Project Reality Forums

Of course as a commander you think in tickets. When your squad is int he lead you want it to hold the flags that stop bleeding while your team kills the attackers out of entrentched positions. But even in PR the commander authoirity is limited at times

Yes, I always think in tickets. Though my strategy is pretty much always the same. (well.. 'always' as in always that I play commander, which would be maybe 1 in a 100 rounds)

We find a nice little choke point, aka something where we only have to defend 1 flag. And then most of the squads stay at that flag. This rarely works since way too often I'm stuck with "No! ME knows better! ME does what ME wants to do! ME ME ME!" kind of SL's.

But if it works then it's a lovely tactic. Defending > attacking. The enemy will rush the flag, they will die and lose tickets. At the same time I have 1 or 2 squads which aren't defending, and these are the kind of squads that try to make a big difference to the tickets. Either by a) attacking flags so that we get the ticket bleed going or b) preventing enemy assets from attacking the flag the rest of the team is defending.

But yeah, I've never really seen this work since usually most of the squad leaders don't do what they are told.

-I don't think in terms of tickets, I think of tickets. Most of the time when I'm commanding my side will simply crush the opposing side so it's rarely an issue. I prefer to get down and dirty, placing FBs and Bunkers myself since few people know where these should be placed for maximum efficiency and I only give very general orders to squads(Defend this, attack that, build this FFS!), relying on SLs to make the best decisions. Only a few times do I have to crack my S&M whip. Reinforcing is key; you don't just build a bunker on the flag, you build a supporting FB as well and make sure the squads place rallies. I'm often seen on the front line retrieving abandoned supply trucks, driving them through enemy fire to get them to the crucial spots for building FBs/Bunkers. The COs life is a hard one.

If I would be in command, I will look at tickets. That is what the hole game mode (aas) is pretty much about.

Every player should think in tickets, you are responsible for at least 1 - yourself!

Just logging off when you are still alive loses your team a ticket, 'micro economics' matters more then the commanders actions unfortunately and there is little you can do about that in a public game

I want tickets and games to be about flags first and deaths as a secondary factor


One of the things you can do to combat 'tactical frustrations' like this is work off the unwitting mob army. If the whole team rushes forward then you must do your best to defend via bunkers and requesting help from squads.
'If you build it they will come' and a bunker that allows people to spawn will create a natural amount of traffic from those without rally points, etc

So I think a commander should think in terms influencing the team because you have no direct control of tickets won or lost

Good discussion around commanding concepts

Original idea was to create a sort of RTS like "economy" around tickets (and assets). I'd written up a fairly extensive design notion around a ticket economy, but um.. it failed We ended up ripping out most of the economy stuff. I think if I had more time (real life precluded me spending the time required to polish up the implementation) and we had more modding capability within BF2 (my original idea was that we created a Logistics Points scheme, separate from tickets) we could have made it work. Much of these ideas were intended to support a campaign mode where things were much more free form than they already are and where several rounds were linked into a campaign.

I really like the idea of creating a "game within a game" for the Commander role in PR. Not only to add a different dimension for players that like commanding, but to make a command structure critical to game play. But we ended up backing off on that quite a bit.

I think we were pretty successful in implementing a fairly free form style of game play (spawn location construction) that sits atop a fairly structured set of victory conditions (AAS). I think those two blend really well together. I'm a big fan of completely free form game play dynamics with very clear victory conditions.

I think the only other game that has a similar approach to things like Commander Assets is ET:QW. Right now PR (a mod built by volunteers for free) has over 50% of the players population that ET:QW has (a 10 to 15 million dollar AAA title that is a commercial failure).

Good discussion around commanding concepts

Original idea was to create a sort of RTS like "economy" around tickets (and assets). I'd written up a fairly extensive design notion around a ticket economy, but um.. it failed We ended up ripping out most of the economy stuff. I think if I had more time (real life precluded me spending the time required to polish up the implementation) and we had more modding capability within BF2 (my original idea was that we created a Logistics Points scheme, separate from tickets) we could have made it work. Much of these ideas were intended to support a campaign mode where things were much more free form than they already are and where several rounds were linked into a campaign.

I really like the idea of creating a "game within a game" for the Commander role in PR. Not only to add a different dimension for players that like commanding, but to make a command structure critical to game play. But we ended up backing off on that quite a bit.

I think we were pretty successful in implementing a fairly free form style of game play (spawn location construction) that sits atop a fairly structured set of victory conditions (AAS). I think those two blend really well together. I'm a big fan of completely free form game play dynamics with very clear victory conditions.

I think the only other game that has a similar approach to things like Commander Assets is ET:QW. Right now PR (a mod built by volunteers for free) has over 50% of the players population that ET:QW has (a 10 to 15 million dollar AAA title that is a commercial failure).

Eggman is alive I say! Alive! Alive and double-posting!

I only think in Tickets as Brit in Al Basrah, Commander, Pilot and Medic

Eggman is alive I say! Alive! Alive and double-posting!

