Kills are more important than flags - (My argument)

[gaurd502]

I thought that Command and Control(?) game mode kinda fixed this. Were you would set up your Fire base in a spot were you found it strategical important. But I agree with the OP too. A few rounds were lost because the team with the most flags lost too many men while trying to get them.

[the_ganman]

So in essence, a cross of AAS and C&C would solve the problem

[Potilas]

AAS3 mode works best when map is big and lots of heavy assets available. Then battle is about controlling whole map by destroying opposing team heavy ground and air forces. The team who has gained major material superiority usually rapidly roll over entire enemy forces and flags. That is the way how aas3 mode works at it best. Sadly small maps does not make possible to have material domination over enemy, so even significantly better team cannot have always full cap. AAS3 mode isnt bad, it just not suit for all maps. What we need is a new game mode for smaller maps and infantry focused maps. No need to mess up aas3 mode. Its fine as it is.

[rampo]

What we need is a new game mode for smaller maps and infantry focused maps. No need to mess up aas3 mode. Its fine as it is.

Skirmish does this perfectly IMO

[Tartantyco]

Let me just link to this thread I made about this earlier.

[mat552]

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.

But you're playing PR, arguably the middle ground game on the market as far as this goes.

We as a playerbase reward those of us who come out of rounds with a 15:1 kdr. We elevate those who do well killwise, and we frequently express our desires on this forum to emulate that behavior. The stated goal of the mod is teamwork however, but it's so incredibly hard to measure and compare teamwork. It isn't some cut and dry metric that can be expressed as a ratio. It's an elusive concept, but one that's impossible to miss when you see it.

The contrast between the two is part of the reason I'm having trouble stomaching PR right now, I just can't deal with the contradictions between the two.

[Potilas]

Skirmish does this perfectly IMO

Totally not. Normal aas3 mode is by light year ahead than skirmish. You must try to fool me . Converting aas3 maps to skirmish would make the actual problem even worse.

Giving a small reward for capturing a flag would surely turn more intrest for objective based game play. Rewards could be extra tickets, crate(s), spawn point, repair station, deny enemy spawn at ~300m or closer range from the captured flag.

Other way is change the nature of the flag so they become more intresting.
Some measures:In the assault maps defending team cannot capture flags or some flags. For example on operation barracuda PLA would lose permanently flag once its lost.
Cannot build near enemy flag (300m?) so team/squad have to cap the flag first before they can build anything.
When time runs out the team who have more flags under control will win regardless of the ticket amount.

Im just throwing ideas around what probably would make ppl to play more objective based. Nothing very specific thoughts here.

[AquaticPenguin]

Let me just link to this thread I made about this earlier.

I like your idea a lot - It turns the strategic positions into just that, strategic positions, and is probably more free than the rigid flag structure at the moment - It seems like there wasn't a great deal of discussion on the idea either but I'm a bit reluctant to necro it .

I don't think removing ticket penalty for infantry would be a good idea, I've found playing insurgent I often just bumrush because I know there is little loss if I die apart from a spawn time - Generally I find I get a lot of kills using this tactic, but I also get a lot of deaths. In AAS there needs to be a balance between kills, and flags so I think some flag bleed on the intermediate flags would put the pressure on for people to get into the fight. Arguably in real life situations the focus isn't on killing the enemy, the focus is capturing objectives and trying not to die - The enemy is killed because they get in the way, not because you need to kill X amount of them to reduce their tickets and win.

[Solver]

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.

See, that's why flags aren't important enough in the current PR metagame. They do not have a "use" per se. In PR, firebases have many uses. They give you a numerical advantage of sorts as you can spawn in the area, they put you closer to nearby objectives, they allow for the construction of defenses. While firebases serve these functions, flags don't really. In 0.7 though, a flag meant you could get a bunker up on it.

