Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

    "These ideas are meant to work in conjunction with one another. Everything that I thought here was thought up with the other ideas also being used.

    Gamemode- ( AASv4 ?) The current style of command point style in my opinion is becoming really old and redundant. The BF2 mentality of rushing must somehow be channeled into to better gameplay. A very troublesome but extremely effective aspect that directly affects almost all of PRís gameplay is the aspect of speed. Players often mistake speed as the priority over their own virtual life. If they have a place they want to go, they want to get there the fastest way possible.

    Suggestion- If possible, remove flags markers on the player map but have them still exist. Itís basically the same exact command points that are currently used except players donít know where the command points are. If possible, only allow the commander to see the true command points that need to be captured.

    -Map starts. For each team there is one flag available for capture and is only visible to the commander. All other flags are kept invisible even to the commander.

    - Your team's Initial flag is captured. When the initial flag is captured, two more flags are shown to the commander, one active and one inactive.The active flag is the enemiesí first initial flag. The inactive flag is the flag that would become active if you were to lose your initial flag.

    -Second flag is captured. This is the enemies first initial Flag. They move to their last flag which was their inactive flag but it is now active.

    -Third Flag is captured. Heavy Ticket Bleed begins.

    A problem would be that some people would memorize the exact cap radius of some flags and sometimes correctly assume where the flag is. A solution to this is double or triple the amount of possible flag zones there are if possible.


    Commander- The commanderís role should more important than other role. Filling the commander role should be as important as is creating an Infantry, Tank or APC squad. There needs to be some sort of real planning and some sort of real head man in command each PR round. Currently squads just do what ever they feel like and do what ever they think is best. Which is usually rush and die constantly.

    Suggestion- If the commander was the only player who could see the true map command points, than all other players are at the mercy of his command. At the beginning of the round, the commander has the choice to just tell exactly where the flags are, or hopefully devise a plan that he think will win the game. He could send out squads together more easily because the squads otherwise have no idea where to go. He can send out a patrol squad to get a step ahead of the enemy ect. The commander can truly command his team.

    Another benefit from unknown flags to non-commanders is that squads will be less inclined to Rambo throughout the map ie. APCs and Tanks. All squads canít easily anticipate where the enemy will be as they wonít know where the enemy is heading.


    Infantry Suggestions

    Rally points: Donít serve as rally points at all. It is almost never the case where the rally point is used as a place to fall back to.

    - After being placed, the rally expires in 60 seconds.
    - Can be deployed by anyone in the squad.
    - Requires 2 people.
    - Cannot be replaced for 2-5 minutes

    So if 4 men go down( including the officer) during a firefight and 2 people escape. Those two people can set a new rally.

    If there is a chance in the game where a SL wants to go on a full fledged assault, the SL can have the choice to create a way point. Similar to the current rally point but only lasts 5 minutes. Upon deployment of the squad Way point, a team colored smoke would be deployed that only expires when the Way point goes down( if long lasting smoke is possible.) You could only place a Way point every 10 minutes or even more.

    Hud: - Remove Capture progress bar. ( So when the commander tells a squad to defend an area, they donít know if they are actually on the flag or not.)

    Random Ideas: - Not many people complain about this because most people shrug it off. Its not hard to see that the scoped rifleman is the more popular of kits. What ends up happening is that the only people with iron site type weapons are left to the medic, specialist kit. Many firefights consist of 2 people shooting both with scopes. Worst case scenario- both people are shooting at each other 50 meters away, prone, missing, and constantly suppressing each other until one of them gets lucky enough to kill the other. In real-life, I can imagine it being really frustrating to look down your scope and identifying targets shooting at you. In PR, most of the time you already know exactly where the enemy is and you instantly scope at his location. That's what the 4 second rule represents, steadying your weapon after finding your target. My suggestion would that the iron site weapon's settle down time be decreased to 2 seconds. In this way, scope rifleman would turn to the automatic-rifleman's way, rewarding people already in position and able to shoot down your targets. It is already difficult to aim with the iron site at long ranges where the scoped rifleman would dominate. What decreased settle down time for the ironsite weapon would bring is more popularity in all maps because the kit more viable. It will support people who like to site in quickly take quick accurate shots and duck back in cover. This would fix some awkward fire fights in PR and get people away from scoped combat."
    posted by X1 Spriggan

    post what you think of this A. here and B. on the PR site (http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-...-gameplay.html)

  • #2
    Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

    Hmm. Initial thoughts:

    I agree the Commander role needs to be re-thought. In prior versions of PR it was always shouted out in Team chat 'who will be Commander'?. Nowadays, unless someone wants to actually Command, as you know it's only stepped into for barrages. Bring back the Commander I say.

