What do you mean by "base raping"? Right or wrong?

[Ninja2dan]

...baserape has been taken care of by the devs. it's called a freaking dome of death!

I mean, there is a dome of death at the Kashan runways; yet it is still possible, and easy, for an MBT to sit and rape the runway. Thats everything, Tanks, jets, copters, roflcopters and everything in between.
The OPFOR cant retaliate and that squad that waited 20mins for a freshly rapped A-10, F-16 and BH, can go and get a drink or two, because PR just got crapper for them.

That pretty much sums up the reason why a "dome of death" is NOT a sure means to end base raping.

@Antonious: In my opinion as well as many others, an Uncappable base is the main base with a huge red circle-with-line NO ENTRY symbol around it. Any other flag is cappable, even if the current AAS order doesn't permit it. The only exception to attacking an uncap being acceptable would be the VCP on Al Basrah, since that is not the main uncap of the map, and I haven't seen any other maps with two marked uncaps.

This means that any flag NOT marked with the circle of no-entry is fair game, because it is still a cappable flag. You wouldn't normally leave **** behind at a flag and then move on to the next, if you do leave stuff behind and undefended then you deserve to have it destroyed. But unused vehicles at the main uncap are not expected to be guarded in such a manner.

Regarding SF taking out assets and the like, if they are fired upon then fine, they have good cause to return fire. But there is a difference between breaking contact and going around actively searching for people to kill. Wasting runways with C4 is not base raping, bombing it is if you know there are other troops and vehicles along the path of those bombs. As mentioned before, even with the no-entry spacial domes in place, aircraft fly through too fast to even be effected. That means you are NOT supposed to fly into a marked uncap, yet most do anyways.

SF entering a main uncap to destroy assets is fine. Destroying unused vehicles, placing mines inside their base, setting C4 on non-asset areas for the purpose of anti-personnel, etc are not what most would allow on a good server. Again, my reasoning for this was mentioned in my first posts.

So, to clarify, an "Uncap" is a flag that under no circumstances can the enemy take it over. These flags are the flags that are marked with the red circle around the flag symbol, with a red line diagonally through the red circle. These flags should be considered OFF LIMITS to opposing forces, excluding SF with the intentions to destroy ASSETS ONLY. Those SF may defend themselves, but must NOT linger or instigate attacks.

These are not rules in place by PR, it is up to the individual servers to set their own rules and to enforce them. I have been on servers that allow no entry to uncaps at all, not even SF, but they failed to enforce those rules and people rape all day and night. I have also seen servers that ban within seconds of breaking those rules.

[Antonious_Bloc]

That pretty much sums up the reason why a "dome of death" is NOT a sure means to end base raping.

@Antonious: In my opinion as well as many others, an Uncappable base is the main base with a huge red circle-with-line NO ENTRY symbol around it. Any other flag is cappable, even if the current AAS order doesn't permit it.

Well then in your instance I would agree with you. However, the servers that I see that address the rule do no allow you to attack non-AAS bases, and from some of the responses here, many of the forum-users consider non-AAS flags as "uncaps".

SF should be able to go in and still be able to fight back, though this shouldn't be limited to firing when fired upon. For instance, you're approaching a bunker with slam in hand, and somebody spawns right in front of it. Am I going to wait for him to start shooting at me at close range or am I going to take him out so that I can have a safe approach?

I choose the second option, and the other team whines and I get kicked from the server, which is why I don't usually bother with SF kits anymore.

[Waaah_Wah]

Imo, its totally OK to attack the main when your a sabotage squad. You get one person to sneak in from the north, while the rest of your squad (not 5 but many 2-3 ppl since sabotage squads should stay small) open fire from the south to get enemyes to look in their direction while the engineer/specops guy quietly sneaks in and blows their bunker/commandpost to hell. After that those guy who were creating lots of smoke and noise should get some more smoke down and GTFO.

[joselucca]

baserape = maybe (circumstance dictates)
spawn camp = NO

[-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba]

devs cant create a doom of death that disapears when AAS says the flag is the next to be kept, right?

[Ninja2dan]

I don't think there is a need for a "dome of death" for an AAS cappable flag. Even if it is not currently capable of being taken, in my opinion that flag is still in play. On most maps, all cappable flags are forward enough of the main base (uncap) that attacking them should present minimal threat to your efforts.

