually do their job and keep you both from getting smoked.

The medic is also a master of danger. When any other player in the entirety of PR gives away their position intentionally, 95% of the time its going to be firing a weapon. With a medic, 99% of the time he has to give away his position just to revive or heal people. He does this in two ways: risks his neck by breaking cover to yank someone out of the thick of battle, or by throwing smoke to do the same (which instantly indicates to any player worth a salt where the medic is headed next). The medic takes as much, if not more fire in an average engagement than any class except perhaps for the US saw kit. In addition to that, they are a TARGETED kit! You take down the medic, you get the squad.

I could go on, but you get the drift. Its not easy to play, even WITH rally points. Without rally points, it has become absolutely brutal. Let me give you some insight I gained in my couple rounds of no-RP experience:
-The medic might as well not have a gun now. You dont get to use it. If people start getting picked off in your squad, your job is to hide until the engagement is over. You are MUCH too important of a resource for your squad to risk engaging the enemy.
-People HUNT medics now. I watched a guy sneak into a squad formation and target only the medic while his squadmates waited 50m away to pounce on the targets once the medic was nullified, giving them no hope of reviving anywhere close.
-99% of the time, you sit around doing nothing. Now, this isnt much different from the way it used to be, except now you dont really move. Everything you do runs the risk of having you discovered, killed, and then your squad gets all angry with you.
-People like to yell at medics now. You know, cause the job is easy, and of course we can dish out 6 revives in under 15 seconds to players spread 50m apart. Oh, did I mention that we can do it under fire too? Your body is being sprayed by a saw? No problem, I'll have you up in a jiffy. WRONG.
-Everyone everywhere expects you to save them from having to respawn, and will scream at you on mumble if they see youre coming within 200m of them. Nevermind the fact that theres 4 enemies currently walking on his body.
-People are now SO dependent on the medic that its actually painful to play. You have 10x the responsibility of any other class with 1% of the fun. You dont get to shoot big rockets at APCs. You dont get to engage in fun firefights with enemy squads. You dont get to yell "boom, headshot!". You get to sit in a hole somewhere, with your location obscured from enemy view and wait patiently for people to start dying or getting hurt. After all, we cant waste the only asset that prevents a squad from having to truck halfway across the map.

For me, and people like me, this change has the potential to suck the fun out of the game. I'm not saying that it will, but I can see how easily it can happen. Plus, as I said earlier, I really dont want to play every single round like a scrim. Some people like fuzzhead have said that they dont like the "tard-rush" aspect of the game, but that same aspect adds fun to the game sometimes and yields positive results. Plus, thats an intended side effect of the game itself by design. Think about it logically: you have a major engagement between two forces on a large field of battle. do you really think theres only going to be 32 people on each side duking it out? No. Theres going to be HUNDREDS. Having the ability to rapidly reinforce close to the combat area via rally points is what allows the game to simulate that. Also, I cant even count how many hundreds, if not thousands of times I've saved players (including some of the major backers of this change) by "tard-rushing" into a firefight, reviving them and pulling them from the jaws of death. Well fellas, dont expect to see Ferris the miracle medic dodging bullets to save you anymore, because the risk is too great now.

If I wanted to play a slow, drawn out and methodical engagement every time I loaded up a game, I'd go play ArmA.

[chrisweb89]

I haven't read all of the posts in here just because there are so many and some are so long but I'm still not sure what type of system I want in the future. While I like this new way of making sure the team stays together and everything I also know how fun it was with rallies and yet still not tard rushy. You can still tard rush and pull a continuo attack now where the enmy has the same time as if you were assaultin from a rally. Just its from a FB not a rally and its a bit harder to do.

From the gameplay i have observed and to the side i'm leaning towards is keeping the rally system with maybe some adjustments. In the system now it is much harder to keep your squad together if someone is killed outright(rocket, oradkill, etc.). In PR it was already hard enough to assault, with how it is now that assault is much harder to do because you either:A) place a far away hidden FB and if someone dies on the assault you have to wait 2 minutes for them to get back to you and any other assaulting forces, or B) place a very ricky and close FB that does the same as a rally but for the team and do everything as you normally would.

As a solution to when rallies are used as quick tempory spawns when defnding or attacking a flag. Why not bring back the old rules of how close a rally could be placed to a flag? I don't know why they took this out but this would completely eliminate rallies being made just for people to spawn at when surrounded by enemies.