    So with this in mind, on to the suggestion.

    I am unsure I like the notion of 'one flag' appearing. Taking into consideration that sending out patrols for enemy movement, or nailing down key positions to hold and deploy from sounds good, the pre-emptive custody of a flag to be capped is gone. I don't think the maps are in general well designed enough to consider the first where-as the maps can still form around the latter.

    Such a gameplay, then, would perhaps be best suited as incremental, which would allow map development and a way of viewing if such a possibly could work.

    I agree, the 'unknown' factor sounds excellent and as said would mightily increase the Commander role. Perhaps two flags to begin with, on the first incremental change, and a map or two development, and see how it plays out. The removal of cap status, I am unsure about - again most maps or not ready to have infantry sections set out all round defence. I would like this implemented on a Section level, yes. The immersion would be fantastic, and really bring out PR, however, only certain maps at the moment are capable to come close to this, at the moment.

    This neatly (I thought) brings me to the notion of Rallies. I do not like this idea that they disappear. A Rendezvous point, or RV, should have been selected by the section leaders in any patrol, in planning, if possible, or along the way - as is possible ambush positions etc, so I believe. To me the Rally in PR acts like this: an RV. Yes, it can act as a point of attack and often does. Leaving out the fact of using it as an attack point to add pressure to the enemy which would simply 'disappear' in one minute - which is bonkers for gameplay or the notion of using overwhelming forces, I would rather look at the Rally on a more rl level and the section patrol/defence level. We all know, we use them as a defence hold up, which is great I think but I want to conentrate on say the everyday life of a patrol sleeping in the field, or what they do when it is the dirty end of the real life of a soldier. In this case, I think to make RV 'disappear' runs directly opposite the suggestion; an environment does not suddenly 'disappear', where you retreat to set up your all-round-defence, after such contacts as receiving an ambush or even after applying one on the enemy. The rally, is the PR version of a sections place of rest with Stag (sentry), or RV, and aspects such as all-round-defence. Therefore, if these good suggestions were applied in PR then it is my feeling the suggestion of the disappearing RV would not work, as the Section leader and 2IC would have already established that point in the environment for the squad to go to in the event it is called out-and that environment does not simply disappear in a puff of smoke.

    Furthermore, the notion of being 'over-run' by a hostile force that is greater than you in numbers or momentum, is already in place. In fact, I feel the number of hostiles in the area should be increased, since it is all to easy at the moment of two players to randomly bimble into the area, not even know your presence and destroy your rally, which is counter to the notion of PR and any tactics, in my opinion.

    This next is rather political statement maybe but I would actually love to set up ambushes and patrols and all-round-defences of my squads position, and do; and so look to the positive aspects of this suggestion in this area. Furthermore, since I am pretty much always an infantry bod, I can imagine the flyboys already saying “but we need to patrol the sky to see where the enemy is”, in regard to the notion of only seeing ‘one flag’. Whilst I and others continue to ground pound and do the dirty work. I would love that dirty work and actually do it now in PR, and think the suggestions of the 'unknown' great for this, but only maps like Kozelsk actually enable it in a truly great environmental sense at the moment.

    In sum, I am looking forward to any suggestions and corrections on tactics (hats off to all you that are/have been real soldiers, my deference to you and apologies for anything that is incorrect, there is absolutely no suggestion on my part of any insult and gladly be educated, as my respect to you is uttermost), or my overall first impression of the suggestions, feeling an agreement that the Commander roles should be back, the suggestions workable apart from the Rally suggestion, as I feel it counter productive to the idea, as with them as they stand, they make good gaming tactics based on rl tactics. I think it could make for a good game and map development has suggested it can be done, and is applied now in most maps but the newer ones are much better for this kind of situation. As it stands then the ‘can’t see the next flag, runs counter to gameplay and thus the suggestion of increments, as I believe it could work and be brilliant for gameplay immersion and the PR remit. It should be incremental and tested though I am unsure about the 'one flag' suggestion. Finally I like the iron sights as they are, they are quicker to raise than scope, I feel. Infact I feel that the short stock AK version is faster than the long; maybe my imagination but being a russian medic is my favourate thing to do for good reason, and this weapon is my weapon of choice whenever I can get it. I can't remember model numbers off the top my head for Kozelsk or Insurgency, or anything really when it comes to makes etc. It's an AK is all I know and I know a bit in general about that but forgot the in-game names but to me, this is what it does and like a true AK is devistating, and I am not a bad shot at distance with it either. But to me, it is like the recent thread on the G3, it is closest to reality and 'feels right' that a short stock and raising to sight position, feels right, as was discussed in the G3 thread, about how the gun 'feels and handles'. That’s my first impressions anyway and looking forward to what the others say and maybe post in PR forum once feedback from others help reason out this proposal.
    Last edited by Taip3n; 08-07-2009, 09:25 AM. Reason: clarity, grammar, spelling

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

      I'm baffled first, confused second, and befuddled third.

