The issue with immediate assets on maps

[Cavazos]

That is not really necessary. Servers just need to implement the no rushing rule as Merk and PRTA do.

TBH, I don't really understand rushing: AAS is like a push and that is why we got a capping order. I won't say I've never done a rush before, but I never felt it was really "right". Players should respect the capping order all the time, not really at the beginning only.

Keeping to cap order is inside the box tactical thinking. Rushing is outside the box tactical thinking.

You want to keep things even and fair.

Well, so did the British line infantry when fighting guerilla fighters back in the day.


Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk

[Beee8190]

Servers just need to implement the no rushing rule as Merk and PRTA do.

Their initiative is good but this would be merely a walkaround rather than solution to the problem

TBH, I don't really understand rushing: AAS is like a push and that is why we got a capping order. I won't say I've never done a rush before, but I never felt it was really "right". Players should respect the capping order all the time, not really at the beginning only.

Agree here, rushing, although proven to be effective, is lame and lacks any tactics really but its probably worth acknowledging that players will always play the game as the game design allows them to

4k maps like (Kashan, Khamisiyah,Bijar Canyons) are spoiled by assets, many times these maps tanks are able to kill the choppers that are still carrying troops, small logistic delays means that the tow will not be ready on time.

Fallujah West, is an example of a small map were the armor spawning right in the beginning is a BIG problem, mines and IEDs are still being placed and the armor is already in their top spots; Fobs are yet to be made and Bradleys, LAVs, AAVs are already raping the team... Although its insurgency and the all game is being ruined after each patch

I go assets most times than not as I enjoy it but I sometimes wish there were less assets that need better care off rather than getting blown one after another.

Fallujah West - Agree on all points. LAV / AAVP / Humvee are long in the deep of the city before hideouts can be built let alone have the time to plan & place IED / Ground mines

I would think having a CP capture requirement across all the maps would be useful and slow down game play a little bit. Giving only trucks would encourage people to take up INF squads more, at least at first.
You'll always have the asshat sitting at the main waiting, but I think more players would rather get into the fight and have fun, and then worry about getting their preferred asset later

Slowing the gameplay is also IMO what is currently needed. I think the idea to capture some points to get assets might be well worth trying, along with time delayed assets - maybe capture flag get bradley and when time delay kicks in the team gets tanks kind of thing

Make it so you can't enter vehicles worth more than 5 tickets if you have <1 teamwork point (so people who sat at main for 20 mins), or those who die in a heavy asset (generally about -20) without doing anything particularly useful before dying.

Just kidding of course, but something that wouldn't be that hard to implement

That actually sound quite good as it would eliminate the uber newbies getting their hands on team important assets and would definitely encourage more teamwork right from the beginning. I can already see all the ammo resupplies

[PatrickLA_CA]

How about having lighter and medium vehicles employed more than heavy vehicles. For example, it should be far more common to have humvees and strykers used as support instead of AAVP or LAV on 2km maps and some 4km maps, and to have less tanks which will be worth more tickets and have higher respawn times so that their crew plays carefully with them.

[Psyrus]

Would this have to be made a "suggestion" for it to be seriously considered?

Unfortunately it's a little too impractical/exploitable to be useful in the context that it's intended. For example on Kashan, if you made it teamwork score based, they would just grab a logi, throw a fob 201 meters away from main base, drive back and wait for the cas/tanks to spawn. It achieved nothing except mean that the commander has to delete a useless fob later and another squad couldn't use that logi at the start of the game.

You could make it kill based (minimum 1-2 kills + some teamwork points) but it's more impractical and I feel like it would just be exploited rather than accomplish its goals.

[X-Alt]

I don't know why the DEVs wouldn't do this right away?

Making a system where a player is required to have a certain level of team work points to enable him to enter the driver seat of anything beyond a light vehicle. A good solution to asset hoarding.

It would defiantly promote team work in people who want to fly or run armor, and might even promote players to run as INF more often. If I had a good run with a squad running INF, I would be less likely to dump it for an asset. And would give the factions like insurgs a chance to not be rolled over right away.

I would have no problem with it being somewhat demanding of a level of teamwork points personally, so they can't just get away with the bare minimum.

Would this have to be made a "suggestion" for it to be seriously considered?

