Let us improve PR, Devs.

[Wicca]

>_> is there no way to implement the squad leader Vote Yes/Vote No option?

(you know, Pg. Up Pg. Down?)

That probably is hardcoded.



Anyway, good suggestions. Is this mr woodoo?

[vishuddaxxx]

point 1, I think no, because PR has gradually moved away from making spawns too easy, and it is frustrating for opposing players to constantly kill people, then seeing them get revived a few minutes later.. or spawn again in the same place and so on..

The squad leader can make temp spawn points, and I dont really see any need to change this at all.

point 2 dbazos suggestion sounds great..

[ytman]

My first impulse would be to say no to point one... but then I thought... if we are going to be having an increased squad size coming up... lets just give it a shot.

I want to first ask what does the rally point simulate?

For me it simulates the deployment of troops to an area to reinforce a wounded or half strength team. Squads, to me, simulate a force in effect larger than they really are. What you can accomplish with a squad in PR now is what you would expect to accomplish with a platoon in reality. So lets move on to the idea.

Say its an 8 man squad limit. Normal infantry squads stick to eight men while the new and improved Mechanized squad go to 8 but two are crew men. With eight men to a squad why not up the need for people at a rally for TWO plus the SL?

With this in mind I wouldn't mind the change for another person to place a rally... however... it would have to be extremely limited. Like a 2iC or something where you don't just have to pick up a kit. If you can make it so that there are two 'officers' in an 8 man squad I'd be down with it.

Just again... DO NOT... tie it to just the kit. Make it like the 2iC needs the kit (AND) to be near a Main Base/FO to 'arm' his rally point. If he goes down (wounded) make him lose it. Perhaps tie the rally to the whole squad not just one person either.

[Arnoldio]

Limit the RP to SL and Medics, (thats 3 RP possibilities if increased qaud sizes mean adding additional medic). Would be a good compromise i believe.

[Web_cole]

I would probably not be in favour of option 1 (maybe even with significant checks and balances) for the reason that it redistributes a part of how the squad is run into the hands of people who are not in charge of the squad. This is the internet, no one has any power over anyone to make them do what they don't want to. In PR you are encouraged to follow your SL becuase he's the guy/gal that can put down FoBs and other deployables, kick people, place markers, use the SL radio and yes put down a Rally Point.

If you redistribute some of that power to other people in a public setting, suddenly you have some very different squad politics and SLs may find it more difficult to get shit done.

If the SL had significant control over who got to use the 2nd RP and when it was used, then perhaps it could work, otherwise I would say not.

[LithiumFox]

That probably is hardcoded.



Anyway, good suggestions. Is this mr woodoo?

Could i get Dev confirmation whether this is or is not hardcoded?

(Simply for the fact that I want to know, really. )

[Bringerof_D]

>_> is there no way to implement the squad leader Vote Yes/Vote No option?

(you know, Pg. Up Pg. Down?)

might be possible however that does not solve my problem. Why would a SL vote no if the RP is in a safe position past the ambush? The only yes or no vote that would ix that problem would be to ask the enemy. but we can clearly see the problem with that now cant we?

your yes/no vote would only solve the problem of SMs redirecting the squad where they prefer.

The biggest problem with this i see is as i've mentioned before and will further clarify now:

If your squad crosses an open area which they cannot avoid, which then gets ambushed and essentially wiped out save for your medic and one other guy who made it across. With this additional rally you have effectively crossed with your full fighting force. The same argument can be made for the SL rally however if most of the squad is killed the SL would likely be part of the casualties. With the Medic Rally it would double the chance of this happening. I'd say if you were lucky enough to get your SL across then fine, have it.

this is especially problematic if we're going to be having bigger squads. If you kill 6 men out of 8, there should not be 8 men safely on the other side closer to where they want to go.

[Mary.au]

I approve of both of these suggestions

[ryan d ale]

Interesting suggestion but there is an obvious exploit with it.

The same reason it was initially removed.

Instead of just the SL placing the rally and staying away from the fight a medic and his buddy can do it..... not great really.

Think of it from the point of view of you being against that squad.

You 'kill' the whole squad...or so you think. Then 2 minutes later they all come back from the RP knowing your positions (and potentially with 2 more men).

