No rally point feedback thread - PR .874c

[TMan]

I would limit special kit issue all the way up to 5 or 6 members if I had the power for a day.

[DarkDancer]

^^ support that!

[TMan]

I think .847c is great. The limited rally is a great compromise between all the different views on rallys. It gives mobility and some limited flexability without making the squad totally independent.

The extended build capability of the FB to build out assets is super. I love the options to put wire way out from the FB.

Can we keep this running forever?

I think this would be a great mod to make permanent.

TMAN

[TMan]

^^ support that!

Are those Austrian snipers?

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Dancer, your sig image might be slightly over the limits of the board. You might want to shrink it a weeeeeeeee bit.

[snooggums]

Won Ramiel as BLuFor last night with a good amount of tickets left. The squad I was in did a very good job of sneaking around and we ended up killing 6 or 7 of the caches by using the following setup:

No special kits. Just riflemen and medics.
We avoided unnecessary confrontation. We let quite a few insurgents walk past us.
We arrested when possible. I got a civi and we took another soldier who wasn't watching his back.
When we moved in on the cache we had a distraction while someone moved in.
We got lucky on one cache that spawned right next to the FOB we were trying to set up. By right next I mean the building we parked the truck two feet from.
The commander spotted possible cache locations and gave good intel.

City fighting as an individual squad is very doable with disciplined troops. I honestly forgot the SL's name (sorry!) but csxgamerz was definitely there (and chatty) showing how to be a good squad member and picking up the slack.

[DarkDancer]

Are those Austrian snipers?

yup - this is austrian special force!

[Bisclaveret]

To fix the SAW issue, why not go back to the way it was in .6? SAWs were limited per-side kits, the same as specops and AT were back then. Instead of having 9 SAWS available all the time, 3 or so per team would be acceptable to me i think.

[Masterjack]

"..hey let's try to set a rally, if we can't we have bad guys near us"
that was the first thing that came to my mind.
It would be pretty easy to check if you have any enemies near you without even looking around, but anyways..looking forward to test it

an easy fix to that is to have the RP spawn but the guy can not spawn if the rally is too close to the enemy.

[starstriker1]

Haven't really seen too much abuse of the "Hide the SL" trick so far. The change is nice to get new people with you ASAP. However, we've also used it to get to full strength right away by encouraging people to give up and spawn back with the squad to get 6 guns again for a fight instead of clearing and reviving. That's going backwards and I don't really like it - it's too "gamey".

I utterly agree. I'm really in favour of either getting rid of it or reverting to the old system and tying it to a set distance from the firebase to make firebase defense a more viable proposition. If the goal is to make firebase building the primary focus on the team, then I think rallies should be tied to the concept of FOBs somehow or removed entirely.

[Sabre_Tooth_Tigger]

RP is like a paradrop to me so more open but also vunerable. Maybe a way they could further restrict it would be to allow rp spawning only after its been there 1 minute and it would be active 2 minutes or 90 secs total before disappearing

A brief window to update squad numbers if the immediate area is under control its no problem but if enemies are around then presumably the rp would get zapped by their presence


The immediacy of its current spawn ability is a great advantage

[Taip3n]

Haven't really seen too much abuse of the "Hide the SL" trick so far. The change is nice to get new people with you ASAP. However, we've also used it to get to full strength right away by encouraging people to give up and spawn back with the squad to get 6 guns again for a fight instead of clearing and reviving. That's going backwards and I don't really like it - it's too "gamey".

Also, agree with Wickens. Although I'm not sure on the SAW being overpowered, it shouldn't be as prevalent on the field as it currently is, so I'm up for raising the requirement to SL + 3 to get that kit or any other special kits. This would simply encourage more full squads and would reduce the number of locked 2-man squads that we see outside the beta.

On point one: I have used this BF2esque ploy on Barracuda as US, in order to maintain a presence in an area. The difficulty was that only one, then two FO’s were created that was anything like effective (e.g. not destroyed rapidly) for an extended point in time. Then, the US had to go up against a heavy defence at swamp, simply to arrive at the flag objectives of Beach and West Rock (Swamp was 3rd flag).