It dislike it, could result in weird situations. Say CAS spawns in, team 1 (full of experienced, teamplaying airmen who actually listen) does not have enough TW Points (some people were AFK, etc), while team2 (******** with a pilot kit building their ego) was farming TW points by building on to another sqds FOB. This allows the less-skilled armor operators to take control of the game with less competition, ruining the game experience because of an exploitable point system.

BTW: Promoting INF is stupid, the future is MECHINF (Hell, TRANSINF or CAS+INF sounds like a good idea), as INF cannot survive without armor support, and vice versa is not usually true in the world of PR.

[Daniel]

IMO in the latest couple of releases PR has been made way too easy to play.

Maybe just to get a good amount of new players into PR ?

[PatrickLA_CA]

It dislike it, could result in weird situations. Say CAS spawns in, team 1 (full of experienced, teamplaying airmen who actually listen) does not have enough TW Points (some people were AFK, etc), while team2 (******** with a pilot kit building their ego) was farming TW points by building on to another sqds FOB. This allows the less-skilled armor operators to take control of the game with less competition, ruining the game experience because of an exploitable point system.

BTW: Promoting INF is stupid, the future is MECHINF (Hell, TRANSINF or CAS+INF sounds like a good idea), as INF cannot survive without armor support, and vice versa is not usually true in the world of PR.

Yes, mechanized infantry is the way to go IMO, it's not only teamwork but it is fun to see an INF squad rolling in Fallujah or Muttrah with APC support. But right now that doesn't work too well because:
1. There's too many heavy assets
2. The assets are really easy to kill and have almost no fear factor to the enemy

That results in their crew choosing to sit back on a hill where they can see the entire city and snipe enemy infantry from far, leaving the infantry squads alone in the city, which does work, but IMO doesn't fit in PR.

My suggestion is to reduce heavy assets on such maps and have more light vehicles (humvee, panther etc.) and medium vehicles (stryker, btr with the normal gun) so that they can support the infantry instead of going hunting for the other team's armor.
But also keep assets on the known asset maps such as kashan etc because from time to time it will get boring to only play as INF.

[matty1053]

I agree now.


It's like Khamisiyah, you get tanks at start

Your team usually loses all tanks within 10 minutes.... so what is that -40 tickets???

But I wouldn't mind this:

Trans Trucks spawn
Chopper
Logis
BTR 60
Humvee
APC's...

[Ragnarok1775]

Map by map basis...in current conflicts you don't see a four-tank platoon rolling through the streets of (insert hadji town here). Usually a patrol of grunts with attached medic, and one tank in close support. If people play with teamwork in mind, then you got grunts covering the tank and the tank covering the grunts, say you got four tanks on that map, that means you got four grunt patrols with one tank each. But somewhere like Kashan, you could realistically expect a Gulf War-style tank-on-tank engagement, with say four tanks and a Bradley together.

There is certainly a nice bit of adrenaline and fear that comes when a MBT rolls up and you have only LAT.

Patrick has a nice idea, maybe just cut back some. If you expect to have two grunt squads, have two tanks, if you expect three grunt squads, have three tanks. The shooting people from 1km away with a tank...well, that's what they did in Iraq.

[Beee8190]

Some good points here

if you could discuss some specifics, particular maps where this is an issue etc that would be helpful.

Thanks for commenting. As it is though I can't think of particular map that this issue is specific to and would simply say all AAS maps suffer from this.

My point was to delay all ( heavy ) asset spawn so that the teams have time to plan & built defences and gather the needed supplies to do so as its not uncommon for armor to shoot both transport helicopters in the very first few minutes of game in
[ I have done that or our team managed to shoot both transport helicopters over kashan bunkers ] which simply comes down to unfair, ''dumb luck''

This happens precisely for single reason, and that is rushing the flags and is why helicopters will always try to get their troops nearby objective and is why I feel that every AAS map needs at least 15 minute delay in heavy assets like armor and bradley class of vehicle

[Brainlaag]

^ Frankly said, if a helo gets shot down on Kashan at the start by tanks (which take up to 5min to reach the bunker area), it just means the team was horribly slow. That's not a flaw in the game but a mistake committed by the responsible team. Whoever deploys faster is usually the one that wins, irregardless of assets.

[Beee8190]

^ Frankly said, if a helo gets shot down on Kashan at the start by tanks (which take up to 5min to reach the bunker area), it just means the team was horribly slow. That's not a flaw in the game but a mistake committed by the responsible team. Whoever deploys faster is usually the one that wins, irregardless of assets.