      If I'm reading this right, there are only three flags on a map, that makes it a pretty valid point that some (read: a lot of) people will memorize them. Even on Qwai with the "random" AAS, it picks the same ones a pretty hefty majority of the time.

      Without a commander rework (Which I think is coming, but still), this becomes the biggest reason to fill the commander slot, but I bet you still won't get that many commanders. Probably something like a faster cycle of mortars. Someone goes CO for a few minutes to mark the maps, then resigns to go play. Every now and then someone reapplies to refresh the map and drop the area attack, then resigns. No incentive to stay in the CO seat.

      And there is still an inclination to rambo. Some players feel the best way to scout for caches on INS maps is to drive full speed in a humvee around and look for fire, because where there's fire, there's something worth defending. I imagine this effect, but with tanks and APCs and I shudder a little.

      Edit, also I'm making a prediction for 1.0: There will be one spawnpoint on a map. For both sides.
      Not really sure why people want so desperately to remove as many spawnpoints as possible.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

        The flags showing to the commander is kinda good... Together with the UAV it would make the commander role NECESSARY, other than just useful. However, for that, all the maps would have to be random AAS, such as Barracuda and Fools.

        I don't like the idea of the rallies at all.
        |TG-69th|Kevlar



        "Oh I know I don't think I see what I see what I'm thinking."

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

          I like the rally idea and not the rest :)
          |TG-6th|Snooggums

          Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

            Yeah, I love the rally and commander idea, but the thing with the riflemen isn't my cup of soup.

            Anyway I think the riflemen idea is already in place. Deviation for the scoped rifles is about 4 seconds while the iron sights is 2.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

              I like 99.9% of this. Especially the removing of the flag markers. If teams only saw one flag then it might make for more epic battles involving not just Inf but EVERYTHING. (armor and air) This, in turn, would require a more tactical load out of ones Sqd (most Sqd Ldr just say "Eh, just give me a medic and AR and were fine") and require more communication with other Sqds.




              - After being placed, the rally expires in 60 seconds.
              - Can be deployed by anyone in the squad.
              - Requires 2 people.
              - Cannot be replaced for 2-5 minutes

              So if 4 men go down( including the officer) during a firefight and 2 people escape. Those two people can set a new rally.

              If there is a chance in the game where a SL wants to go on a full fledged assault, the SL can have the choice to create a way point. Similar to the current rally point but only lasts 5 minutes. Upon deployment of the squad Way point, a team colored smoke would be deployed that only expires when the Way point goes down( if long lasting smoke is possible.) You could only place a Way point every 10 minutes or even more.

              This is the .1% that Im not too fond of. I think the game gives Sqd leaders extra abilities (ability to set a rally point) because Sqd leaders arnt really SUPPOSE to be the first into combat. Sqd Leaders should really be in the middle of their chalk (or Team) due to a few things.

              (please understand most of this is based on a mix between real life and this game)
              1. They need to stay alive to lead. Yea I know you can still transmit when your dead but really the best thing to do is not engage unless you have to. You job is to lead not rack up kills.

              2. In real life to make Sgt. (Sqd leader) you have to show the ability to lead and have a natural ability to think on your feet, plus most Sgts. get additional training in tactics and manevuers. So realistically, not everyone should be able to set rallys IMO.

              On a side note.

              In real life I can imagine it being really frustrating to look down your scope and identifying targets shooting at you.

              Let me say this. First of all, most Inf dont have ACOGs. The basic load out is iron sights or Aim Dots. So these far off, scoped fire fights arnt that common in real life.

              Secondly, In real life if you are taking fire from a distance YOU TAKE COVER. Then, listening for a "hiss" or "zing" or "whiss" (which means their fireing at or near you, You either stay down or you look to identify the shooter. If you are taking fire, you rely on your team to identify the target and eliminate it.

              I have been shot at and yes, I have discharged my weapon but I will tell you, when I took fire I never saw the shooter nor did I look. I took cover, covered a different angle and waited for the all clear.

              Though over there, there wasnt a respawn point =(

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                The invisible flag idea is intriguing. It would be nice to make the Commander role more important, but I don't know about making it absolutely necessary.

                Rally points should be left as is, but maybe the SL can get a permanent waypoint marker (like the Commander's dropzone markers) in addition to the normal markers.