[LithiumFox]

might be possible however that does not solve my problem. Why would a SL vote no if the RP is in a safe position past the ambush? The only yes or no vote that would ix that problem would be to ask the enemy. but we can clearly see the problem with that now cant we?

To fix the entire "SL command tree" issue. >_> I personally would prefer a way to make it so that I could say "Hey, no. I don't want you to place the rally there. You're too close to the enemy."

Some SL's might not care, I do. Especially if, for example, I don't even want them to place a rally. Maybe I want to go back to base and get a support vehicle like a Jeep or something.

your yes/no vote would only solve the problem of SMs redirecting the squad where they prefer.

And doing my job as leader

The biggest problem with this i see is as i've mentioned before and will further clarify now:

If your squad crosses an open area which they cannot avoid, which then gets ambushed and essentially wiped out save for your medic and one other guy who made it across. With this additional rally you have effectively crossed with your full fighting force. The same argument can be made for the SL rally however if most of the squad is killed the SL would likely be part of the casualties. With the Medic Rally it would double the chance of this happening. I'd say if you were lucky enough to get your SL across then fine, have it.

My only issue with arguing against this point is I don't know what limitations can and cannot be placed on Secondary rally points. I don't know if you could force them to have 3-4 people around (which would fix this little issue of yours with the squad being "effectively" wiped out) or maybe increase the distance between you and the enemy.

It think it'd be more or less so that your squad leader and maybe another guy could get back into the fight if they did something stupid like fall off a cliff or something. =/ While a small little thing, it does keep the squad together.

How about if you made it 4 people? If you're in a 6 man squad that's over 2/3's and if your in an 8-man squad that's a fireteam. Would that be better?

this is especially problematic if we're going to be having bigger squads. If you kill 6 men out of 8, there should not be 8 men safely on the other side closer to where they want to go.

I agree. Which is why i believe 4 people for medic rally and 3 people for SL rally suffices. Which fixes your (if 6 people die out of or (If you basically kill the squad) issues.

Is that fair?

[LithiumFox]

Interesting suggestion but there is an obvious exploit with it.

The same reason it was initially removed.

Instead of just the SL placing the rally and staying away from the fight a medic and his buddy can do it..... not great really.

Think of it from the point of view of you being against that squad.

You 'kill' the whole squad...or so you think. Then 2 minutes later they all come back from the RP knowing your positions (and potentially with 2 more men).

Which is why you should read the post above

[ryan d ale]

Which is why you should read the post above

Thanks for that

Well, whilst I agree it is interesting and I considered this myself I'm really not sure. I would trust the DEVs in which stance they take with it because I have a lot of confidence in their decisions.

With this issue, yes it stops spamming but there are 2 still 'free' lifes in this hypothetical scenairo.

The plus being, it is like having a 2 man reconnaissance team (which is conveniantly disposable).

[Wo0Do0]

might be possible however that does not solve my problem. Why would a SL vote no if the RP is in a safe position past the ambush? The only yes or no vote that would ix that problem would be to ask the enemy. but we can clearly see the problem with that now cant we?

your yes/no vote would only solve the problem of SMs redirecting the squad where they prefer.

The biggest problem with this i see is as i've mentioned before and will further clarify now:

If your squad crosses an open area which they cannot avoid, which then gets ambushed and essentially wiped out save for your medic and one other guy who made it across. With this additional rally you have effectively crossed with your full fighting force. The same argument can be made for the SL rally however if most of the squad is killed the SL would likely be part of the casualties. With the Medic Rally it would double the chance of this happening. I'd say if you were lucky enough to get your SL across then fine, have it.

this is especially problematic if we're going to be having bigger squads. If you kill 6 men out of 8, there should not be 8 men safely on the other side closer to where they want to go.

On small maps, the ability for the medic to place a rally after "sneaking" into enemy lines is not very likely.

On big maps, fobs are either overrun or placed too far from the flags. Infantry should be given more opportunities to cap specific flags on big maps.

We can create longer firefights and make infantry more appealing by allocating the second chance to the medic.

People who try to learn how to squad lead or have been squad leading are punished too severely for situations beyond their control.

IMO there is more positives to this being implemented than negatives, for more teamwork, longer firefights, and above all more gameplay fun.