I think its somewhat irrelevant whether the team has been a minute slower or not even though I agree that it is - who deploys first has much higher chances to dictate the battle and
that is actually what I feel is wrong with it. Tactics and teamwork goes unrewarded while racing skills & efficiency is what currently counts

[Brainlaag]

I think its somewhat irrelevant whether the team has been a minute slower or not even though I agree that it is - who deploys first has much higher chances to dictate the battle and
that is actually what I feel is wrong with it. Tactics and teamwork goes unrewarded while racing skills & efficiency is what currently counts

Both count equally. If you are fast but can't work together you'll lose just as bad as if you are slow and tactical. The only difference being HOW you lose.

[Death!]

Yes, mechanized infantry is the way to go IMO, it's not only teamwork but it is fun to see an INF squad rolling in Fallujah or Muttrah with APC support. But right now that doesn't work too well because:
1. There's too many heavy assets
2. The assets are really easy to kill and have almost no fear factor to the enemy

That results in their crew choosing to sit back on a hill where they can see the entire city and snipe enemy infantry from far, leaving the infantry squads alone in the city, which does work, but IMO doesn't fit in PR.

My suggestion is to reduce heavy assets on such maps and have more light vehicles (humvee, panther etc.) and medium vehicles (stryker, btr with the normal gun) so that they can support the infantry instead of going hunting for the other team's armor.
But also keep assets on the known asset maps such as kashan etc because from time to time it will get boring to only play as INF.

Armor needs to know where and when it can move and where and when it can not. On Fallujah, for example, you got to stay away from the city, but, if you got to move there, you need infantry scouting every street before you move in. On forests, you got to have three men at both sides making a 360? perimeter. -- an AT guy will think twice before shoting armor with good infantry cover, it's certain death.

To add a final point, I think APCs and IFVs on PR should stop acting as tiny tanks. Even if LATs most of time won't be able to take down armor with a single shot, it stills far easy to take APCs down. I lost a Warrior IFV recently doing MECH INF on Burning Sands because my crewmen were dumb enough to expose themselves to the freaking desert. 3 seconds after I told to them to get their asses out of uncovered area (it was the first flag, right on the SE corner of the city) they got buttraped by something heavy coming from the main avenue (which one minute later we came to know it was a damn ATGM fired by a BMP-2). I asked WTF they were doing looking W in the open, they replyed "covering/watching" (the squad was well set and safe on the houses already). Goddamn, would you stop in the middle of the street alone, with zero purpose, knowing you could be shot by something heavy? As infantry, you want your *** covered as much as possible and with light armor it is pretty much the same even if you can take nasty 7.62mm shots without much damage. We lost our carriage and most of our firepower because our crewmen wanted to farm kills in a dangerous, careless and selfish "fun" act.

[Cavazos]

Maybe make heavy assets objective based. A side objective.

Lately I have noticed that teams who do well and take a majority of control points such as Beirut and Dovre actually end up losing because of the ticket loss.

So objectively they are winning but still end up losing. So maybe reward an asset for taking certain CPs or side objectives if they can be implemented.

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk

[Murphy]

If you homogenize asset spawns and balances you will remove an important part of PR maps, adaptation of strategy and tactics to differing circumstances. This is one of those unique gameplay points PR brings to the table, and removing the importance of an good deployment will bring us one step closer to fy_iceworld with vehicles.

If the map isn't balanced take some time to write to the developers, they listen and respond to criticism as farfetched as it may seem sometimes.

As far as rush rules go, I believe they take away from the potential of any game. If your team doesn't send enough people to the first or second flag to cap it maybe you should fault your team and not the enemy. I mean to say that the opportunity for rushing is there for both teams and it's a strategy that is easily countered. By taking it off the table you allow players to be lazy and feel safe when they should always be ready to run into the enemy, you're placing an arbitrary restriction when the developers have already made it so we cannot actually cap the flag until we have all the others. There is no DoD moving forward with your flags so why do some servers feel the need to enforce one via kicks.

[PatrickLA_CA]

A good idea would be to have light (not infantry only) layouts of maps. For example APCs without cannons, only machineguns and CAS versions of transport choppers, not with missiles, but with door guns.

[Jacksonez__]

This is when you combine overly good CAS squad with immediate spawning Havoc (Beirut)

They dominated the game until we capped the last flag (then they got shot down but game ended shortly)





I highly doubt this would've happened IF the Havoc spawned 12 minutes later as usual: IDF would've had enough time to deploy multiple AA's and things.