Ticket bleed needs to happen more often

[mammikoura]

Right now in a lot of maps ticket bleed is very hard to accomplish. And because of this defending will pretty much always be more usefull than attacking since it's more about your k/d ratio than anything else. (kill someone and they lose tickets, and when there is no ticket bleed the only way to make the enemy lose tickets is to kill them)

In my opinion there should be a small ticket bleed earlier on. For example ejod desert. Now the ticket bleed starts when one team is down to their main base. How about making it so that when one team gets pushed out of the city they start to bleed.
Fools road. Both teams have 2 flags in the beginning. There are 4 neutral flags. So why not enable ticket bleed when one team controls all of those 4 neutral flags. Right now it's not enough if you manage to get all those flags but you must also take one of the flags the enemy starts with.
Qwai river. You it's not enough if you secure a foothold in the enemies side of the river, but you must capture everything except their main base.
There are a lot of maps with this 'problem'.

There are 2 main reasons for this suggestion.
1. To promote attacking. As I said right now it's extremely hard to get ticket bleed going, so by attacking all you are going to do is lose tickets. If you manage to completely overrun the other team then attacking is usefull, but if it's an even battle then attacking really doesn't do any good.

2. Realism. For example look at ejod. Obviously the point of the whole battle is to secure the city. So wouldn't it only be logical that when one side has accomplished the main objective the enemy would start to lose tickets.
Same with qwai river. The objective of the map is to get across the river, right? So why not make it so that when one team controls both fishing village and government office the other team gets a small ticket bleed. This would reward the team for completing one of the main goals of the whole battle.

Thoughts?

[OwnRize]

Well. I like the current system very much as it is. I think that your suggestion will make people rush more to the flags and get "raped" on their way or just before the flag. I notice that not enough people defend & therefore games are either lost by tickets or the team is driven back to main because nobody wanted to take the job for defending that flag which you really need to hold & win a game by getting more kills.

On your second reason agree to a surtain extent. If you want to hold a city - you need also to take out the enemy that is engaging the city. Just holding it is not a option (because it is still under direct treath). If USMC is defending at gas station but not moving in. The MEC could take the opertunity to take it and push them futher back.
(btw, a gas-station & gardens are still a PART of a city - they are not in the middle of a big desert)

My conclusion is to keep the current system as it is. I don't want to see more "rushing" to a flag & people getting nailed down on their way. Also a team should have the change to come back. They already have it difficult when they are pushed back. Don't make their live even MORE difficult by bleeding the tickets

[Human Shield]

Of course a team should start losing if they are pushed back. Now when they are pushed back they are just demoralized and have to defend for 2 hours. A bleed will encourage a full counter-attack or end the round earlier (both are better then sitting on the same point outside of base the whole round).

The game needs to be more dynamic, they have respawn points to improve gameplay and those aren't realistic but it seems that they want to keep people staring at one point defending for hours to stay as realistic (even thou it hurts gameplay).

They put in the front line cap mode so that the team only had to defend 1-2 points, if they kept it like vanilla all your points would have to be defended. The reason is that defending when no one is attacking sucks, you can sit for 30 minutes and see nothing happen. For this reason attacking needs to be encouraged, which in turn will encourage defence (because the chances are higher that you will actually do something and be useful instead of waste time). The defending team already has a supply line advantage when pushed to their side of the map, they don't need to be immune to bleed.

People are willing to defend, just not when no one is attacking. And when no one is attacking the round needs to count down faster. It would be nice to find some way to make a ticket lead more useful then just a buffer that will take forever to burn through.

[Shining Arcanine]

Right now in a lot of maps ticket bleed is very hard to accomplish. And because of this defending will pretty much always be more usefull than attacking since it's more about your k/d ratio than anything else. (kill someone and they lose tickets, and when there is no ticket bleed the only way to make the enemy lose tickets is to kill them)

In my opinion there should be a small ticket bleed earlier on. For example ejod desert. Now the ticket bleed starts when one team is down to their main base. How about making it so that when one team gets pushed out of the city they start to bleed.
Fools road. Both teams have 2 flags in the beginning. There are 4 neutral flags. So why not enable ticket bleed when one team controls all of those 4 neutral flags. Right now it's not enough if you manage to get all those flags but you must also take one of the flags the enemy starts with.
Qwai river. You it's not enough if you secure a foothold in the enemies side of the river, but you must capture everything except their main base.
There are a lot of maps with this 'problem'.

