No rally point feedback thread - PR .874c

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

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.

This is the type of game play that I personally do not like.

In order to keep pressure on the enemy, you had to diminish the capability of your squad by keeping yourself and your medic behind. This cripples the remainder of your squad on several fronts:

1) The 3 or 4 remaining members of your squad are essentially on a suicide mission, knowing that if they die then there will not be a medic there to assist them.
2) It reduces the effectiveness of your squad because you are not there to lead them - you are most likely hidden 100m or more away from the fight so you can safely deploy a spawn. This forces the remainder of the squad to become their own SLs in the fight.
3) To point 2, you are no longer a Squad Leader, but a Squad Spawner. This is taking the game back to the play we experienced in .5. For all practical purposes you've become the Octomom.
4) Your squad was cut off from the rest of the team and was only interested in staying alive, not organizing with other squads in a coordinated attack. BTW - this is not a "blob" point at all. Perhaps you could have put down suppressing fire onto an enemy position while another squad flanked the enemy to destroy them or any other number of multi-squad tactics available other than all rushing in a big mob hoping the enemy ran out of bullets before you all fell.

I'm not trying to take you task on this Taipen but instead merely pointing out how I see rally points as being a step backward in game play at this point. Using them to get new squad members with the squad is one thing - using them to become a soldier factory is something entirely different. Again - this is the "gamey" or "spammy" part of RPs that I absolutely despise.

I don't miss RPs. I think they can go away and everything will be ok in the world.

[Taip3n]

Exactly. This is why I don't think it's workable

Apart from a couple of things that happened in game that you assume incorrectly (we were not cut off for example, actually others were trying to set up hidden FO's, and other events/assumptions), why I posted this was to demonstrate what will happen as it stands right now. With no co-ordination to a higher level, SLs will resort to these tactics because they are effective.

There is no point hiding behind denial that it wont happen. I tested it. It does and you do not have to be far from the squad, and can actually act as support (your assumption was too black and white. The real scenario is more dymanic). And you can support with squads.

Hence my summary that I think this 30 second spawn is not good and either needs extending (willing to give it a try) or actually - not at all (still unsure, especially on the back of not testing a longer rally spawn time - for game-play purposes. Back to back though, with this system and no-rally, I'd go for 'no-rally'. This system is unworkable as I proved, and you stated).

Don't worry about seemingly taking me to task n this Dispo. If I was afraid of what you thought of my SL abilites I would not have posted, especially as you are 'leader' (like it or not Dispo but you are). But many people have thanked me in my time. (what you say as what you would like, I do and have done all the time on a day to day level and play - for years. One small example and very breifly and nothing like detailed, would be like the other day when my squad I SL'd called out key enemy positions, hit the enemy as the fore squad suppressing them when we aproached and covered the team to aproach safely, flanked right once they had set up by us and supressed too, under cover of an APC to smash into the enemy left flank and punch a hole through the middle and left, whilst the team hit the front and over ran the position (Jabal, East Beach the other day)); the team knew what we were doing, my squad and my Sms knew what I and they were doing. So I am not bothered what people suppose or assume as to my abilities but how people are when they squad up for all these years now. Hehe Yep, years of thank you's for doing the squad well and laughter (Don't get me wrong; this is more a smile than a negative critism and I am just trying to be friendlily open to your good, open, usually amazingly balanced, thoughtful self <which I know is there> and for the community: Ribons prove nothing in a way, they are in-house self pats on back grooming a lot - much of it is here, as you well know, though it would be nice, I guess but what I mean is if it was a utopic life, I'd likely have at least 5 by now as an SL. Hehe. So I don't take it too seriously but seeing the same people fall into my squad and keep saying thanks - and trust my abilities. And I trust that they know those abilites are top class) On the face of it, as said before, I actually felt bad about this hang back/do a runner/30 second spawn rubbish in my own head and morals - but it will happen, as it is effective. Furthermore, I wanted to show this kind of tactic - will - happen. Actually SMs demand it, as said. It's not a question of my team abilities or abilities, as said, I don't need to prove that, those that know, know. I am sure you know I can do much better than this test. Since I do it all the time anyway. So actually, I agree with you.

[BigGaayAl]

Ah this is the spawnpoint/sl discussion I predicted. I haven't really seen it done when I played, and I think many TG will not do it.

However I predict "veteran" non TG players will often use it.

To be safe, I would suggest to developers minimizing the risk by adding at least +1to the persons needed for a RP.