The key is probably to make the flags themselves matter by trying to mimic why they (objective areas) matter in real life. I know you can make flags give bonuses or spawn stuff, not sure if it's possible to make each flag do something different, as the mapper defines? Flags can:

- Spawn some light assets (humvees, trucks) upon capture
- Spawn a light asset for every 10 or 15 minutes the flag is under your control
- Spawn a repair station (like from the logi trucks) that expires some time later
- Spawn, without respawning in the future, a bigger asset - an APC or a scout copter

So if you can make the mapper decide what flag spawns what, great. If not, just make all flags provide some smaller bonus, like a couple humvees, which would encourage flag play without breaking balance.

In other words, the strategy of PR battles just needs more realism. Make it so that flags have some importance by themselves, and then surrounding areas like hills become important because they can be used well to protect the area - and not just because you're damn hard to dislodge from that hill.

[Fess|3-5|]

I don't think a bleed on middle flags is a good idea. Remember, my argument is that by killing more people, I am a better team player than someone taking a middle flag. If a bleed was introduced, I'd now have no choice but to throw myself into the meat grinder of the flags, because even the best squads can't counteract a significant bleed. You should reward a team for capturing a flag, not punishing a team for losing it. Any number of ideas mentioned earlier would work. Humvees, 15 more tickets, no enemy spawn nearby, whatever. A reward is much more fair to gameplay than punishment.


That's only if you feel like the system needs changing. As it stands, I'm quite content with it.

[_casualtyUR]

"You should reward a team for capturing a flag, not punishing a team for losing it.", Fess|3-5|

Is vBF2, conterstrike, quake, BF2 bad company you want? Run and gun. A regular MMO shooter.
I'll take PR - the thinking man's shooter.

PR is a strategic game and calls for learning how to capturing points and to defend points. If people are frustrated at camped bases then find a way to whittle down the defenses by arty, disruption of supply lines, close proximity to neutralized a FOB and of course by enemy deaths. In many cases there are multi capture points to dilute the enemy.

[Farks]

I made a thread about this a few months back. And I agree, the flags in AAS mode needs somekind of strategic value to them. The best thing would be somekind of seperate point system, that starts at zero and goes up when you cap flags and achieve certain things. And that would determine the winner of the battle. The tickets would just represent reinforcements and resources. But until then/if it's possible, I think the best alternative is to just make a team lose some tickets when a flag falls into enemy hands, or put in a ticket gain for taking a flag. But I think ticket loss is the best option, since rounds already tend to drag out so much.

[the_ganman]

I made a thread about this a few months back. And I agree, the flags in AAS mode needs somekind of strategic value to them. The best thing would be somekind of seperate point system, that starts at zero and goes up when you cap flags and achieve certain things. And that would determine the winner of the battle. The tickets would just represent reinforcements and resources. But until then/if it's possible, I think the best alternative is to just make a team lose some tickets when a flag falls into enemy hands, or put in a ticket gain for taking a flag. But I think ticket loss is the best option, since rounds already tend to drag out so much.

iM with him on this one, still tho, flags should be repositioned to give em atleast a tactical usefullness instead of sudelenly getting more tickets, flags should be area control points, if u capture one you can control an area.

[Cassius]

This reminds me of a discussion revolving around football. A couple of years ago there were complaints that you really only need to win 1 - 0. After scoring a goal the leading team would form what is called a catenaccio defending their one goal for the remainder of the game, most of the times successfully. That made for rather dull games of course. Football adapted and nowdays holding on to one goal in professional football is very risky buisness.

So it really depends. If the team is oranized it can cap out the enemy team. If there is not a great deal of organization, so that won battles can be exploited to advance the units further, then it does not make sense to sacrifice a positive K/D ratio for the cap of a heavily defended position. But then again in that case its no fun to play and if its not fun it aint worth spending one hour+ on that server.