Ambushes and sniper fire took a heavy toll on the US team (and helicopter loss). In order to maintain a presence, I asked that the medic or marksman hang behind with myself, whilst the others moved forward to feel for the enemy. Once enemy position and numbers were ascertained, then I could make a judgement call to re-enforce my squad with the other two. Of course this lead to the old emphasise, as mentioned above, of respawning in to add gun numbers rather than wait for a medic to revive after the area was clear. Actually, gun numbers was needed to increase pressure on the enemy and actually overcome them.

Once Swamp was captured (by dropping the FO) and clearing, my squad moved to Beach. We capped and then re-capped after a good counter attack from West Rock. Again, me hanging back with a SM proved valuable in keeping up and maintaining pressure. This allowed the rest of the team to concentrate on West Rock and Swamp, and the key factor of establishing 'presence' on real estate, putting our stamp on territory and establishing bases (one squad began the attack on West Rock, followed by mine and another as re-enforcements, the first squad was wiped out but had softened the enemy to the point that the other two, followed by the first reforming and moving in, mopped up. The rest of the team maintained a strong presence on swamp, which we capped. The game ended to US loss because of heavy game 'beginning' ticket loss, as discussed, at this point).

On Ejod, the map played before, I did not use this ploy but worked mostly with my squad to form a rally if a SM was down and unable to be revived due to heavy street fighting (especially at the beginning and middle game), or a new SM joined. We helped take down a FO west of the city and moved in to cap Garage. However, and at no fault of my excellent squad, as an SL I found a huge emphasise asked, or in my mind to consider, was on 'rally administration' which I will talk about now.

Lesson learnt: As a SL I am asked constantly to set a rally, generally because in the thick of battle a SM or two has gone down. Gun numbers, at this point seems appropriate. However, I am spending an increased time simply running to a safe location out the way of the enemy and pulling out an SM of the fight. It is a case therefore of trying to keep the squad up and running and an administration of setting a rally, rather than the fight and task at hand. Only the skill of my squad members negated this issue.

In Jabal, and Ejod, the two other maps played lately, I have not had to bother with the rally further than this, all squads were excellent, including Baraccuda. However as said setting rallies is a bother that the SL now needs to constantly consider in an administrative sense, rather and over than an objective sense, like manoeuvring, firing and flanking. In Barracuda though a further matter occured, that I had no option but employ the ploy of the SL hanging back simply in order to maintain presence in the field and claiming estate, otherwise it would have simply been a ‘let’s get killed and start again from the FO’, scenario. The whole team was wiped out time and again from dug in enemy positions. Another reason to rely on the rally was another ploy of the enemy was to simply snipe the FO as people spawned and tried to bug out or return fire, eventually the enemy may take it down at leasure. I think it was not raping simply due to many enemy were far from the base and it would have been risky for many to attack it, unless it was a slow co-ordinated attack. Maybe they did, I don't know, I'd gotten my squad out of there and was relying on the rally.

Back to claiming presence, only this ploy of me hanging back with another to re-enforce from rally, allowed us time to manoeuvre and eventually take out the positions. Which would have been soul destroying and was for my squad for a long time, when we spent a good part of time on the map, simply establishing a secure FO the team could operate from, and then the subsequent moving out under constant harassment and heavy fire near key positions. In other words, allowing the squad to feel for the enemy, establish intelligence, and then being able to supply numbers against the enemy which were dug in was the only reasonable course of action. I felt, all the way through it, though a bit bad I had to keep a SM away from the fight, or that I only had the option to work from. It was though, effective. In all I am not keen on this 30 second spawn for the above reasons. I am unsure about 'no - rallies'. Perhaps another test with another time limit, like 1 and 1/2 minutes could be a resolution solution to test another kind of balance and see what one best fits for now.

On point 2: Absolutely agree with Dispo and Wicks.

Sorry for length but didn't know how to express without giving details, for you all to consider in balance with your experiences.

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

To be quite honest, and this is partly due to my limited playing time of the .874c as of late, but I haven't experienced a huge change of gameplay. Don't get me wrong I do enjoy/favor the fob distance change and change in distance associated with putting down razor wire, etc.......however, I got used to not putting down a rally, and haven't really put down any, that is something I must remedy.

[Startrekern]

Can we continue this change until .9? Please? I don't want to go back to .874

[Ferris Bueller]

Can we continue this change until .9? Please? I don't want to go back to .874

Thats entirely up to the devs. They say "take it back to .874", thats what we do.