So SL+2 allows you to set a RP. To me this woudl feel more fair also. You would need to have most to have of your soldiers left to place that spawn, thus it may give a more convincing way of "regrouping" or rallying. It would not seem unreal at all if 3 guys run 100m away from you, and you find they linked up with 3 other stragglers.

Then also adding this 2 person requirement would cut down considerably percentage wise on the amount of LMG's in the game. Win-win to me, and also a very simple tweak.

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Last night on Kashan the United States team, even though they lost the round, utilized the Fire base proximity option extremely well. At one given point during the round I believe the US side had 3 fire bases within the bunker complex, two actually across from one another, and it was a beautiful sight to see, and really was the reason why during most of the round the US side had control of both bunker complexes, or had control of at least one at any given time.

It was something that the MEC side could not attain, during the round, the upper hand was given to the US side and also to their SL's who constructed fire bases away from the emplacement they built in the hills.

The fire base options and the fire base emplacement option in .874c, and the non rally point availability in .874b combined would make for an excellent .9.

During the previous round of Mestia, I did use the rp option several times, mostly for players who had just joined the server and my squad and who hadn't spawned yet, or if there was enough distance between myself and an enemy squad and asking a squad member to give up so a flag could be capped/re-capped, and also to see for myself what exactly the limited rp function looked like during the round of mestia.

The only caveat I have seen that has trickled over from .874b is the need to build fire bases outside of the Kashan walls, or in/around the small makeshift village area N/NE of the North Bunker. Though last nights round I was witness to emplacements being built in the Eastern Hills of the Kashan Bunker Complex which were no where near the supposed fire base itself.

Another thing I witnessed is with armor heavy maps, the need for supplies should really be relayed to transport helo pilots (one crate is all you need for a FB now), or initially if a logistical truck is available to drop off crates. Repair stations now are extremely vital, and after witnessing several cases of players taking logi trucks for their personal transport so they can drop crates and get a sniper/hat kit etc, and leaving the truck can be more hindering then helpful.

However I think we have seen that happen since the Logi truck has made an appearance.

All in all so far I really appreciate the availability to build fire bases in closer proximity to one another if there is a need, it only helps the team and can in fact make a two pronged attack easier as well as throwing off the other side.

[Taip3n]

Ah this is the spawnpoint/sl discussion I predicted. I haven't really seen it done when I played, and I think many TG will not do it.

However I predict "veteran" non TG players will often use it.

To be safe, I would suggest to developers minimizing the risk by adding at least +1to the persons needed for a RP.

So SL+2 allows you to set a RP. To me this woudl feel more fair also. You would need to have most to have of your soldiers left to place that spawn, thus it may give a more convincing way of "regrouping" or rallying. It would not seem unreal at all if 3 guys run 100m away from you, and you find they linked up with 3 other stragglers.

Then also adding this 2 person requirement would cut down considerably percentage wise on the amount of LMG's in the game. Win-win to me, and also a very simple tweak.

That sounds like a good idea. I did prefer the higher number to set rallies and higher number to over-run them in past versions.

I'd like to see the number of people that can over-run a FO increased, as well as a good look at distance reduction to optimal limits.

Since we are tasked with testing the game a main priority it to look for faults. What I tested was a fault. I am glad you thought of this spawn issue but think it is not really the case if TG players or not do it, it is the case of over-all gameplay in Project Reality, which involves other servers. What I tested was a tactic that - will - be used. Basically, it's irrelevant if TG players do it or not, as much as it's irrelevant to ignore it and frown upon it because TG is not Other Servers and Project Reality - the game. If I am to be a tester tasked with testing Project Reality, as they asked, I will test.

Of course this matter should come up and be predicted, it would be a fallacy if it didn't, which you spotted. I am suprised it has taken this long for it to be discussed. Perhaps the frowning of such tactics scared people from actually trying it, or perhaps they thought the community would frown at them because it would make them seem bad and they have enough trouble being accepted, perhaps they were waiting for someone who is seen as an upstanding TG community member who could do no wrong to try it out and say about it. Who knows. Maybe all the above. I should say I knew I may feel heat or the frown coming my way. But I know what I do and what I stand for. I'll just have to trust that eh, instead of what people think they know of me. Besides, at least I tried it so we could discuss, and braved actually writing about it. Imagine the response if say Cougar had written about it, how would it have been different, how would he have felt whilst writing about it? Dispo, thankfully, said he did not take me to task, but it is telling I felt I had to defend my ways, let alone how I feel I am upstanding within the community. It's not that I am paranoid, it's just that I recognise if Cougar, Dispo or Bullseye had written about it after testing it, it would have been different for them and us in how we percieve things. But like I say Dispo did not take me to task so I rest on that..... tentatively. I'll just keep doing what I do with what I know to be updstanding values.