If a flag is not currently cappable but is cappable via the AAS order, then what reason is there for the enemy to attack it? If they can't take the flag, then there must be something else there worth attacking. And in my opinion, if there is anything worth attacking, there is something worth defending. If you are going to leave assets such as vehicles, aa emplacements, firebases/bunkers, etc at one of those flags, then by all means you need to defend it as well. If you don't want to defend it properly, that means it has little meaning to your team. In that case, let the enemy attack it. That only draws more enemy troops away from your main effort.

Main bases that are in no way cappable by the enemy should not be considered as attackable. SF on asset destruction duties have a right to enter, but within guidelines. AAS flags are not a main base, and should probably not fall under the same rules. This is why we have both bunkers and firebases; one is to be set up near a CP for use while you are defending it, and firebases which are meant to be placed away from a CP to use while you are in the process of taking over that spot. When you have taken the next CP over, you can build a new bunker at the latest CP and leave the old bunker to rot. If you have reached your bunker limit, demo one of the unused rear ones. Leave the FB though, just in case you lose the last CP and need a place to spawn from.

Antonious, if you are SF and entering a base with the intentions of destroying assets, you should be free to defend yourself. That means hit the grunt that just spawned, but don't actively go looking for troops to kill. There is a difference there, and I don't have a problem with someone shooting me in my main base as long as it was because I was directly in their way of blowing up my command post. But for an enemy to sneak into my main base and start shooting all of the troops with no attempts at taking out assets, that is base raping (and probably considered spawn camping as well).

[Red Halibut]

Bot sentry guns and AA in uncappable bases, while not realistic, would at least simulate a static defensive guard. As to the nuts and bolts of how one would go about that I haven't a scooby. I'm just throwing it out there as a topic for discussion.

[LeadMagnet]

[S.P.C-[Reality]-]

^ LMAO

[sector7g]

OK I am one of three Admins at =MBO= (flight school). We took the decision to allow attacks in all areas of the map that the DEV's would allow your sprite to go with out dying. ( This includes main base attack and Runway attacks on Kashan, Quinling etc..)

So as you can well imagine after 5 or so months of allowing this we have some experience on the matter.

The main problem has been mentioned: in order for this system to work you must have at least one squad that remains in defence of the main base. Now as also mentioned before: who would want to stay at main manning the AA and mounted Tow's for a whole game ? Well the answer lies with the Commander. You have to look at how the British army defend their pride and joy..."The Queen" no one squad is responsable for her saftey at all times. They rotate squads

In the same fashion it must be up to the commander to organize and rotate squad duties. This way no one squad has to spend the whole game defending the main base. (simple yet effective)(also makes the commanders job more interesting.)

As for people who do not follow commander orders well that's a whole other thread of pain.lol I suppose if an admin is present you can talk to them about it or may be if the DEV's could find it in their hearts.. They could develop a commander punish/Disciplinary facility. (Court Martials !)May be minus points if a squad does not follow orders. Or a wall of shame at the end of a round....

This whole concept of base defense, we believe, only brings us one step closer to the reason we download "Project REALITY" latest patch rather than go back to the "Arcade" prequal BF2 vanilla. In the words of the great ALi-G.....

"Keep it Real"

[space]

OK I am one of three Admins at =MBO= (flight school). We took the decision to allow attacks in all areas of the map that the DEV's would allow your sprite to go with out dying. ( This includes main base attack and Runway attacks on Kashan, Quinling etc..)

So as you can well imagine after 5 or so months of allowing this we have some experience on the matter.

The main problem has been mentioned: in order for this system to work you must have at least one squad that remains in defence of the main base. Now as also mentioned before: who would want to stay at main manning the AA and mounted Tow's for a whole game ? Well the answer lies with the Commander. You have to look at how the British army defend their pride and joy..."The Queen" no one squad is responsable for her saftey at all times. They rotate squads

In the same fashion it must be up to the commander to organize and rotate squad duties. This way no one squad has to spend the whole game defending the main base. (simple yet effective)(also makes the commanders job more interesting.)

