Make PR rounds longer

[QuickLoad]

ok so the solution looks to be like:
LRG reduced to 150% tickets,
EPC added and is 200% tickets

?

[Heavy Death]

Die less is the solution. Rounds end with 150 kills and deaths on both sides. What's the point really.

[zloyrash]

Decreasing ticket amount on large layers from 200% to 150% of standart will make LRG layers more playable for me.

[X-Alt]

How about letting the servers decide how many tickets they want, it's already been demonstrated as possible.


The immersion outweighs the confusion.

[rPoXoTauJIo]

But but but consistency.

[Heavy Death]

How about letting the servers decide how many tickets they want, it's already been demonstrated as possible.


The immersion outweighs the confusion.

OCD would make my brain explode.

[PatrickLA_CA]

Part of the problem is that back then when rounds lasted longer, there were 32 players per team, now there are 50. It isn't exactly a problem but I don't recall tickets being re-adjusted aside from introducing the LRG layer which has WAY too many tickets.

[H.Maverick]

Once did a lrg layer of Khami on HOG... 2 hours later we were still on 300+ tickets

[Mineral]

Std wont change in round length. The goal is and whill remain like decided at v1.0 to be 1h for AAS. We made large to offer 2h length. My logic was if std lasts 1h I should double for 2h. doesnt seem to be the case.

Im aware ticket bleed isnt unfied yet and is a large part of that problem. Its a big task and dont have the intrest to do it atm. Someday...

Large layers are barely played atm, the plan was to give them one more release to catch on and otherwise remove them and repurpose them.

The consensus here seems to be large layer is good but its too much. I'll bring it up in the team forum and see what we can do about that and lower their ticket counts. maybe v1.4 maybe not.

But if they dont get played they will go away. So it will be up to the servers to do so and run them.

[Rhino]

How about letting the servers decide how many tickets they want, it's already been demonstrated as possible.


The immersion outweighs the confusion.

I did strongly pitch this back before v1.3 and the Large layers with boosted ticket counts as then we could have more layer verity, combined with longer or shorter rounds, depending on what the server chose, but it was outvoted

However one thing bigger than this that needs to change is making combat (ie, killing enemies and assets) less influential in who wins, and make capturing and holding control points more influential, as right now the control points mean pretty much nothing and the team who wins, is the team with the biggest k/d, no matter how much ground they have captured or held by the rounds end. Some maps you can even just let the enemy take all the flags but your main base and you don't even get a bleed and can still win which to me, isn't right.

Problem is to change this means quite a bit of rework of our code and maps and there isn't any clear way to do this well either.

[YAK-R]

Some maps you can even just let the enemy take all the flags but your main base and you don't even get a bleed and can still win which to me, isn't right.

Ia drang I wonder if trying out the method squad uses (used?) with whoever holds the majority of flags bleeds slowly. This would obviously be a problem on many maps like kozelsk, ramiel where one team starts with all the flags.
Would also be an issue on maps where some teams just get natural positional advantage or closer proximity to the flags. Doesn't seem like it would work.

other ideas to increase flag value
Increase the flag ticket loss number 30>50?
decrease infantry ticket worth 1>0.5?
Assets spawning from flags? Ramiel HMV spawn was cool after captured crewman, as was the burning sands insurgency weapon/vehicle spawns after capturing the embassy in the city.

I don't think servers should decide ticket count. ticket count influences balance, ruins consistency and is just another thing for server admins to bugger up.

It's enjoyable to be able to compare rounds, oh we won this map by x tickets, but then lost the same map the next night by x -

I'd support 150% ticket count for lrg, with quick bleeds for cap out situations.

[Rhino]

I don't think servers should decide ticket count. ticket count influences balance, ruins consistency and is just another thing for server admins to bugger up.

Just to be clear the idea was that servers would be able to just choose their ticket percentage, where the actual tickets would be chosen by the mapper/dev team, and then servers can set their server to have 125% tickets or w/e. The option for it is already there in the vBF2 server code files, just in our current python its locked out.