End result of test is: It works. It will be used. Because it is effective. Server wide. It will be a part of the game, as it stands, as a part of tactical gameplay in the game Project Reality. Problems as per Dispo says.

As a point with rallies/presence on field and FOs, I have noticed a deep problem as it stands. As an SL on Baraccuda yesterday as China, I did not use the above test. The test is finished. USA have no real chance it seems to keep a FO for long. We pushed them off the island. All it takes is for China to rove around, searching and the island is not really a good place to hide anything. FOs seem not to work on this map on their own; they don't on other maps. A key point about testing the SL spawner tactic is based on this - because it forces players to use it as a viable tactic to remain in the field. Therefore: since it works, it becomes a viable tactic, as all tactics become once picked up, this tactic of SL being Squad Spawner - will - be used in Project Reality amongst its servers. So is this what Project Reality wants to be? The FOs simply don't make it, as it stands. Like it or not. TG is not The Project Reality game. I proved it prowess - once we established to do it, we took the map to Chinese main. Before applying it we could not even sit on the island. If my group had got together sooner - we would have won based on that tactic. It will go server - wide as a tactic to be played in Project Reality. Again, problems as per what Dispo says. Another point is SLs are kind of sub-Squad Spawners as it is without this tactic: I am constantly asked to reset a rally since it disapears and someone wants to get into the fight (the add guns syndrome Dispo spoke about), or someone was TKed, etc etc, and the heat is flying. peole are relying on the rally more again, as opposed to the medic, or at least, another option they will ask the SL to do, hence it being increaed again - more before the rally just didn't disapear, and hence I wonder if a longer rally time before it disapearing is a better option because, although it may seem illogical to actually increase rally time, it may be the only viable way forward in a gameplay/dynamic/not relying on rallies so much if at all/antiblob/Project Reality chess game.

Furthermore, many maps are 'samey' with FOs being put in the same place. This reduces game dynamic and flow. So the question is: to rally or not to rally? Rallies do add that hidden dynamic, which is why we are testing it now. For game-play dynamics FOs are terrible in that they reduce game play dynamic, and as much flexability in them is needed and optimised. Other aspects like map design (bigger/playable), assets, rendering things like FOs, grass, trees, valleys, divots etc etc (making it better with technology/new platform) follows to make FOs actually viable. However As it stands, as said, perhaps a longer rally spawn time to remove the Squad Spawner syndrome, rightly said, a tactic of PR years ago and not the way forward. Either that or no rally - but aspects like game platform is the eventual downfall. So how close to get to the real thing, before making the real thing? Long rally time or no rally? Keep rallies or no rally? Other aspects about FOs and how to integrate it Randy talks about, so on to him.

Last night on Kashan the United States team, even though they lost the round, utilized the Fire base proximity option extremely well. At one given point during the round I believe the US side had 3 fire bases within the bunker complex, two actually across from one another, and it was a beautiful sight to see, and really was the reason why during most of the round the US side had control of both bunker complexes, or had control of at least one at any given time.

It was something that the MEC side could not attain, during the round, the upper hand was given to the US side and also to their SL's who constructed fire bases away from the emplacement they built in the hills.

The fire base options and the fire base emplacement option in .874c, and the non rally point availability in .874b combined would make for an excellent .9.

During the previous round of Mestia, I did use the rp option several times, mostly for players who had just joined the server and my squad and who hadn't spawned yet, or if there was enough distance between myself and an enemy squad and asking a squad member to give up so a flag could be capped/re-capped, and also to see for myself what exactly the limited rp function looked like during the round of mestia.

The only caveat I have seen that has trickled over from .874b is the need to build fire bases outside of the Kashan walls, or in/around the small makeshift village area N/NE of the North Bunker. Though last nights round I was witness to emplacements being built in the Eastern Hills of the Kashan Bunker Complex which were no where near the supposed fire base itself.

Another thing I witnessed is with armor heavy maps, the need for supplies should really be relayed to transport helo pilots (one crate is all you need for a FB now), or initially if a logistical truck is available to drop off crates. Repair stations now are extremely vital, and after witnessing several cases of players taking logi trucks for their personal transport so they can drop crates and get a sniper/hat kit etc, and leaving the truck can be more hindering then helpful.