[Bringerof_D]

I agree. Which is why i believe 4 people for medic rally and 3 people for SL rally suffices. Which fixes your (if 6 people die out of or (If you basically kill the squad) issues.

Is that fair?

sounds good, if it doesnt take up too much to have the secondary rallies work differently. then i'm good with that. Best scenario is that more than half the squad must still be alive. (ie with 6 man squads 3 squadies must be with you. 8 man squads atleast 4. The medic rally should only be for emergencies where the SL dies. but with larger squads later on that might still be an issue. even currently 2 more men across can be a much bigger problem for the defender. Remember that they spawn in with full ammo, full health. Yes they represent the remaining bunch of guys in the section, however it is doubtful that those invisible extra men would have come across without firing a single round or recieve any injuries.

Dealing 40% damage against the enemy squad should also be accounted for amognst those "additional men" that we would have irl. why? because both sides are playing with this same handicap. When we say that a squad IRL has more people, it doesnt make a difference because both sides are short men in their squads

another restriction could be that if a SL rally is active, the Medic rally will not work until 2 minutes after it's gone.

On small maps, the ability for the medic to place a rally after "sneaking" into enemy lines is not very likely.

it's not them "sneaking" into places i'm worried about. If they get in and you dont notice thats perfectly fine and dandy with me. It's if they the entire squad dont manage to be sneaky and you kill almost all of them and the two of them managed to make it. The only thing your well placed defense or ambush with long periods of patient vigilance has done is kill a few tickets, it has failed in any way to hinder the enemy advance. Sneaking once more is not the problem.

[Lange]

How about a few general rules of thumb i've gathered:

-Medic rally should be not as good as SL rally with some restriction

-More distance say 150 M with no enemy presence so a squad that has had casualties can't just use it as another instant reinforcement

-If possible Sl approval for use possibly by voting system?

- 3-4(Maybe 3 being a bit more reasonable) members have to be around the medic to place

How do these sound to everyone?

[LithiumFox]

How about a few general rules of thumb i've gathered:

-Medic rally should be not as good as SL rally with some restriction

-More distance say 150 M with no enemy presence so a squad that has had casualties can't just use it as another instant reinforcement

-If possible Sl approval for use possibly by voting system?

- 3-4(Maybe 3 being a bit more reasonable) members have to be around the medic to place

How do these sound to everyone?

Essentially what we said. But in a nice concise list i guess... Sadly, People are more likely to read this than the first 4-5 threads that talk about all these hahaha.

[Wicca]

How about not making it the SL spawn it at all?

What about like a SGT or CPL kit? That can spawn rallies. Then the SL can choose, officer or the FTL kit. Officer has radio and GLTD, and FT has maybe more grenades, rally and ekstra smoke?

Officer coordinate the battle, Fireteam Leaders fight on the ground.

[Wo0Do0]

it's not them "sneaking" into places i'm worried about. If they get in and you dont notice thats perfectly fine and dandy with me. It's if they the entire squad dont manage to be sneaky and you kill almost all of them and the two of them managed to make it. The only thing your well placed defense or ambush with long periods of patient vigilance has done is kill a few tickets, it has failed in any way to hinder the enemy advance. Sneaking once more is not the problem.

I meant the large 200m radius in which they can place the rally severely limits their option without eventually being spotted by the enemy, on small maps.

[Bringerof_D]

I meant the large 200m radius in which they can place the rally severely limits their option without eventually being spotted by the enemy, on small maps.

On most PR maps there are particular areas of concentrated combat. Meaning a 200m radius to place the rally would essentially make it unusable, unless you're in the middle of literally nowhere. Makes sense if you're running with vehicles. but for infantry that's probably not be an option most of the time.

A) you have to really move to find a workable spot

B) On urban maps that means possibly needing to completely expose yourself to find that spot. it's neigh impossible to stealth 200m on winding streets where there might only be one intersection to get in and out of a place. like in muttrah

[Wo0Do0]

On most PR maps there are particular areas of concentrated combat. Meaning a 200m radius to place the rally would essentially make it unusable, unless you're in the middle of literally nowhere. Makes sense if you're running with vehicles. but for infantry that's probably not be an option most of the time.

Therefore we can limit the amount of abuse that can take place, the distance will be decided by the DEVS of course.