There are 2 main reasons for this suggestion.
1. To promote attacking. As I said right now it's extremely hard to get ticket bleed going, so by attacking all you are going to do is lose tickets. If you manage to completely overrun the other team then attacking is usefull, but if it's an even battle then attacking really doesn't do any good.

2. Realism. For example look at ejod. Obviously the point of the whole battle is to secure the city. So wouldn't it only be logical that when one side has accomplished the main objective the enemy would start to lose tickets.
Same with qwai river. The objective of the map is to get across the river, right? So why not make it so that when one team controls both fishing village and government office the other team gets a small ticket bleed. This would reward the team for completing one of the main goals of the whole battle.

Thoughts?

In earlier versions of PR, when ticket bleeds were more common, once one side got another side to bleed, they simply dug-in instead of attempting to drive the other side off the map. With the less common ticket bleeds in new versions of PR, you see more of one side attempting to annihilate the other, which is how things are in real life.

1. If you want constant attacking, I suggest you play vanilla Battlefield 2.

2. If you want realism, I suggest that you advocate the ticket bleed being completely removed. It would make things more realistic in terms of what both sides will do.

[Human Shield]

Except driving off the entire team from the second to last point rarely happens. I was on Qwai and for 100 tickets US is just stuck at facility, the China probably have one squad at mine getting extremely bored and everyone sits around sniping each other. Full victories could be possible if ticket leads gave any advantage but since the troops are bored respawning anyways it just created a long grind.

The attackers mite as well dig in to 90% of the map (harder to get stuff from base) and hold on then have the defenders dig into 10% (easier to defend) and last forever.

[Shining Arcanine]

Except driving off the entire team from the second to last point rarely happens. I was on Qwai and for 100 tickets US is just stuck at facility, the China probably have one squad at mine getting extremely bored and everyone sits around sniping each other. Full victories could be possible if ticket leads gave any advantage but since the troops are bored respawning anyways it just created a long grind.

The attackers mite as well dig in to 90% of the map (harder to get stuff from base) and hold on then have the defenders dig into 10% (easier to defend) and last forever.

Since the ticket bleed was made less common, I have seen it happen more often than I had in the past. EJOD is one map where I recall how badly one side beat the other very vividly.

[DrMcCleod]

Disagree entirely.
Given that PR is trying to build a slower, more considered playstyle, ticket bleed should be removed entirely.

[Bonsai]

Is there a chance they get a bleed of x tickets every y minutes?

I.e.: 30 tickets every 20 minutes?

This means there is the need of counter-attacking but it`s not that they have to do it instantly. They can take their time (here 20 minutes) to organize the attack.

[mammikoura]

Disagree entirely.
Given that PR is trying to build a slower, more considered playstyle, ticket bleed should be removed entirely.

and then the point of attacking would be? Like 80% of the time you gain nothing but you lose tickets = you lose the game.

Bonsai's suggestion would work pretty well too.

[DrMcCleod]

and then the point of attacking would be? Like 80% of the time you gain nothing but you lose tickets = you lose the game.

Bonsai's suggestion would work pretty well too.

Ah well, the ticket count to zero victory condition is a bit of a holdover from vanilla. AFAIUI the devs are currently building mission-based victory conditions into the game.

[Dunehunter]

Actually, on a map like EJOD, you don't really need the bleed to start bleeding your opponent dry. Once the USMC, for example, takes Garden, the MEC are usually in trouble, because they have to assault across the desert, and that's not a good position to be in when facing a couple of decent support gunners

And since the USMC in this scenario has a height and cover advantage, it's also easier for them to push out, with some squads giving fire support.