However I think we have seen that happen since the Logi truck has made an appearance.

All in all so far I really appreciate the availability to build fire bases in closer proximity to one another if there is a need, it only helps the team and can in fact make a two pronged attack easier as well as throwing off the other side.

Good points about the FOs as they stand and general impressions.

I agree, a mix of the two should be a good step forward as you suggest. I agree with Al though that as it stands the BF2 tactic will come into play (but I think I've about covered that), that if the rally system was to stay, the amount of people needed must be upped (I think over-run of an FO should be upped as per Snoogs and Skuds suggestion. Interesting idea about over-run numbers to one, for a rally, by Snoog below. Unsure about over-run numbers inthis respect for rallies. one sounds good but so does 3-4, or even area for over-run, 100 metres??)

[snooggums]

I agree, a mix of the two should be a good step forward as you suggest. I agree with Al though that as it stands the BF2 tactic will come into play (but I think I've about covered that), that if the rally system was to stay, the amount of people needed muct be upped (I think over-run should be upped as per Snoogs and Skuds suggestion)

Clarification: I want the FOB overrun number to be increased and the overrun of a rally point to be lowered (to a single soldier).

I wonder if a rally by a vehicle spawning option would work (ie they could spawn on a rally point but only if a transport is nearby to simulate the delivery of the troops to the front). Ideally the player would spawn in the vehicle and hop out to avoid seeing the player spawn from nowhere, but then hopping out looks like they came from nowhere.

[Taip3n]

Clarification: I want the FOB overrun number to be increased and the overrun of a rally point to be lowered (to a single soldier).

I wonder if a rally by a vehicle spawning option would work (ie they could spawn on a rally point but only if a transport is nearby to simulate the delivery of the troops to the front). Ideally the player would spawn in the vehicle and hop out to avoid seeing the player spawn from nowhere, but then hopping out looks like they came from nowhere.

My bad. Will edit. I meant FO. Didn't see the rally idea. Good idea though. Will edit.

Interesting idea combining transports with rallies. If not this way, perhaps a thought on 'combinations' is worth thinking about in other areas. I believe people have said about setting a rally within an area of an FO.

[|TG-Irr|Nixon]

Since the Beta, the SL kit seems to be obsolete since it's major advantage, the RP, is now so hard to use. I am all for the ideal of changing it, but taking it away or making it go away after 30 sec seems not to be working.

In this beta I tend not to use the RP. If I do, I need to send 4 guys in battle and hold back with 1 encase we need it. This makes the job of the SL pretty dull since we rarely see action anymore.

Here are some ideals I came up with when I was waiting in a corner to put my 30 sec RP for my guys to spawn in:

1) Would it be possible to make it stay, like before the beta, but to have a limit on the numbers of spawns you get out of it? E.G. after 6 guys spawns you lose it for X minutes.

2) Would it be possible to "build" a RP (no crates) just 1 officer and guy with a shovel, that way you can limit the number of RP in a area, will make them more strategic since you will need to find a place to build them and you will need to take the time to make the RP.

3) Is there anyway to make it work only if a SM is close to it? E.I it would act as a fall back point where you could have reinforcement.

Cheers,
Nix

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

Furthermore, many maps are 'samey' with FOs being put in the same place.

That choice is based solely on the SL who puts it there, and then the next one who puts it there and so on and so forth. IMHO It really has nothing to do with the maps, the distance adjustments made for the .874c beta testing I firmly believe will help to remedy what is being seen.

In regards to FO's:

This reduces game dynamic and flow.

I am unsure how this reduces the game dynamic, and flow.
If anything it accelerates it, before FO's and Bunkers and Rallies were implemented, players spawned off their SL's or APC's.
If the PR Devs all of a sudden hypothetically took away the FO option, but kept rallies PR would be spiraling backwards, and squads would be reserving vehicles for their own independent use since, with only rallies or main bases as spawn points there would be no other ways to get around. Plus if people think the maps are too long now....I would imagine the DEV's would have to increase the map timer from 3.5 hrs to 6hrs.

Project Reality chess game.

In theory it is a chess game, you move the pawns around, who are supported by the rooks and the bishops in hopes of conquering the other sides pawns, rooks, and bishops to eventually sack the queen and the king, or then move to a more defensive tactic when your reach has extended to far and you have left your backfield open to a counterattack......and then we repeat.

