Ticket penalty for losing a control point (poll?)

[mat552]

The important counterpoint to that argument is that the higher the cost for failing to defend an objective, the more and more resources will be devoted to defense, leaving less and less resources available to attack. Unless you manage to get the entire 32 person team together for a push, losing a flag will cost more than attacking and failing, so people defend at the cost of being able to attack.

When both teams realize this, they wind up settling in and shelling each other with mortars, trying to beat the others in a KdR race.

Rewarding players for defending at the cost of incentivising attack is not a good thing.

[Celestial1]

...It goes both ways though, Mat. There's a risk/reward factor to attacking now.

-Do you have the resources to have a strong defense while still pushing the attack? Awesome, go for it!

-Do you have the chance to capture their flag but don't have the resources to also defend the flag behind you?
-Can you get away with pushing without the enemy getting around behind you?
-Will capturing this flag give your team the advantage it really needs at this stage in the game?

...etc.


You're also assuming that all players follow your mindset. Many players are riskier than they are cautious.




This post in no way represents my opinion on whether or not ticket loss on lost flags should be altered.

[mat552]

There's a difference between riskier behavior and dumb behavior, and there's always been a risk/reward factor to attacking. The stakes are just higher now on the defense side, meaning it's safer to bet on defense than offence. I am aware that many players don't want to defend, or set up FOBs or do anything but rush rush rush attack attack attack, but that's no reason to encourage over defending a point. These players don't CARE that their rushing attitude is detrimental to their team, because they don't notice.

[Celestial1]

The only real reason there has ever been to attack was to not get capped out and bleed out. Past that, there was no tangible reason to attack an enemy flag.

This change does nothing to raise the stakes higher specifically for offense or defense. It does it for both.



You're way in left field with that last post, dude. Not talking about "dumb" behavior.

[Kain888]

With mortars here you have to be more creative when defending, you can't just camp most of time. Betting all on defense won't work most of time.

Sadly I haven't noticed that people prefer to defend more now. Or just a little bit.

[Tim270]

Yeah It is going to take a while to sink in as there is no real visual reference poping up on your screen saying 'Your team just lost x flag, your team just lost x tickets' so I am sure that a lot of people dont even know that it is there to be honest.

However, It rewards teams that cap flags, it also rewards teams that defend flags. It somewhat removes the whole game just being about either teams KDR and asset loss, gaining ground actually has a reason now.

[Farks]

It completely removes the whole game just being about either teams KDR and asset loss, gaining ground actually has a reason now.

Fixed.

There will always be some bad squads and teams that fail at what they're doing, but I don't think that should halt the progress of PR.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

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

This is exactly why this change is bad.
How in gods name can you justify "finally" needing to charge the enemy defenses instead of waiting for them to die at your fortified position with the wording "encourage realistic behavior"?
Am i missing something? When did leaving your defenses to charge the enemy become realistic behavior?

Real warfare is team deathmatch. That is a fact, there are no objectives not based on giving our military the ability to kill more enemies or dening the enemy chances of killing us. Objective is a bridge? Then it is to kill enemy trying to cross. Objective is a hill? Then it is because we want to kill the hills defenders that are killing us.

I have made a whole thread touching this subject: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... tives.html

The mayor underlining reasons why people are not attacking is the following:
1. Taking objectives on a map means nothing towards following maps.
In real life if you take a foothold you cna deploy more troops and assault the enemy country. In PR you get a mapchange. Not the same revard or motiviations. This is genreally solved by making a campanj mode where victories have effect on the following matches. Could be implemented with ticket bonuses for example. A team who takes all objective get 50+ tickets next map.

2. IRL objectives are not static, they are based on interaction with the enemy. Enemy just took a hill? Then that becomes an objective. We need to stop enemy assault on the flank? Then we get a new objective. Also it is based on rank. The squad leaders objective might be to take the building, the soldiers objective is to assualt a room. Different objectives.

3. Solution might be to make death more fearsome or just forget about blanace AAS and focus on getting the C&C gamemode good enough to naturally become the most popular. C&C matches irl the best.

[mat552]

[MoW];1488096'When did leaving your defenses to charge the enemy become realistic behavior?

In the grim darkness of the 21st century, there is only PR.

[ytman]

I like it, but they should be kept in mind with the type of map. Like Dragon Fly has huge balance issues as it stands, more militia transport vehicles (technicals) might aliviate the issue, but now the behemoth of the British armored assault results in an easy 60-90 ticket gap. If you can find a nice way to incorporate flag loss to be relative of the flags caping order.

The closer (in capping order) to a main a flag is the more tickets it costs.