Kills are more important than flags - (My argument)

[Farks]

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

Well, insurgency is a search and destroy mode where completeing the objectives have a real impact on the outcome of the battle. In AAS, the objectives (the flags) don't have any real impact, at least not enough.

[snooggums]

I submit, once again, the delayed bleed in my signature: It rewards a team for taking and holding the majority of the map while allowing kills to be the tie breaker when teams are even.

[Oddsodz]

AAS mode for me right now is not about how many kills you get. It's about what you kill.

[_casualtyUR]

The reward for advancing the AAS is that the enemy is out of position and the flags are more likely to change quicker. It does seems like the DEV are concentrating the battles in the center of the maps with multi-flag captures and this does nullifies a lightening advance.

Good suggestion - assets being related to the amount of CPs held. But. I think the it should opposite. As the flags fall, the asset should be removed, making it harder to hold the remaining flags. This would force teams from being foolish and not wasting their troops. This would speed the game up and hopefully convince people to defend flags.

Keep the AAS, remove deaths as it effects tickets. Continue to make the game about territory and strategy.

[Web_cole]

AAS mode for me right now is not about how many kills you get. It's about what you kill.

Yeah, this is probably a better way of looking at it. In the same way if your crewing an MBT and get 20 infantry kills but lose 4 tanks, you are not ticket effective and are not really helping your team.

[Wicca]

Well, there are several ways of doing this, you can have it so that the only thing that matters is Killing a specific veichle. But then noone will use that veichle unless it is mission critical IE.

Building a Fob ontop of bla bla bla, by using a chinook, enemy teams objective destroy Chinook.

But i like the idea of saying to my squad, "The enemy is beyond that ridge, on three were all going to pop up and kill them"

By doing so i will clear an objective, called "ENEMY POSITION" and move on to the next objectiive

How to make a map with no flags? But with alot of action?

Is that possible?

[boilerrat]

I would like to see kills almost not effect tickets at all.

Possibley have the flags be like the FOB in CnC.

[_casualtyUR]

Squadleader created objectives equals ticket amounts?

That could be a way to force teams to have a commander. No commander, no ticket resource. The commander would assign flags or objectives and goals met for tickets. Start at zero and build up to win. No commander equals a slow ticket bleed.

No flags, what's the point, back to run and gun.

[Web_cole]

Squadleader created objectives equals ticket amounts?

That could be a way to force teams to have a commander. No commander, no ticket resource. The commander would assign flags or objectives and goals met for tickets. Start at zero and build up to win. No commander equals a slow ticket bleed.

No flags, what's the point, back to run and gun.

Mechanically that actually sounds very interesting (from a game design perspective) but seems like it would be a huge change for PR:BF2.

Perhaps suggest something like this for use in PR:A2? (Or even PR2 )

[drkstr]

I haven't read through all of the posts, so I apologize if this has been said already.

The OP is technically correct, but is arguing on the wrong premise. He is assuming you take flags for the sake of taking a flag. This is not the case.

For many reasons that I won't get into now, the team that controls the battlefield will get a greater amount of kills then the one who does not. The reason there is such a large cap radius on flags is because they are simply an indicator of who controls the battlefield. They give a clear milestone that the commander can use to gauge their success, and adjust accordingly.


The end goal of a commander should be to increase their teams area of control, the success of which can be measured by the flags. The end goal of the grunt should be to kill the enemy where they are told to do so, the success of which can be measured by their K/D ratio.

[StiffyMagnum]

caches>flags>kills

[Web_cole]

The end goal of a commander should be to increase their teams area of control, the success of which can be measured by the flags

This isn't necessarily true. The bottom line is you want to win. Attacking flags, as you are suggesting when you say "increase (the) teams area of control" costs more tickets than defending a flag. If its 4 flags till you capture the bleed flag, this may not be worth it. Of course, if the only flag you control is your bleed flag, you should also take into consideration giving yourself some breathing room.

Anyway, I suppose my point is that while it might seem like a sound military strategy to increase your territory and area of control, in terms of the game dynamics it can often be very costly and result in your team losing.