[mammikoura]

dunehunter;611601']Actually, on a map like EJOD, you don't really need the bleed to start bleeding your opponent dry. Once the USMC, for example, takes Garden, the MEC are usually in trouble, because they have to assault across the desert, and that's not a good position to be in when facing a couple of decent support gunners

the thing is, the mec don't really 'have to' attack since there is no ticket bleed. They can just sit comfortably at their flag in the middle of the desert, this way the enemy has to run across the desert.

And if both teams are smart enough to defend then the map becomes a static sniper war.

[[T]Terranova7]

I never liked ticket bleed too much, but I've always tried to push for more combat oriented means for decreasing your opponents tickets. For instance, taking an enemy control point should cost them 25 tickets (While possibly giving your team 25 tickets back). Something like that would make a winning team victorious in most cases.

[BloodBane611]

All the maps that are currently out have pretty decent ticket bleed balances in my opinion. I prefer more combat to just bleeding the other side to death for no apparent reason.

[Human Shield]

Do the PR devs accept people to modify their server options? Do they regonize the problem of dull gameplay?

Modified assault and defend should be the standard gamemode. That way attacking and defending would be engaging and assets important instead of this endless push by both sides that barely does anything.

There is a difference between slow and redundant. A game of Kashan with 300 tickets compared to 500 would have no noticeable difference in terms of realism or teamplay. If anything it makes the game more intense.

Large ticket counts and no bleed produces static play. Any comeback stories are the exceptions and more importantly there is no benefit to your team of fighting past your second point if you can outkill the other team. The only urgency in keeping points is the pain of driving back to the previous sets.

Trading control points with unlimited troops from respawn points isn't realistic, it becomes a grind and makes things less about strategy and tactics but about shooting it out over the points. I'm sure the PR dev's would like to bring in more objective based gameplay and would limit spawning from points if they could but until then the game has doesn't keep its focus for long enough periods for me.

Why not have shorter rounds with no vehicle respawn, why wouldn't that be more realistic? Battling it out with superior strategy should give a victory, now during periods that nothing changes hands there is no strategy except keep pushing. I want decisions and combined arms power to be the majority of the playtime but I find that beyond the start of the round or if other team can keep pulling off sweeping moves there is nothing engaging but attacking the same points in an endless tide.

To compare a comeback after an hour of getting sniped outside of base compared to winning a new round with the same team, to me the second is more enjoyable and doesn't waste an hour of my time and avoids sitting at the same point for an hour and then losing (what I've seen more often). And is a comeback to beat the clock any less enjoyable then waiting for the tickets to get to zero?

[Death_dx]

Disagree entirely.
Given that PR is trying to build a slower, more considered playstyle, ticket bleed should be removed entirely.

QFT

Why would you want ticket bleed? It kills the round, leaving you with less time to actually do anything and have fun.

Right now in a lot of maps ticket bleed is very hard to accomplish. And because of this defending will pretty much always be more usefull than attacking since it's more about your k/d ratio than anything else.

You do not account for the fact that defending effectively usually entails a bunker, otherwise it will be a mostly even battle and ticket losses are about even. If there is a bunker, then a more effective squad(s) will be the victor in ticket losses even if they get killed more, because destroying the bunker causes 10 (or 20?) tickets to be removed.

[mammikoura]

You do not account for the fact that defending effectively usually entails a bunker, otherwise it will be a mostly even battle and ticket losses are about even. If there is a bunker, then a more effective squad(s) will be the victor in ticket losses even if they get killed more, because destroying the bunker causes 10 (or 20?) tickets to be removed.

Does it? Never knew that, well I guess you learn something new every day.
But anyway, bunker or no bunker the defenders almost always have an upper hand. They are behind cover and stationary, which gives them a huge advantage.

[Human Shield]

Why would you want ticket bleed? It kills the round, leaving you with less time to actually do anything and have fun.

If you can't have fun in 90 minutes then something should be changed.

You do not account for the fact that defending effectively usually entails a bunker, otherwise it will be a mostly even battle and ticket losses are about even. If there is a bunker, then a more effective squad(s) will be the victor in ticket losses even if they get killed more, because destroying the bunker causes 10 (or 20?) tickets to be removed.

Bunkers don't cost tickets or provide ticket income anymore.