We've talked about this sort of thing before but I think it warrents some more debate\brainstorming now that .6 has been out for a bit. As it stands now, rally pts bring about some interesting problems when it comes to attacking. You can drop a rally in the middle of nowhere behind enemy lines and continue to stream into the enemy base. With so few players on bigger maps, this IMO creates some gamey gameplay etc.
I'd rather see more of the battlelines (been said before) and people pushing together as a team...not just a squad. I have no problem with squads going behind enemy lines but with rally pts its so annoying to have them just stream in constantly. I think a different direction would better the gameplay and bring about some more realism.
Its been said before that we should limit our rally pts to 100 meters from a homeflag. I think this is a good option but it could use some tuning. I'd say 200meters from a flag OR Firebase. To me this would bring about some interesting gameplay and give the line of attack and firebases more value. So instead of squads running off and doing their own thing etc....the better team would stay together, push the enemy back and use the commander to establish a firebase with which to increase their range of attack (rally pts).
SL spawning is OK in my mind as it allows behind-the-lines squads to still get-r-done but only if they are really good at it...also a good marksmen can ruin their day. I think being that this would allow for some really cool stealth-commando tactics too as you sneaking behind could be devasting if successful as the other team is all at the front lines.
I think this would lessen a lot of the chaos of certain games where guys seem to be appearing out of thin air and bring more cohesion to the battlefield. It'd also greatly reward the team that works more cooperatively. I'm sure the Devs and everyone else has thought of this kind of stuff but I just wanted to open it back up seeing as, IMO, its a very important issue.
Forward Spawning ideas- increasing battlelines
-
VipersGhost
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: 2007-03-27 18:34
I agree...I think there is still a lot of potential in this area for PR to really turn the corner in teamplay. It seemed like .6 really really brought together squad members ...guys work together all the time now. I'd like to see .7 bring together not just the squads but the entire teams! I know the commander does this to an extent but certain aspects of the spawning system bring about to many unrealistic dynamics to the battlefield and the way squads work together. Don't get me wrong though, sometimes on certain maps things really come together...but I definitely feel like there is a lot more room for improvement in this area.
-
DJJ-Terror
- Posts: 671
- Joined: 2006-06-14 21:51
-
Long Bow
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: 2007-03-21 14:41
ViperGhost you make a good point. The one thing I fear will happen with chaining RP to a flag or firebase is that you will be doing allot of walking in between the base and the frontline on the big maps. The reward right now is that if you can get up close to the fron line and get your squad together for the RP you can be much more effective in the fight.
The radius might need to be fairly large, bigger then 200m. I keep thinking about how this would play on 7 gates. I think 200 m would mean at the river flag you would either place your rp inside the walls or in the wide open. The other issue is that if you can't put a rp in behind the temple on 7 gates you are giving the brits a real handicap in trying to win.
I guess once we start getting consistantly good commanders who set up firebases this won't be an issue, I'm just thinking about it in the current context.
The radius might need to be fairly large, bigger then 200m. I keep thinking about how this would play on 7 gates. I think 200 m would mean at the river flag you would either place your rp inside the walls or in the wide open. The other issue is that if you can't put a rp in behind the temple on 7 gates you are giving the brits a real handicap in trying to win.
I guess once we start getting consistantly good commanders who set up firebases this won't be an issue, I'm just thinking about it in the current context.
-
VipersGhost
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: 2007-03-27 18:34
Longbow you are definitely on point with the problem. It's difficult to put so much requirement on a commander for firebases etc...but I think we are all just afraid of being on a team with no commander...or a crappy one.
1 - Rally pts must be placed within 500m's of CP or Firebase (that enough?? not sure...can it be tailored per map?)
2 - I think making a loose range requirement would solve some of the issue while still not screwing up the gameplay.
3 - We are all afraid of putting more requirments on the commander because so often there isn't a good one around. I think if there was ever a game where this would be successful it'd be PR...the community is just so good that I think bad Commanders will be a rarity. Bring back mutiney BTW...maybe?
In .7 the commander will be even MORE fleshed out with better trained troops that know how to build. So the CO will have even better assets and thus the better players will gravitate into the roll. Even now I'm seeing more and more good commanders. Soon there will be a lot more and with .7 improvements the chained-rally could work just fine. If its done right...it'd still work with no commander.