[Fess|3-5|]

caches>flags>kills

Where's your argument? You seem like exactly the person this thread is meant for. Did you read my post?

As for caches, obviously they are the most important thing in Insurgency. This thread is about AAS. That should have been clear from the start. There aren't flags in Insurgency.

This isn't necessarily true. The bottom line is you want to win. Attacking flags, as you are suggesting when you say "increase (the) teams area of control" costs more tickets than defending a flag. If its 4 flags till you capture the bleed flag, this may not be worth it. Of course, if the only flag you control is your bleed flag, you should also take into consideration giving yourself some breathing room.

Anyway, I suppose my point is that while it might seem like a sound military strategy to increase your territory and area of control, in terms of the game dynamics it can often be very costly and result in your team losing.

Web_cole gets it.

[drkstr]

This isn't necessarily true. The bottom line is you want to win. Attacking flags, as you are suggesting when you say "increase (the) teams area of control" costs more tickets than defending a flag. If its 4 flags till you capture the bleed flag, this may not be worth it. Of course, if the only flag you control is your bleed flag, you should also take into consideration giving yourself some breathing room.

Anyway, I suppose my point is that while it might seem like a sound military strategy to increase your territory and area of control, in terms of the game dynamics it can often be very costly and result in your team losing.

If I am anything, it's a pragmatist.

I rarely see a team lose that keeps consistent pressure up on the enemy, restricts their ability to maneuver, and forces them to react rather then act at their pleasure.

It is certainly possible that to many poorly planned attacks on the squad level will still cause your team to lose. However, that is the exception and not the rule.

[Web_cole]

I rarely see a team lose that keeps consistent pressure up on the enemy, restricts their ability to maneuver, and forces them to react rather then act at their pleasure.

I take your point that constant pressure applied to a defensive position will (with time) probably break through. However, I think my point that attacking costs more tickets than defending is still true.

Case in point, during the Jabal Al Burj battle in Campaign 8 of the PRT* NATO opted to defend East Beach and dug in around that flag. CATA started with 150 tickets more than NATO, and by the 30/45 minute mark, both teams were roughly even in tickets.

NATO eventually lost this battle, suffering from a lack of depth in defence. Meaning, they only held one flag, and as soon as they lost that flag they suffered a heavy bleed and little to no chance of recovery. I already stated that this is generally not a desirable position to be in and that holds true in this example.

I think my underlying point is that often teams will go chasing the cap in situations when its neither desirable nor particularly smart to do so. If you have a ticket advantage, by all means pressure the enemy. Its good to keep the battle flowing at your own desired tempo. If you do not have a ticket advantage, and have a suitably defensible position and depth of defense, it is probably smarter to sit back.


*Project Reality Tournament

[zebra.actual]

Fix the fact that there is no current incentive to capture or defend flags. Make it so the team currently holding a certain flag loses X tickets if they let it go neutral. Or perhaps it could be a 10 ticket bleed over X time.

I however disagree with the whole 'It's all about kills'. The game was not intended to be played for KDR. Thus, it should not be treated as such.

Cheers.

[Web_cole]

The game was not intended to be played for KDR.

Games aren't about intentions, if you think the player is 'doing it wrong' it's because of bad design. If you want to get people to act in a certain way, you incentivize it through gameplay.

For instance, if you wanted to make a shooter based around teamplay, you could have the rally system PR does. Or some of the mechanics MAG has where you need to be close to your squad to get certain reload bonuses and stuff like that.

I agree with this:

Fix the fact that there is no current incentive to capture or defend flags. Make it so the team currently holding a certain flag loses X tickets if they let it go neutral. Or perhaps it could be a 10 ticket bleed over X time.

But if the player isn't doing what you've 'intended' (for instance, they can't find their way around a level) it's not the players fault, it's the designers.

imo

[StiffyMagnum]

....says the noob in the room.

Squadleaders with this mentality should get a beating. Players with this mentality should go back to Karkand.

[SnipeHunt]

failpost.
dead thread... go back to sleep.