Kills are more important than flags - (My argument)

[Wicca]

If you play this game for the soul purpose of killing people then i say get Moder warfare Rape game.

This game is about teamwork, coordination and communication. Its about having a laugh with people with you, and experiencing some cinematic situations whilst fighting with your team.

[Zimmer]

If you play this game for the soul purpose of killing people then i say get Moder warfare Rape game.

This game is about teamwork, coordination and communication. Its about having a laugh with people with you, and experiencing some cinematic situations whilst fighting with your team.

ROFL Wicca

Cant you enjoy both killing and teamwork?

[the_ganman]

PLEASE READ IT ALL

Think of it tho, in war you capture objectives, and those objectives are designed and called for the be attacked or defended cause, it provides ur side with an advantage of some sort,

IE capturing a hill so you can shoot and kill ur enemy or deny them something.


Should flags not be in areas that give you an advantage, IE on kashan a objective should be in the hills, cause the hills allow you to control the middle of the map.

What else, capturing that position should give an advantage over not holding that area. So maybe something like, u can build some HMG, foxholes, trenches, BUT theres no firebase, that way we dont get Vbf2 shitty cap flag and spawn shit. No Tows tho, or AA withough the normal 2 crates, BECAUSE the position should not instantly create a kill zone for everything, only the items that a normal infantry company would have.

If we ever get the player arty in, have them spawn at back flags making it an even more advantage for teams to push through cap flags and assault the artys position denying the enm arty.

[L4gi]

ROFL Wicca

Cant you enjoy both killing and teamwork?

He doesnt get any kills.

[OkitaMakoto]

PLEASE READ IT ALL

Think of it tho, in war you capture objectives, and those objectives are designed and called for the be attacked or defended cause, it provides ur side with an advantage of some sort,

IE capturing a hill so you can shoot and kill ur enemy or deny them something.


Should flags not be in areas that give you an advantage, IE on kashan a objective should be in the hills, cause the hills allow you to control the middle of the map.

What else, capturing that position should give an advantage over not holding that area. So maybe something like, u can build some HMG, foxholes, trenches, BUT theres no firebase, that way we dont get Vbf2 shitty cap flag and spawn shit. No Tows tho, or AA withough the normal 2 crates, BECAUSE the position should not instantly create a kill zone for everything, only the items that a normal infantry company would have.

If we ever get the player arty in, have them spawn at back flags making it an even more advantage for teams to push through cap flags and assault the artys position denying the enm arty.

Weve played with adding in bonuses for capping areas, see Korengal. I like the idea, personally, but not every map or every CP has a bonus that makes sense to give the holding team.

But for Kashan, the way I see it, the hills themselves mean absolutely nothing to a military, its the compound in the middle that will allow for refueling, helipads, etc whatever you want to imagine being put up inside the walled compound.

The hills themselves are a tactical position you should be taking to aid in maintaining and defending the compound.

Flag on the "important" military/strategic object/area(capping flags), but people always have the freedom to setup and defend those positions from better firing positions(getting kills)

[CodeRedFox]

The asset CP capture reward is something I'm always fighting for. Its help step goals and objectives while not having to rewrite the AAS code. And its easy to implement.

[Wilkinson]

As I agree, at the current moment PR wins by kills. I think all maps should have a ticket bleed, so it's less about kills, more about capturing areas.

[the_ganman]

The hills themselves are a tactical position you should be taking to aid in maintaining and defending the compound.

thats the thing, these CP should be tactical positions

and of course not every flag should get every asset. Plus if u did not get it the first time, i dont want the assets to spawn, i want it like a Fb where u got to place and build em, = Realism, cause combat engy would show up in RL and actually build the base. so this gives a short period of time for good counter attacks

[Hotrod525]

Blitzgrieg have proven that K.D. Ratio is point less, if you rush every flag you will trap the enemy in a non confortable zone and they will more than likely lose.

