"Push" points

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-04-22 18:20

Would it be possible to put in a group of flags on a map, somewhere around the "Center point" or a "vital point" on the map where, once you cap it, you need to leave X people there to defend it, otherwise the flag would "uncapture" itself?

Would be cool, especially if we had bonuses for caping certain flags.

ArmedDrunk&Angry · Post by **ArmedDrunk&Angry** » 2007-04-22 18:27

I like that idea.
Really make the S in AAS a part of the game.
But constant defense is a hard postition to recruit for so maybe if some of the commander deplkoyable assets were in the zone it would count as occupied.

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-04-22 18:33

I've been playing round with ideas on cp as well in my head. The problem is the whole secure part of AAS there is no incentive for defence. And that leads to well if no one is defending the cp shouldn't the flag become neutral? That would actually make the capture process more acceptable as well - if you clear a flag area of hostiles well then it should be immediately neutralised because no one 'owns' it anymore. Then a squad can move in and defend it, 'claiming' it for the team.

jerkzilla · Post by **jerkzilla** » 2007-04-22 19:12

How about getting defense points for sitting within 50 to 75 meters of a cap-able friendly flag?

ZaZZo · Post by **ZaZZo** » 2007-04-22 20:16

Nice.

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2007-04-23 05:33

X2 for all of these ideas

Hides-His-Eyes · Post by **Hides-His-Eyes** » 2007-04-23 09:38

The secure radius would have to be pretty generous. Proper defence of a flag requires that the squad spread out.

I still love the idea. one solider on flag = super slow "leak" of control, 0 = faster leak of control, so that after a few minutes an unsecured flag becomes a neutral flag BUT only if the flag is "contested" (is in the defense list on the AAS annoucnements)

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-23 09:54

forcing people to defend would be terrible for gameplay.

Hides-His-Eyes · Post by **Hides-His-Eyes** » 2007-04-23 10:46

causticbeat wrote:forcing people to defend would be terrible for gameplay.

I don't think so. Not if you have an SL/specs kit in your squad to find high ground and start spotting, and if youy work together with voip.

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-23 12:04

Hides-His-Eyes wrote:I don't think so. Not if you have an SL/specs kit in your squad to find high ground and start spotting, and if you work together with voip.

Im not saying that defense is bad for gameplay, but I think it is bad to try to enforce defense through some silly/over complicated flag logic that will really just confuse new players. Id rather see defense prioritized by overall game mechanics and map design (which it already is tbh). With AASv2, if you leave a flag undefended, your team loses that flag more or less.

That being said, I cant remember the last time I played that a flag wasnt being defended in some form. With the inclusion of AASv2 alot of players have smartened up to how defense/offense works in PR. You dont need to be a retarded SL and bunch your whole squad up on the cap radius to properly defend a flag. And thats where the issues with your suggestion come in. It would be too hard to define "defense" in game. Many flags you can defend from 200m just as well as you can from 15m (if not better)

system · Post by **system** » 2007-04-23 12:43

Wouldn't it get kind of boring?^^

Lothrian · Post by **Lothrian** » 2007-04-23 13:16

Not really. This of it in the current AAS2 situation. There are 2 points to achieve at any one time. Lets take the AAS2 Basrah as an example. As US, once you have Village, you can get either Facility or Mosque.

If you cap facility, do you go to Mosque or defend Fac. Normally one squad will defend (as it is good for the team) as they know damn well that the enemy are coming back and are angry.

It doesnt need to be every flag, just the active ones. IE, if you have taken both Mosque and Facility, you know the enemy will go for either, so you NEED to defend both and to attack either Industry or Suburbs. Now, the system makes itself useful because it enforces good practises, teamwork and communication.

Since at lot of us have to defend while everyone else goes on the attack (far more enjoyable ... but someone has to pick up the slack ... grrr) , it means that it forces other to do the same, and not rely on one good squad to defend 2 CPs as is often the case.

Its a very good idea and I cant see any negative effect on gameplay other than it forces those who can't be arsed to defend and those who always do, will have an easier time and may even be able to go on the attack.