The best example, look at the Germans in WW II, they killed more enemy combatants than most countries and states have habitants and that does not include the captured or wounded (although they admittably had a tendency to turn wounded into dead). They still lost, because Hitler being an experienced soldier rather than an experienced general, was only able to think of wafare on a platoon scale, rather than on an army scale ignoring the advice of the more experienced commanders he did not kill or alienate. The result was an army that was very good at killing, but had insufficient supply lines and was generally unable to build on the battles they won.

It is a gamble, if you play defensively you stand a decent chance to win on tickets, but risk getting capped out. Also owning flags are a reward in itself, the enemy gets closer to being capped out and will eventually counterattack and lose more tickets than the defenders if they set up right.
But I have seen even fairly balanced games end on capping out the adversary, because after eliminating each other assets, one of the team went straight back on the offensive when their armor and transport spawned back in, while the other hunkered down more.

[HunterMed]

Flags are only important when one team bleeds which is not happening often.

Therefore maps with many flags with a lot of distance between them are only about the k/d and vehicle losses.

To solve that I made a suggestion and a thread earlier...

I agree with farks - I really hope that DEVs look into all that... Because this is one of the major problems in PR at the moment in my opinion.

[Farks]

I don't think it would hurt anybody to test ticket loss/gain in relation to flags with an open beta. The RP test last year went quite well imo.

[Jedimushroom]

I wonder if asset gains from flag capture in the same vein as the old Korengal Valley would be a good idea. E.G when the US captures docks they stop their ticket bleed, but if they capture north city as well they get another LAV and so on.

The one other thing that drives me mad, utterly mad is this: When the attacking team has a flag that is not capturable, they MUST have ticket bleed until they capture one of the other flags. It was partly this mistake that killed that 4X4 forest map, it just made rounds last forever, even where the attackers had clearly lost.

[archerfenris]

Hence why AAS fails and why I play insurgency. Where you can kill as many insurgents as you want and it matters fuck all.

[Fess|3-5|]

"You should reward a team for capturing a flag, not punishing a team for losing it.", Fess|3-5|

Is vBF2, conterstrike, quake, BF2 bad company you want? Run and gun. A regular MMO shooter.
I'll take PR - the thinking man's shooter.

PR is a strategic game and calls for learning how to capturing points and to defend points. If people are frustrated at camped bases then find a way to whittle down the defenses by arty, disruption of supply lines, close proximity to neutralized a FOB and of course by enemy deaths. In many cases there are multi capture points to dilute the enemy.

So you're saying I'm not a thinking man?


My reasoning for the reward vs punishment are thus: the attacker probably lost more tickets than the defender, so it would bring them closer to neutral, so that by choosing to attack, you still have a shot at winning before you run out of tickets going for the cap out. Also, in your 'thinking man' argument, psychologically, it hurts to lose a flag. No one likes being told that they are doing poorly. Now you have to deal with the added effect that you're even more likely to lose because the bad guys just got that much stronger. It would turn into a war of offense, similar to what we have now, because if you win and succeed, status quo is maintained, but if you defend and lose, your team is hurt. Maybe that's realistic, but remember:

PROJECT REALITY IS FIRST AND FOREMOST A GAME

It's a game with noble intentions, sure, but it's still a game. You'll probably call me a CS Fanboy for saying this (I hate CS, and all run and gun shooters btw), but gameplay should always come first before reality. At least in PR. The developers have tried to implement 'realistic' ideas in the past that have made the game worse, because their are limitations in both the BF2 engine, and the BF2 playerbase. If you really want a MilSim, go buy ArmA 2, and download ACE2. That's a 'Realistic' Game. Even though the statement is an oxymoron.

[Wicca]

Well, id say we should have a gamemode that allows you to cap all flags, and if you loose all flags you start bleeding tickets just like Conquest mode in BF2.

Ill make a frikkin map test if you want?

Cause what i see in BF2 games, the teamwork, is that the entire team works togheter towards a common goal, and splits them into more subgoals that they solve in order.

IE flag Is under enemy control RAAAAPE and rush that.


Then the ultimate goal would be to take all the flags and hold them.