Flag/Tickets Question

[Salraine_Chi]

I have been playing PR regularly now for a couple of months and one thing that has confused me is how a team that has dominated a game for the whole match can often end up losing.

Last night playing the 64 player version of Qwai River, the Chinese team quickly took all the flags apart from the last US one (Pigfarm?). During the game the US team managed only a few times to cap another one or two flags. 99% of the game the Chinese team had at least 6 of the eight flags but still lost. This left most of the 20 or more players on the Chinese side including me scratching their heads wondering what happened.

As I understand the way the game works, the more flags a team holds the quicker the enemy tickets go down so what is going on here?

Ta

Chi

[Bowskill]

A teams commander can deploy assets that cost points, so if you have a useless commander placing assets anywhere and everywhere as well as continually getting his truck blown up (forcing him to buy a new one) then you will most likely lose no matter how many points you control.

[Deadfast]

Tickets represent number of troops in the map. Each time someone dies, his team will lose 1 ticket.
Some maps have got implemented so called "ticket bleed", for example Mestia. Brits have to capture both towers here, otherwise they will keep on losing tickets.
As Bowskill said, commander can also pretty much influence the tickets. Most of the assets he can deploy costs tickets (support truck 5, firebase and bunker 10). If he keeps on spawning trucks and then drive them in front of enemy APC you will find yourself out of the tickets soon. That's also why most of the commanders are very keen on having the assets build up ASAP - after 10 mins they disappear together with the tickets. By what I said so far, it looks like it's not a good idea to deploy assets, because they just waste the tickets. Not true. Not that they only cost tickets, but they also provide spawnpoint, kit request point (firebase+bunker) and generate tickets (bunker).

[Waaah_Wah]

Dont you get those 10 tickets back after a while? if the bunker/firebase is not destroyed that is..

[zardez]

its all about KDRs when then there is no ticket bleed (the team with less flags flashes if there is a bleed) but if there is no bleed and you just camp a flag and shoot anyone who enters, you will obviously do better because you will get more kills, hence more ticket loss for the other team

[Dunehunter]

Yep. If you're up against a team with a smart commander who sets his assets where they'll stay alive, you're in serious trouble because after a while they can get a decent ticket-flow.

[nedlands1]

Maybe the reason the USMC won that round was because they killed a helluva lot more Chinese then the Chinese killed them.

[Outlawz7]

I noticed, that when people do un-organized attacks, they get slaughtered and each of them is worth 1 ticket, so a small, un-supported attack can turn the tide of the round.

Oh yeah, and stupid commanders spamming around the assets :/

[blud]

It's not because of commander assets. It's because PR is more of a deathmatch game than a territory capture game. The objectives are not as important as KDR - unless you are able to get a map to the tipping point where you get the bleed - and some maps are broken and don't have a proper bleed.

[Salraine_Chi]

Thank you for the replies to my post.

Our commander that night was a clan member and was very good. We had one bunker and one supply truck in good positions which the US side never touched the whole game and tbh at one point I was feeling sorry for the US side as it was totally one sided towards the Chinese. The Chinese team was all over them and it seemed in the bag. Thats why it was such a surprise to us all that we lost. Even two players from the US side commented on this and were as confused as us at the outcome.

This is not the first time I have seen this and it does not seem fair a lot of the time, unless your on the winning team of course. I have won rounds when we have been pushed back getting shots to bits with the whole team clinging on to one flag desperately.

Most of the time, to be fair, the team who deserves to win does win but every now and again the team which seems to be losing heavily ends up with a win to mine and others surprise.

Ta

Sal

[*spacecadett*]

BludShoT;528179']It's not because of commander assets. It's because PR is more of a deathmatch game than a territory capture game. The objectives are not as important as KDR - unless you are able to get a map to the tipping point where you get the bleed - and some maps are broken and don't have a proper bleed.

i tend to disagree there are some maps where holdin specific territorys can be decisive for the game, these territorys are of course map specific and who ever occupies these vital areas(keeping chines armour away from the battle in qwai, keeping the warriors away from the main fortress on 7 gates, having heavy at in the west hills of ejod) need to have a good "read" of the game and realize when to fall back, to do this succesfully may not give you the best KDR but you and your squad have disabled a vital part of the enemys war machinery.

as to anwser the OP sometimes beeing to aggresive can loose you the game

[blud]

i tend to disagree there are some maps where holdin specific territorys can be decisive for the game, these territorys are of course map specific and who ever occupies these vital areas(keeping chines armour away from the battle in qwai, keeping the warriors away from the main fortress on 7 gates, having heavy at in the west hills of ejod) need to have a good "read" of the game and realize when to fall back, to do this succesfully may not give you the best KDR but you and your squad have disabled a vital part of the enemys war machinery.

as to anwser the OP sometimes beeing to aggresive can loose you the game

What you are saying actually does fit in with what I was saying. When I say its not purely about territory capture, I mean.. simply the % of territory you have is not very important (unless you have all of it minus the enemy main). But that says nothing about what you are talking about, which is that there are key points on the map that are good to control so that your team gets a better KDR. For example, as you said, keeping the warriors away from the main fortress. This helps you get a better KDR because for 1 thing you don't have warriors tearing up every one in sight, and for another thing, you don't have them there as close spawn points for the enemy.

And about the tanks on the west hills in EJOD, that is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about. It's better to camp a tank up there and get lots of KILLS, than it is to actually capture bases, because there isn't a good bleed setup in PR that encourages capturing bases. Instead there is a less good bleed system that encourages camping and not dying and getting lots of kills.

You would see, if PR used this bleed format:
- If you have more than half the flags you get a slow bleed
- If you have more flags than that you get a slightly faster bleed
- If you have more flags than that you get an even faster bleed
- Till the (obviously) fastest bleed of owning the enemy main

PR would play quite differently. Teams that "feel like they should be winning" Would be winning.

That's been my opinion about 0.3-0.6 because I like going on offense - maximum action, firefights and fun, but I still enjoy the game the way it is as well. As for 0.7, with much larger maps, I'd have to re-evaluate my opinion since the game is going to be different (But I'd probably still end up feeling this way heh)

Anyhow, I'm just writing this stuff to you spacecadett, I'm not trying to get attention to my way of thinking. The devs know what they want the game to be like, and my bleed system idea is not something they want, which is fine, it's their game.

[*spacecadett*]

Rgr, Bludshot must have missunderstud you somewhere! will have to agree to disagree i like the way PRs bleed system is set up atm (but thats just my opinion).