In the end, right now we are SOOO free to put down our personal spawn pt anywhere...I think were spoiled. We can run off and do are own thing, yet recieve none of the downfalls. It may seem like limiting the rallys would hobble us but I think its entirely neccessary in some respects.
1 - Rally pts must be placed within 500m's of CP or Firebase (that enough?? not sure...can it be tailored per map?)
2 - I think making a loose range requirement would solve some of the issue while still not screwing up the gameplay.
3 - We are all afraid of putting more requirments on the commander because so often there isn't a good one around. I think if there was ever a game where this would be successful it'd be PR...the community is just so good that I think bad Commanders will be a rarity. Bring back mutiney BTW...maybe?
In .7 the commander will be even MORE fleshed out with better trained troops that know how to build. So the CO will have even better assets and thus the better players will gravitate into the roll. Even now I'm seeing more and more good commanders. Soon there will be a lot more and with .7 improvements the chained-rally could work just fine. If its done right...it'd still work with no commander.
In the end, right now we are SOOO free to put down our personal spawn pt anywhere...I think were spoiled. We can run off and do are own thing, yet recieve none of the downfalls. It may seem like limiting the rallys would hobble us but I think its entirely neccessary in some respects.
-
Wolfe
- Posts: 1057
- Joined: 2007-03-06 03:15
OP: I like this idea.
From a realism point of view, troops need supply lines, not a small, hard to see, arbitrary pile of backpacks without any logical resupply route that lead to infinite infantry attacks on flags from any direction.
Squads are more concerned about their rally point being capped than their flags being capped and this is probably why most squads go on the offense rather than defense; there's no value in defending a flag if you can respawn elsewhere on the map closer to the action. Like you said, it disrupted the "front line" approach that was dominant in previous versions.
This goes for APC's and commander trucks too. Infantry should not be allowed to spawn from these vehicles; they're lazy troop deployment points for zerging.
From a realism point of view, troops need supply lines, not a small, hard to see, arbitrary pile of backpacks without any logical resupply route that lead to infinite infantry attacks on flags from any direction.
Squads are more concerned about their rally point being capped than their flags being capped and this is probably why most squads go on the offense rather than defense; there's no value in defending a flag if you can respawn elsewhere on the map closer to the action. Like you said, it disrupted the "front line" approach that was dominant in previous versions.
This goes for APC's and commander trucks too. Infantry should not be allowed to spawn from these vehicles; they're lazy troop deployment points for zerging.
Last edited by Wolfe on 2007-07-24 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
-
Sgt_carbonero
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 2007-06-22 20:10
super rally
hey, here's an idea: we all know how tricky it can be to get 3 mates together for a rally point. What if two squads could meet up and create a new, larger rally? the idea being it would foster team cooperation and it wouldnt be too over the top since we all know how hard it is in the first place just to get one squad together?
discuss.
discuss.
-
IronTaxi
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 4925
- Joined: 2006-05-31 12:56
i would like to see only the commander placing rally points... thus he control the flow of the battle...that being said though a bad commander would be a big problem...
SL spawning IMO has got to go...
The DEV team is aware that there are in fact too many spawn points now...one fo things we will be addressing in .7 is culling the spawn locations down a bit to refocus this aspect of gameplay...
SL spawning IMO has got to go...
The DEV team is aware that there are in fact too many spawn points now...one fo things we will be addressing in .7 is culling the spawn locations down a bit to refocus this aspect of gameplay...
-
GnuRejser
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 2007-07-16 19:46
Just thinking out of the box here...
The big issue about rally points for me is; Where can i put it to get an advantage of my current mission? And since most of the players in the game thinks almost like that the rally points will be scattered all over the place.
And now when the squad must have 4 soldiers (including the officer) to set it up, i can see that the players sees it like their "little pot of gold".
And i am also concerned about players that instead of defending/attacking objectives in the map, just keeps hanging around at their rally point. I dont know what could possible change that way of thinking?
I have been thinking about this idea for a while. and being lacy i didn't search the forums if this has been suggested before, and have been archived to the famous "file 13"
I thought about some sort of "rewarding system" for squads, except points?