[the_ganman]

I couldn't agree more with the OP and I've said it in numerous different contexts, from the tournament forums to clan forums to project forums planning campaigns in the tourny, to these forums, etc etc. I'm glad to see the topic generating some interest.

If the idea is reality, then KDR is WAY WAY WAY overemphasized in PR.

Does anyone seriously think the PLA vs. USMC would be a contest of 400 guys vs. 400 guys? It would be 4000 guys with lots of trucks and inferior technology vs. 400 guys with attack helicopters, UAV's, and cruise missiles.

Look at Korea, or the Eastern front in WWII..... KDR? Forget that. Who won? Who lost the most soldiers? Different questions.

Vanilla is more strategically realistic than PR in terms of ticket bleed and the importance of territory. Majority of flags should equal ticket bleed. Period.

War is about territory. PR places no importance on territory, all of it is about assets and kills.

Not realistic.

It's still a good game, but the devs need to give us some reason to attack and defend flags. I've said it before - make them spawnpoints and introduce a bleed when your team has less than a majority of flags. The bleed should accelerate the less flags you have.

There is nothing wrong with the strategy of vanilla - it is the gameplay that attracts us to PR.

OMG OMG VBF2 LIKER!!! KILL KILL KILL

User was given infraction for useless/unhelpful post content

[C. Jones]

No, he makes a vaild point. Project Reality would be a lot better if they did that. At least, I would enjoy it. I cant get enough realism in a video game, I guess I should just join the army eh? Back on topic, I do think the dev's should look into that?

[OkitaMakoto]

thats the thing, these CP should be tactical positions

and of course not every flag should get every asset. Plus if u did not get it the first time, i dont want the assets to spawn, i want it like a Fb where u got to place and build em, = Realism, cause combat engy would show up in RL and actually build the base. so this gives a short period of time for good counter attacks

Disagree. In vietnam, to the northwest there was a base/area we fought long and hard for, Ill look up the name later, it was famous for the French too..started with a D(found it: Dienbienphu). It could be taken, but the hills around it had to be kept clear as well and that was hard as hell.

Thats the idea. You take the area that actually has some "use" like a base, then try to protect it with the given terrain.

A hill on its own does jack and **** for a military(in the grand scheme of things, not talking squad level) if there's nothing around it worth defending/being there for.

You wouldn't rush into a country and just take some random hill because its there (of course, if we're talking a major hill that would be good for artillery, etc then sure, but different story) you would go for the airbases, power plants, industrial centers, important cities, etc. And then set up in those places or the terrain around in order to defend them.

Thats the way i see it. As I have said before, this makes you taking flags important, and killing the enemy as well. Apparently some people just see it differently

[the_ganman]

Disagree. In vietnam, to the northwest there was a base/area we fought long and hard for, Ill look up the name later, it was famous for the French too..started with a D. It could be taken, but the hills around it had to be kept clear as well and that was hard as hell.

Thats the idea. You take the area that actually has some "use" like a base, then try to protect it with the given terrain.

A hill on its own does jack and **** for a military if there's nothing around it worth defending/being there for.

You wouldn't rush into a country and just take some random hill because its there (of course, if we're talking a major hill that would be good for artillery, etc then sure, but different story) you would go for the airbases, power plants, industrial centers, important cities, etc. And then set up in those places or the terrain around in order to defend them.

Thats the way i see it. As I have said before, this makes you taking flags important, and killing the enemy as well. Apparently some people just see it differently

Well if flags were tactical locations then its worth taking em, and the assets give that advantage that makes it very usefull

[OkitaMakoto]

What kind of assets are you talking about? spawning a helo on a hill?

Because Im talking about spawning helos or armor at a forward CP in maybe an airport or something

Somewhere in our discussion I dont think we're matching up


I could be wrong in my word use, but I believe in the idea of CPs/Flags being strategic, long term locations (industrial centers, airfields, large compounds) while the hills and outlying lesser things like villages, hills, or forests are more tactical positions youd want to setup at and defend from. This is, of course, assuming you are defending not from directly within the Flag in question, or have some in and others in more tactical positions.