Long Bow · Post by **Long Bow** » 2007-04-23 14:16

I like the idea behind encouraging teams to hold flags but I don't like this system. If both teams are now required to put a squad on a flag so as not to loose it who are you expecting to come attack you as both teams are sitting on their respective flags. Your going to have only one or two squads able to attack. If you make it so only two people are needed to hold the flag you then are encouraging squads to split up.

If only the most recent flag captured is the one that needs people to defend it then I could accept that. You would also need a larger cap radius so "defending" doesn't consist of holding the rope at the bottom of the flag pole to stop the flag dropping

I like where you are going with this idea I just fear the negative side effects

PIMP{UK}1 · Post by **PIMP{UK}1** » 2007-04-23 14:59

I think it is a good idea, currently if you are on a poor team nobody will defend because they want the highest points rather than their team to win. Once they loose a flag they dont think "we need to get back there prompto", they just stay trying to cap the flag they are already at!
Eventually all flags get taken, untill one is left then everyone on the team decides they want to defend that flag, so you loose all your tickets and loose the game!

Blackhawk 5 · Post by **Blackhawk 5** » 2007-04-23 20:21

what about 2 man rounds? doesent work unless you cut yourself and walk both directions, but you still need the other 1.5 to cap the next flag

bunny · Post by **bunny** » 2007-04-23 23:56

ArmedDrunk&Angry wrote:I like that idea.
Really make the S in AAS a part of the game.
But constant defense is a hard postition to recruit for so maybe if some of the commander deplkoyable assets were in the zone it would count as occupied.

really. When people play A.A.S. they play it as normal conquest mode rather than doing as the name suggests and defending some of the flags. perhaps this should be changed so that it's more turn-based sort of. For example,lets say the U.S. capture a point on a map. Rather than go out and cap more, they can't capture anything else and must defend that CP for a given period of time. Once that time is up they go to the next flag. If they lose the flag then they have to cap it again while the oppposing team (let's say MEC for now since this is an example) defends. It would be much better because it would cause all players on both teams to focus on one CP at a time, which would make for INSANELY fun battles.

bunny · Post by **bunny** » 2007-04-23 23:56

ArmedDrunk&Angry wrote:I like that idea.
Really make the S in AAS a part of the game.
But constant defense is a hard postition to recruit for so maybe if some of the commander deplkoyable assets were in the zone it would count as occupied.

really. When people play A.A.S. they play it as normal conquest mode rather than doing as the name suggests and defending some of the flags. perhaps this should be changed so that it's more turn-based sort of. For example,lets say the U.S. capture a point on a map. Rather than go out and cap more, they can't capture anything else and must defend that CP for a given period of time. Once that time is up they go to the next flag. If they lose the flag then they have to cap it again while the oppposing team (let's say MEC for now since this is an example) defends. It would be much better because it would cause all players on both teams to focus on one CP at a time, which would make for INSANELY fun battles.

Edit: sorry, lag made me double post.

Post by **Outlawz7** » 2007-04-24 11:11

causticbeat wrote:forcing people to defend would be terrible for gameplay.

Put an A10 at each CP, so the plane campers would sit there, jumping around, TKing and looking for the quartermaster to give them the frigging pilot kit......*cough* keeping the CP occupied

interceptor7 · Post by **interceptor7** » 2007-04-25 15:27

A good real-life analogy would be that, if you capture an area/base/city, and then everyone leaves, you have pretty much abandoned it and rendered it "neutral". Technically, the enemy could just walk in and claim it. The trick comes in defining how far away you'd have to be to consider the area "abandoned".

ZaZZo · Post by **ZaZZo** » 2007-04-25 15:34

bunny wrote:really. When people play A.A.S. they play it as normal conquest mode rather than doing as the name suggests and defending some of the flags. perhaps this should be changed so that it's more turn-based sort of. For example,lets say the U.S. capture a point on a map. Rather than go out and cap more, they can't capture anything else and must defend that CP for a given period of time. Once that time is up they go to the next flag. If they lose the flag then they have to cap it again while the oppposing team (let's say MEC for now since this is an example) defends. It would be much better because it would cause all players on both teams to focus on one CP at a time, which would make for INSANELY fun battles.

Agreed I was just about to suggest this