Lets say that a whole squad (lets say 5 - 6 members minimum) captures a flag from the "beginning". (capture an Grey flag, recapture an enemy flag) and as an reward, the officer kit gets available when the current officer dies, aka his/hers kit drops at the ground where he/she dies for ONE TIME. To get this reward again they have to capture a new flag, from the beginning.
And maybe if recapture a flag at its "half way down" may generate some minor supplies to be droped at their current position?
In my humble way of thinking, i think that rewards except points will make the game to run a little more gentle, if you know what i mean?
//GnuRejser
And now when the squad must have 4 soldiers (including the officer) to set it up, i can see that the players sees it like their "little pot of gold".
And i am also concerned about players that instead of defending/attacking objectives in the map, just keeps hanging around at their rally point. I dont know what could possible change that way of thinking?
I have been thinking about this idea for a while. and being lacy i didn't search the forums if this has been suggested before, and have been archived to the famous "file 13"
I thought about some sort of "rewarding system" for squads, except points?
Lets say that a whole squad (lets say 5 - 6 members minimum) captures a flag from the "beginning". (capture an Grey flag, recapture an enemy flag) and as an reward, the officer kit gets available when the current officer dies, aka his/hers kit drops at the ground where he/she dies for ONE TIME. To get this reward again they have to capture a new flag, from the beginning.
And maybe if recapture a flag at its "half way down" may generate some minor supplies to be droped at their current position?
In my humble way of thinking, i think that rewards except points will make the game to run a little more gentle, if you know what i mean?
//GnuRejser
infamous qoute of [TAC] squad
- Who is firing at me, and why?
- Who is firing at me, and why?
-
Long Bow
- Posts: 1100
- Joined: 2007-03-21 14:41
Ok your starting to win me over with thisVipersGhost wrote:Longbow you are definitely on point with the problem. It's difficult to put so much requirement on a commander for firebases etc...but I think we are all just afraid of being on a team with no commander...or a crappy one.
1 - Rally pts must be placed within 500m's of CP or Firebase (that enough?? not sure...can it be tailored per map?)
2 - I think making a loose range requirement would solve some of the issue while still not screwing up the gameplay.
In .7 the commander will be even MORE fleshed out with better trained troops that know how to build. So the CO will have even better assets and thus the better players will gravitate into the roll. Even now I'm seeing more and more good commanders. Soon there will be a lot more and with .7 improvements the chained-rally could work just fine. If its done right...it'd still work with no commander.
In the end, right now we are SOOO free to put down our personal spawn pt anywhere...I think were spoiled. We can run off and do are own thing, yet recieve none of the downfalls. It may seem like limiting the rallys would hobble us but I think its entirely neccessary in some respects.
Another set of good points.OP: I like this idea.
From a realism point of view, troops need supply lines, not a small, hard to see, arbitrary pile of backpacks without any logical resupply route that lead to infinite infantry attacks on flags from any direction.
Squads are more concerned about their rally point being capped than their flags being capped and this is probably why most squads go on the offense rather than defense; there's no value in defending a flag if you can respawn elsewhere on the map closer to the action. Like you said, it disrupted the "front line" approach that was dominant in previous versions.
This goes for APC's and commander trucks too. Infantry should not be allowed to spawn from these vehicles; they're lazy troop deployment points for zerging.
SL spawning IMO has got to go...
The DEV team is aware that there are in fact too many spawn points now...one fo things we will be addressing in .7 is culling the spawn locations down a bit to refocus this aspect of gameplay...
Good to hear but I really hesitate to drop the SL spawn over other spawns. I do agree that it is a bit of a gamey addition but I would rather it stay and drop the vehicle spawns. I guess if the commanders are on the ball in the future, with support, RP's firebases, and bunkers will be plenty I hope.
-
TheTank
- Posts: 21
- Joined: 2007-07-25 13:48
Agree 100%IAJTHOMAS wrote:I'd prefer to have SL spawning removed altogether and have some kind of tweaked rally point system as a forward spawning mechanism.
To counter the penalty I would allow for bodies to remain semi-dead for a longer period.
Here is a crazy idea:
Maybe have the commander drop a kit that can drop an automated helis/cargoplane rally point that circles RP and allows air drops.
This might offer one or more squads an advantage when assaulting as the people can spawn even closer yet only one such spawn can be set.