[d1sp0sabl3H3r0]

Get rid of RPs, let each team build 6 FOs, keep the 200m separation between FOs and leave the 200m build radius for assets.

6 FOs? Yeah, that would be 2/3 of the available rally points on a team if they were still around. Heck, the 5 we have now is a little over half the possible rally points a team could have. Lose the rallies!!!!

Next???

Actually, one thing I've noticed an awful lot of lately is players who give up as soon as they die because they have the rp to fall back on. To me, that's just horrible game play and brings 'tard rush' back into the vocabulary again. I cannot imagine being SL, sitting back with my medic to drop rallies, acting as a soldier factory while the other guys in my squad spawn-rush-shoot-die-spawn-rush-shoot-die over and over and over again. That's the game play that I just cannot stand anymore.

Lose the rps forever.

[Startrekern]

Firebases can go in a tonnnn of different places, not just the ones you see 'everyone' placing. You just have to be a bit creative.

[Taip3n]

...the distance adjustments made for the .874c beta testing I firmly believe will help to remedy what is being seen.

In regards to FO's:

I am unsure how this reduces the game dynamic, and flow.
If anything it accelerates it, before FO's and Bunkers and Rallies were implemented, players spawned off their SL's or APC's, if the PR Devs all of a sudden hypothetically took away the FO option, but kept rallies PR would be spiraling backwords....


In theory it is a chess game...

Absolutely agree with you on the points you make.

To me. The only way to compensate is to enable FO dynamic, and so gameplay dynamic, is to increase it to the likes of what we have seen in version c. I dont want that step backwards as you so aplty describe.

I've always looked at PR as a chess game Often mentioned and referneced to Chess throughout the time playing. And I aspire it to be like a modern, or different version. It's a key drive to why I play, and why I want to help in the tests and suggest thoughts, listen to thoughts and test. I also wish the Commander was required once more, those were better days when the first thing everyone worried about was 'who's going Commander, we need a Commander'. To me, the person in this hot seat is the proverbial 'chess player' while we are the pieces. Project Reality is a wondeful game, and yeah, to me akin to Chess and my dream is for it to be like it. Also it's a great game comparable to NHL 93, in an electronic sense. I believe many feel we play one of the best electronic games created. And the advent of the internet has made it possible for it to be as it is what we play day on day (a shooter wargaming), and akin to that greatest of games, Chess. It certainly has the right stuff for it. That to me is what PR can do, and why I am happy and proud to be part of it. I really hope for the day the DEVs bring out the ultimate platform to enable immersion ad get rid of the BF2 engine dificulties, that will crook the game till then. In any case: They have a winning formula here.

[Taip3n]

Firebases can go in a tonnnn of different places, not just the ones you see 'everyone' placing. You just have to be a bit creative.

As Randy said, the new beta version (c) allows for a more dynamic FO placement. This moves away from the stilted and without substance A to B FO placement we have seen with the (b) beta, leading to a stilted and without substance Project Reality game, and not the Project Reality akin to chess, with its depth.

To use the Chess analogy. Perhaps the 'normal' FO placement will be akin to the 'normal opening moves and variations of chess'. Then you get the, variants on variants. Then maybe a maverik move. But as it stands FOs do seem limited in dynamic (version as it stands/beta-b/rendering/over-run/and so on, being a problem) and so agree with Randy and others that prefer this versions' FO system, to allow dynamics. Your creativity sounds good!

[orpal]

If I would have to pick between C and B, I would go with B. No rallies at all.
Leave it as it was in first Beta. I went from not liking the system to loving it.

And for people that don't agree with me let me show you what I have been experiencing;
-More slower game- no rushing except the trucks at start ( can be fixed with few minor teaks)
-People not giving up, stretching the legs of that 5 min timer, and 80 % they get revived.
-Sticking with your squad- you just can't go wandering on your own thinking you have a spawnpoint if you mess up.
-Coordinated assaults - not Infantry blob, but well coordinated assaults.
- If you win, you win. If you mess up, you mess up. No second chances, which I really like because I think PR gives too many second chances.

And I don't care how important I am as a squad leader now, I do it for the bandages anyway...

[Bullseye2550]

i prefer no rp system from version b with fb placement system version c.

maybe this will be version d then :-)

and at least i like the fb overrun system.

someone of the devs said: you shouldnt be able to spawn near enemy = + rep

today a full squad spawned 50 m away from me after we killed them, not good.