                The rifles are fine, I think. Ironsights take a lot less time to "shoulder" than it takes to sight through the scopes, so that already covers a lot of the delay or settle time difference. I already tend towards the ironsight rifleman kit most of the time anyways since often the only other ironsight in a squad is the medic. More people should take this approach - maybe the scoped rifleman kit should be limited? :icon_lol: Ok, maybe not.
                |TG-6th|Belhade
                "I am actually looking forward to watching Jon and Kate plus 8." - Dirtboy




                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                  Perhaps the SL should be the only one with the ACOG? I think that in reality a lot of troops with scopes use those to scan terrain in the distance more so than perhaps binocs, especially when hostilities could be imminent. Maybe every other kit, with the exception of the SAW, uses iron sights. This might help keep the SL back, spotting for the squad and not at the front of the pack. It would probably also increase the number of really great firefights where you exchange a lot of fire, not a lot of hits, and ammo starts to become an issue for everyone. Those are the best times I've had in this game, and would reduce the "laser" effect that PR still seems to suffer from now at times.

                  "You milsim guys are ruining the game."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                    Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                    Perhaps the SL should be the only one with the ACOG? I think that in reality a lot of troops with scopes use those to scan terrain in the distance more so than perhaps binocs, especially when hostilities could be imminent. Maybe every other kit, with the exception of the SAW, uses iron sights. This might help keep the SL back, spotting for the squad and not at the front of the pack. It would probably also increase the number of really great firefights where you exchange a lot of fire, not a lot of hits, and ammo starts to become an issue for everyone. Those are the best times I've had in this game, and would reduce the "laser" effect that PR still seems to suffer from now at times.
                    While obviously different from what we have now, I can see this as being quite fun. If you remove the scope rifle entirely, though, then you might get squads taking LAT, MM and SR kits from the crates just to get scopes, especially Kashan/Quinling and some of the other more open maps.
                    "It's called a randomizer, and it's fitted to the guidance systems and operates under a very complex scientific principle called pot luck."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                      I <3 scope, don't take it from me. Or I will end you all.

                      Seriously though, even in a really tight CQB fight I will ALWAYS take scope as I do not feel myself disadvantaged in any way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                        Originally posted by KevlarBR View Post
                        all the maps would have to be random AAS, such as Barracuda and Fools.

                        Not true. The maps with fixed flags could remain as they are.

                        What I would love to see, though, is Random AAS applied to Muttrah with random flags in the city/docks. There are so many wonderful places for battles that never get utilized at all (the Marketplace, back suburb, container ship/warehouse by the Repair Station at docks, etc) that would be simply wonderful.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                          Originally posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0 View Post
                          Perhaps the SL should be the only one with the ACOG? I think that in reality a lot of troops with scopes use those to scan terrain in the distance more so than perhaps binocs, especially when hostilities could be imminent. Maybe every other kit, with the exception of the SAW, uses iron sights. This might help keep the SL back, spotting for the squad and not at the front of the pack. It would probably also increase the number of really great firefights where you exchange a lot of fire, not a lot of hits, and ammo starts to become an issue for everyone. Those are the best times I've had in this game, and would reduce the "laser" effect that PR still seems to suffer from now at times.
                          We tried that with .8 to "extend firefights" and the community as a whole threw it back in PR's face. I remember Patterson was the one who argued for and implemented the code. To me and a few other vets/active servicemen the rifles just seemed "wrong" and unnatural. While what we have now isn't exactly perfect it's much better in my opinion rewarding skill rather the luck needed to land a hit in the "cone of fire".

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                            I like some things, I dislike some things. But it's all very well thought out, I'll give you that. I'd say I like the majority of items mentioned in the thread-post.

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: new capture rules suggestion from pr forums

                              In regards to less scoped weaponry, I agree... but I don't think that only Squad Leaders should get them

                              Limiting them, however, sounds like a good idea. Officer can choose between irons and scope, and rifleman would default to ironsights. Perhaps, 2 people per squad could be scoped riflemen. As for specialty kits like LAT/AA/etc, those could be irons/sights instead of scopes, so that there isn't any 'wasting' of those kits just to get scopes.

                              The rest of it is interesting, and I think it would be really interesting to see implemented, but it seems like something that a LOT of PR's playerbase would just be like 'NO i dun liek it bcuz its too hrd' about. For TG and the other high-teamwork based servers, I could see these being awesome.

                              (I've always thought limited rallies would be better. Helicopter transport would be used more requiring pilots to really think for themselves when flying rather than just going to the area, so that they keep air transport up and running, and APCs would be a lot more valuable to get back into the battle. Yeah, it might be slow, but it would be a big step forward in terms of 'reality' while still keeping some good gameplay elements in it. Firebases would become more useful, too! And important commanders would be a good thing, too.)

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X