[JustAGuy]

Rounds are often quickly decided by early asset and logistical performance. A bit more tickets could help boost comeback potential. But large layers are too big. Most people don't even stay a whole round of large layer leading to a lot of team inconsistency on top of the already messy situation.

And i agree that asset spawn times leave me wondering if they aren't a little too much. I understand wanting clear skies for 20 minutes if you took down cas, since 20 minutes goes by relatively quick as infantry, but it doesn't go by very quickly for asset squads who then have to play a non committal infantry role for 10-15 mins before they need to rtb. In my opinion, assets' skill level shouldn't be a factor in whether or not they get to keep playing. People join assets to play assets. It's easy to say, "oh well, they should git gud and be careful with their assets," but the truth is if (for example) a great apc squad happens to go up against an amazing unstoppable apc squad, they STILL don't get to play the assets and then the team is given a disadvantage (20 mins without a tank, etc, etc) for the other team's skill, as if them being better won't already give them a natural leg up.

But, i'm not even sure that I want shorter asset spawn times either, just thinking out loud. Obviously the current method helps reduce chaotic arcadey gameplay so it's not that i don't see the merit. I just wonder how to diffuse the elitism that exists among asset whores, since most of it comes from the artificially bloated importance of assets within the game to begin with...

[Heavy Death]

This is war, not CS. Longer spawntimes on everything, like 200% for inf respawn and 150% would be better.

And it would actually make rounds longer and end the round earlier if one team is really bad since outcap would be quicker.

I'm a genius.

[Mineral]

Looking at a black screen for a minute as infantry was tried for 1.0 beta, failed.
shorter asset spawns was tried for 1.0 to I believe 1.2, failed.

BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

[JustAGuy]

This isn't CS? Well i hope not cause cs is 1 and done (no respawn) so don't know why you'd give that for the example Heavy Death, shoulda stuck with the standard tacticoolguy comparison of CoD! xD.

I knew you guys had shorter asset spawns before but i wasn't sure when or how long the timers were. What i'm always curious about is what people's grievances were with the shorter asset spawns. I mean c'mon, is there not enough infantry on 50vs50 to take care of a couple assets? I know, "there's not enough HAT or portable AA," so what even now you can't have them around every corner and are often caught as the squad without one when an asset rolls by. That's what TOWs and stationary AA is for. Oh right, most squads barely build fobs much less emplacements xD. Honestly, most squads run around like idiots (even the "mic inf" squads, etc) and crumple even if there is just one light asset or even a jeep. Everyone will hunker down while the LAT slowly gets himself killed (oh, im sorry, "slowly moves into position" i mean), it's a story as old as time i feel...

I'm definitely not down for assets to just be rollin around dominating the map, but I think a lot of that has to do with infantry misunderstanding their role. They think their job is to just go straight to the flags and poop out 1 single crate fob along the way at the beginning of the match. They build fobs as simple spawn points and often build them in vulnerable positions, not to mention that unless people happen to spawn on it while it's being assaulted, it will go undefended. ??: Definitely not a dev problem, but i wonder when i look at some of the people who've been playing so long, and they still don't calmly calculate the next move, they just get frustrated and push over and over praying for a break. All while blaming it on their squad or team, of course

[Heavy Death]

Oh, I meant CS for its "mirrored" balance almost.

Removing flag ticket loss would probably extend the game at the expense of flags being worth jack shit. Or maybe you can code into python that the team who takes a flag from the enemy gets 15-30tx but the losing team doesn't lose any.

[JustAGuy]

Oh i see now, that makes sense Heavy.

Yeah, honestly the system is pretty much perfect, we are just ever seeking a better experience ofc. I mean, giving slightly more tickets or shorter asset spawns etc etc will still not fix a team that is unaware of how to properly play pr. And of course i don't want anything that gives a helping hand to bad teams or bad teamwork, no one does. I think the level of balance achieved (especially considering the mod's complexity) is admirable to say the least.

[Heavy Death]

PRTA admins often use all possible layers to keep the game interesting.