Project Reality Forums

They could make a scenario gametype called...(FireFight or something of that sorts) haha, and have invisible ticket bleed, no time limit, no squad = insta-boot, and have a set number of kits per squad...

CPs should be eliminated. Objectives to defend and destroy can be given to each team that affect some respawns, and other things. Destroying all the enemies assets grants victory as well as getting rid of all there tickets.

For example on Qwai the US has an objective to hold the Estate for 10 min. Once they do so they earn x tickets. They might also receive the objective to destroy all the bridges. The Chinese get the same objective but to defend. If the bridges are destroyed the Chinese team loses x tickets.

I think such a mode will be much funner than AAS. The hardest part will be telling newbies what is going on but a competent commander along with a server admin can do that.

I think you have to have a little bit of everything. I enjoy a good conquest/AAS2 round. Some rounds you play conquest/aas2, some you play objective/scenario. Leave extracts to their own server.

.:iGi:. Greg wrote:But as for time limits, personally I do not want to play one map for hours when I come on. Time is limited so I like to play at least 2 or 3 maps if I can, otherwise it will just get boring.

I'm in the same situation right now and playing the same map for an hour & a half gets a bit stale.

Spent 2.5 hours Qwai River on Devils Brigade last night, we played ping-pong with fishing and Gov't almost the entire time. I was on a good squad but getting others moving on public servers can be impossible at times.
Perhaps lowering the ticket counts on some maps will work better with the .5 bleed settings. Is that a server Admin setting or coded on the maps ?

I like how the devs have found out how to make tickets appear as assets (see .6 CO changes thread).
I believe if the devs continue to play games with this, the mod will have some nice rewards.

What me and a lot of the TG guys complain about is how an outfit can invest assests (Friendly K.I.A.s) on an assault and see little return in their investment unless the enemy is pushed back far enough.

In conquest, the conservative SL or CO would never assault if the enemy was bleeding. They would defend and take advantage of the situation.

In .6 the CO will be able to further invest assets by deploying a firebase (x amount of tickets) on an assault. Again, assuming that the assaulting force will take more casualties than the defending force, this return will not be returned unless the enemy is pushed back to only one or two flags (Mao Valley).

I have played a few maps where a good assaulting team just could not quite take their enemy to the bleed point and they lost because of the casulaties they took, yet they controled the vast majority of the map/battleground, and kicked ***.

I recommond the devs brainstorm:

1. If a team loses a CP, they lose X tickets no matter where it is at. Should off set the casulaties the assaulting team took during the attack. These tickets will not be large in scale, but should help out the good team that is capturing a lot of CPs.

2. Maybe have a really really weak bleed on the team that is not controlling most of the battlefield. 1 ticket/ min? I do not know.

3. If a defending team has their land structures (Bridges) blown, they lose tickets (Clypp's idea)

4. Make vehicles count as a ticket lose (the more expensive the vehilce in real life, the more tickets). This may not work because a player could spawn camp a vehicle. But I have no proplem with that, the team should be protecting/using it.