[ChiefRyza]

I believe there should be more incentives for attacking a flag, instead of just a chance to move further towards that 'bleed flag'. In the end, the OP has a point because going for that final flag often results in the loss of the team doing it.

Maybe a ticket reward for taking a flag, it is the only way in my opinion to counteract the fact that many times, being the team on the offensive leads to defeat as long as the enemy has a half decent defense. There are always exceptions to this, for instance, getting lucky and having barely any opposition on subsequent flags allowing for taking it without loss.

I know the coding complexity involved but there hasn't been a change in the AAS gamemode for quite some time. At it's core, I personally believe PR has outgrown AAS mode, and either a replacement or some serious changes are needed to make it an enjoyable, fair and replayable.


1. Defensive: Defensive tactics on a flag should give a reason for a team to defend, but not give them a reason to not attack. Biggest problem I see with AAS is it is so black and white, it's either hold a position and obliterate the enemy or go all out. Either one normally ends the same, one team being extremely disappointed or both when each team turtles and the game turns sour.

Giving asset rewards for time defending a flag etc. could give teams a reason to hold a position while giving them the assets to take the next flag. An alternative could be to provide a ticket bonus for keeping the flag for every 10 minutes, but I'm still not entirely sure what a good reward for defending could be. Again, it shouldn't give a team enough reason to hold off on the offensive.

2. Offensive: Pure and simple, ticket rewards or something similar for taking an enemy flag (not an initial neutral flag). Why? You give the attacking team a good reason to attack the next flag, not just the chance to get the enemy to bleed. I feel AAS at the moment is too much about getting the enemy into a bleed state, rather than actually fighting, which ends up just feeling secondary when all your trying to do is go for the cap-out.

Another option is to have the asset reward system, but only have the heaviest class of vehicles in the central flags, with lighter vehicles in the flags leading up to them. Basically it means you have both teams extremely focused on taking the central flags as they might get a CAS aircraft etc. IF your team can't take it, your team won't get that particular asset. This should also tie in with the defense rule of having to hold a position for at least 10-15 minutes before receiving said asset.

[the_ganman]

im talking having positions that allow you to put light FB based assets HMV trench, ....etc that give you position over bigger objective like a factory or airport, that could give you like a helo, or resupply base.


So its like making the distinction between say company level targets and brigade targets,

So a flag on the hill over looking the bunkers on kashan that give u HMG and shit like that, This gives you control over bleed giving flags IE the bunkers,

So the fight starts for this tactical objectives, Ie the hills, this is running the same AAS where u can only take one before the other... etc etc. these give u tactical positions over a main flag IE bunkers, when a certain amount of these tactical positions are taken THen bunkers can be capt and give bleed to other team.

Making Flag giving the use of

A) making enm easier to kill cause u got well placed assets well placed people, and easier to defend,

B) allows you to take the main bleed flag.

So that teams that attack and hold tactical positions have control of the battle = realistic + awesome gameplay

[OkitaMakoto]

Couldnt you just build the HMG or firebase on the hill without the flag? I guess I dont get it.

[the_ganman]

ya i get ur point in that domain, maybe if its auto built or new stuff thats much better cause its considered ``permanent `` per say

OR

say 4-5 HMG in the area, so just more stuf can be used when you have captured one of these tactical flags

[0331SgtSpyUSMC]

I dont want to play another cookie-cutter game that creates and rewards lonewolfs, I want to play a game that encourages and rewards players who participate together as one in a team.

I know it's been brought up before, but if teams were rewarded with tickets for capturing flags and perhaps holding it for certain amount of time, it could help to reduce the lonewolfing. It would be really nice if the amount of tickets rewarded depended on the amount of people within the flag radius when it's captured.

As of right now I would have to agree that as long as you have one flag remaining you can still manage to win the round if you have good defense. It is always easier to hold defensive position rather than attacking one. (deviation, seeing target ahead of time, etc.)

PS: ChiefRyza beat me to it great idea