As for people who do not follow commander orders well that's a whole other thread of pain.lol I suppose if an admin is present you can talk to them about it or may be if the DEV's could find it in their hearts.. They could develop a commander punish/Disciplinary facility. (Court Martials !)May be minus points if a squad does not follow orders. Or a wall of shame at the end of a round....

This whole concept of base defense, we believe, only brings us one step closer to the reason we download "Project REALITY" latest patch rather than go back to the "Arcade" prequal BF2 vanilla. In the words of the great ALi-G.....

"Keep it Real"

I can see your point, but I think its unrealistic to expect this to happen. I think the best solution is a ring of death that covers the surounding hills as well as the base, until the last flag is cappable to prevent the armour raping and I like the bot idea for the AA. Maybe only let the spec ops kit get past the ring of death, as its a limited kit with limited ammo. Base rape has completely ruined many enjoyable rounds for me and it causes many people to disconnect from the server. 32 players cannot spare people for base defence.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

OK I am one of three Admins at =MBO= (flight school).

I think you are brave for trying that idea (I wouldnt want to play it myself), the other end of that is to ban anyone but friendlies from entering the final flag till it can be captured.
There is no artillery at main bases anymore just players and empty vehicles so why should it hold interest anyway except for easy spawn kills which to me is just an exploit of game mechanics, pr is challenging but that isnt


Anyway, I posted because your server was mentioned in another thread:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f28-pr ... post648372

One of the home guard went pvt pile on everyone it seems, in a tank

Gametrailers.com - project reality tker by ragchan



This might also be realistic but it sucks to play
YouTube - Tank Rampage in California

[Defiyur]

This is an interesting topic for sure. If people fire up a chopper right when the round starts and annihilate the enemy assets before they even had a chance then yeah that's weak. But once the game is underway I really don't see much of a problem with attacking bases (or uncapable objectives). It's all part of tactics and resource allotment. A man attacking a non capable area is one less man in the cap zone IMO, that's the tactical tradeoff.


Killing people right as they spawn is weak but aside from that it's all fair to me. As long as it's possible to fight back don't ***** cause somebody got the drop on your base and everybody is too absorbed waiting for jets and helos to notice there are 3 snipers and an A10 strafing your base. You get what you deserve. Man the anti air guns, fight back don't just whine. This is supposed to be a contest not a charity event.

[Blakeman]

I think the answer should be in the server admins hands not the devs. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I play on a server that considers all areas of the battlefield to be hostile and we play it as such.

If the server you play on has a rule against it and arent enforcing it then I would think that it is something you need to bring up to that servers admin, not try to change the game as a whole. The devs put domes of death around the ones that needed it.

[Rudd]

Originally posted by [R-DEV]fuzzheadI think all the major servers (servers that are populated regularly) have rules against attacking main bases before they are in play.

The server license does not have anything to do with the rules you want to have in your server. As long as they are not ridiculous (like this is a knives only server)...

this is from a similar tread https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f28-pr ... ape-2.html

[Lexus@[gp]]

For me, attacking assets is completely acceptible just as long as it is done on foot.
By foot I mean that using a jeep to transport you into the base is fine, so long as no attacks are done from the vehicle eg using the 50, and only ever kill troops if you have been discovered in there. Remember it is a spec ops type operation.

I have had some fun rounds doing this, and also I have had some fun rounds trying to defend my bases from this sort of thing.
So instead of moaning about how you are being raped, do something about it, or go do the same to the enemy, and destroy their assets.
This is not rape in my opinion, if done like above, it is just trying to achieve a tactical advantage for your team.
A whole game can be turned around very quickly from a guaranteed loss, to a great victory, just by denying the enemy of it's heavey assets.
Surely that is not rape, it is war!!

[zeidmaan]

I think that any kind of attack on main basses where assets spawn is unacceptable.
The reason is pretty simple and the question of "is it realistic or not" is not important. We have only 30ish players per side and that is already not enough to fill all the roles on the battlefield. If we force another 6 to babysit the main it would leave even less players for other roles.
If we could have servers with 128 slots than it would be a different story.

[Waaah_Wah]

Sabotage is OK, raping is not

[DannyIMK]

I Hate Baserapers like the insurgent jihads because they always baseraping they attacking the brit base and destroyng vehicles.. i think that there reason why there is a limit "Do Not Desert" When You Come Close To The Brit Base..