Ticket penalty for losing a control point (poll?)

[Farks]

I like this change a lot! As a tactical and strategic game, PR should be based on objectives. Up until now the flags had almost no impact on the games outcome and it was essentially all based on KDR, which in other words meant that it was all a team based deathmatch. Fun in some games, but not in PR. And as long as PR is what it is and AAS is based on flags, they should be the main factor in the games outcome. Real warfare is based on objectives and goals and flags is the gameplay way of representing that.

So I'm going with option #2. Increase the ticket penalty to -50 to really make it sting and put further the emphasis on the flags!

[Jaberwo]

I like it a lot, because in 0.91 I always had to hold me and my squad back, not to attack a flag if we where far away from both ours and the enemy's last flag.

It felt wrong when I always had to remind myself to do the smart thing and let them run into my fortified position.

Like always it's an excellent change to encourage realistic behavior

[Tarranauha200]

2. I like it, but increase the penalty
Still I see objectives being undefended and still not major effect on teams game.
60 ticket loss would be good.

[BloodBane611]

You would like it Farks, since you came up with it

I think it's very good in theory, but haven't had enough PR .95 time to have an opinion on the way it actually works out

[=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup]

I love the ticket loss.

But I still think the best way to ensure that a PR round doesnt become a battle of attrition per se, is to give a ticket bleed to the side who does not control at least half the flags on a map.

The rate of the ticket bleed (tickets/minute) should be dependent on the amount of flags the oposing team controls in excess of half.

If that concept is at all possible.

[Murphy]

I like the fact that flags are important, but I don't like the effect it has on round duration so I voted "I like it, but decrease the penalty". Even at 10 less tickets lost that could afford a few extra moments to counter attack, and added up over continuous flag exchanges this could help to bring back some of those epic power struggle matches we see less frequently since the ticket rules have changed.

[Kain888]

Increasing it to 50 and giving each map a more tickets (like 60 or so - depending of number of flags on map, etc) more tickets would be good. This would put more emphasis to the defending flags, but wouldn't end round too quickly.

[mat552]

I'm not terribly enthralled with it. If you're playing on a team that is incompetent with a squad of competent players, you get to watch all your hard work that went into an assault fall down the drain because you can't be two places at once.

Changes that punish you because your team is bad are not good for public servers.

[Kain888]

Changes that punish you because your team is bad are not good for public servers.

It punishes you same as punishes others in team. If you don't want your all work to be gone start defending or do not launch assault if no one going to stay on your flag. It's called tactics.

Changes that are enhancing better teamwork are ideal in PR, because they are slowly fixing how people think - they have to be more teamwork oriented. Like CAS, mortars, supplies, fobs, medics, etc.

The rule "I'll scratch your back and you will scratch mine" is IMO essential to the PR.

[Murphy]

Increasing it to 50 and giving each map a more tickets (like 60 or so - depending of number of flags on map, etc) more tickets would be good. This would put more emphasis to the defending flags, but wouldn't end round too quickly.

I feel there needs to be more consideration towards ticket loss balance as we can lose tickets very fast now. If you wanted to boost it 20 tickets lost each cap I'd like to see more tickets at our disposal.

As it stands I 100% agree that most pub games are too short thanks to horrific teamwork and the desire to avoid co-ordinating the entire team (still not many commanders out there). I believe there should be a reconsideration of the numbers, because the principle is spot on it just goes to add to more frustration when things are going bad.

Currently if you are losing a flag not only do you stand to lose 30 tickets, but you are probably going to part with much more thanks to the death system (which is the best new change).

[mat552]

Changes that are enhancing better teamwork are ideal in PR, because they are slowly fixing how people think

Ah yes, let's mod the players, that works wonderfully every time.

[Foxxy]

I voted for increase ticket penality to something like 50 or 60 tickets. I still dont think players care about the importance of defending a flag. Increasing it would put squads on the defensive more but that can have drawbacks as in making huge stalemates between teams.

[Kain888]

Ah yes, let's mod the players, that works wonderfully every time.

Despite the sarcasm it actually does work. There are a lot of things Dev do to force people think as squad or team.
If you don't believe I would strongly suggest watching vanilla gameplay and PR gameplay. :]

[dtacs]

For the first time PR actually rewards people for attacking, essentially a positive change as there is more skill and teamwork evident when formulating a successful attack. Its my favorite change out of the whole update honestly, however unfortunately it is countered by the losing a wounded ticket as killing is still the main way of winning a game.

There are no real changes that could - or should - be made to this feature (not including removing the wounded ticket loss...)

[Tim270]

I like it. Flags actually have a reason to exist now.

[Murphy]

...unfortunately it is countered by the losing a wounded ticket as killing is still the main way of winning a game.

I agree the vast majority of victories are had by the teams K : D ratio, which is a slight slip towards COD-ism. At the same time I believe there needs to be a fine balance between the cost of tickets to the value of flags. For example a lot of times it's just not worth pushing for the next flag, instead you can sit on the flag you have and win simply due to attrition. Surely an organized defense would chew up more then 30 tickets, making it more logical to induce a stalemate hoping your team will score more kills then the opposition.

I think the goal of the ticket cost was to promote ground forces to attack, instead we end up with better reasons not to.

[mat552]

I think the goal of the ticket cost was to promote ground forces to attack, instead we end up with better reasons not to.

Succinct and extremely well put. Thank you.
+1

[dtacs]

Succinct and extremely well put. Thank you.
+1

Ditto, probably the only thing that needs to be changed - gameplay wise - about the current release.

[quaazi]

Yeah, I'll jump on the agreeing bandwagon too, it's a great change if not the best change in 0.95, but it does make teh abttle a bit too static when coupled with other changes. Just a matter of tweaking.

[Michael_Denmark]

I like it cause it forces players to defend objectives (as long as the players want to win).

Defending objectives forces out the longer-termed tactical thinking pattern, as opposed to the BF2 vanilla, impulse-thinking pattern, which the bleed-system also supported very much.

Thus although opportunism in overall is very much needed in a game like this, the flag-ticket-loss has put light on the different aspects of opportunism.

Basic rules in this area of my unfinished PR CO guide are as follows:

1. The higher the flag-ticket-loss a team can suffer, the more it will be forced to both plan and act.

2. The lower the flag-ticket-loss a team can suffer, the more it will be forced to act-only, since planning a objective defense is not as necessary.