I only think in Tickets as Brit in Al Basrah, Commander, Pilot and Medic

EDIT:

OMG, Did I just double post just like eggman ?

hehe .. forum glitch, double post

hehe .. forum glitch, double post

I should be warning both of you for spamming the forums

Nice to see you back Eggamn

Not really in pub games. In the Tourny games I do tho.

I think we were pretty successful in implementing a fairly free form style of game play

No doubt that you were. The ongoing raise of new players, the steady growth of old players and the fact that this forum gets so many suggestions as it actually does (all the time) is in my mind positive indicators of a game and a developer team using a free form of style as the core concept.

The web page and the game it self supports each other on that account too. And quite efficient in my mind. Cause the short and very powerful message from both dynamics is completly clear; opportunities for you!

Maybe that’s also why a ticket discussion is interesting, cause the tickets are often viewed as an limitation when compared to the opportunities the rest of the game offers. And yes, agreed that many commanders also view the tickets as an opportunity in them self. At least until they begin running out of the very same throughout the battle. And some commanders - like in realf life - dont care if they run out of tickets. They just keep on attacking even when they dont have the tickets for it anymore.

Makes me think of Blackadder - where the universal CO-type using up all the tickets even when no success can be achieved anymore is portrayed in the Blackadder way.


YouTube - Blackadder - 'Security isn't a dirty word'

YouTube - blackadder taken land



From my yearlong experience with planning, processing and evaluating training sessions in the tournament on the team I commanded, I learned that when deciding to put restrictions on limited assets and limited kits – the participants would go more creative in their training solutions than if I decided to let them use whatever they wanted to use.

I had this idea about running training sessions were every participant had one ticket only, but never got to the point were I could embed the concept with the remaining training content in a useful way.

---


Sounds like a really interesting idea, the RTS concept.

Logistics Points scheme? Like inter-map-scheme or on the maps them self’s? (being pounded by lack of langue skills on this one?)


The commander game is fortunately already a game in it self. Think it became that even more after point five too.

Also - in the Project Reality Tournament - the command structure is highly critical to game play. In the tournament the game shines big time and cannot be compared to any public game. Not even the best public round.

People who haven’t played on a tournament team yet - specially after Campaign 5 - haven’t tried Project Reality as it can be played when it shines all the way through. Simple as that.

The campaign in motion has a new focus on tickets too.

Commanders aren't the only ones thinking in tickets. Squad Leaders are doing it nowadays, and it was a nice surprise. Every time a player dies, that's -2 tickets. So if a squad of 6 go head-on without checking for hostiles, that's -12 tickets. That can make or break a game toward the end where tickets are sparse.

Now if two people are in the critical state, there is a chance that the team will earn -4 tickets. However, there is a medic standing by, and three other squadmates to protect the revive process. Do you risk another -2 tickets, or make the medic go and revive them thus saving 4 tickets?

Thinking ahead is what this mod is about. If time allows, analyze your choices.

I think mainly in ticketbleed.
so Im interested in what flag prevents/ sets it off.
for example
- outpost on 7gates ( thx kingkong hadnt noticed that one)
- east beach on jabal
etc.

on the other hand, you would expect these apparently important flags to do it aswell, but they dont. for example
- capping sunset city flag
- capping airdrop on kyongan'ni

I personally think its a mistake that PR doesnt communicate this system better. a clearer understanding of ticketbleed flags would make it easier for players to know whats of importance and what not.

if no ticketbleed is on and your forces are inferior to the enemy, youre mostly better off taking defensive positions because of factors like better terrain, cohesion, settled deviation etc. your team starts killing more than dying and thus, catching up on tickets.
without ticketbleed, you do not need to attack another flag and cap it in order to win. the attack marker is irrelevant.
since bunkers/ FB dont give tickets any longer, and ticketbleed has been removed on many maps:
flags are only important if they trigger bleed!

so yeah, this means as chinese on 7gates for example, youd be safest off when getting as much forces as possible to the outpost flag. even if your teammates kill-die rinse and repeat, the tickets your team will lose by this will still be less than the enemy loses by ticketbleed. note also, its very easy to ambush APC's at this flag so you got a real advantage setting up your defense there and not river fort.
or as marine CO on jabal, Id focus on east beach defense and only allow an attack on west beach if I have atleast 2-3 guys ready and safe at dam.
just holding both beaches and defending them will make your situation worse than only holding east, thats because a west beach defense is difficult and expensive on tickets.
holding dam though is easier terrainwise and relieves you from defending the crucial east beach itself.

where supposedly important flags dont set off a ticketbleed the gameplay can be ackward. Ive won on kyonganni as marine with airdrop lost, because the main defense was so good that the PLA overspend themself attacking.
or on sunset, you dont really need that city flag if you dont bleed ( dunno if this is the official setting though, I usually play it without).
sure, you have multiple ways to enter the city on either side. but attacking is very hard since the team with the flag capped can set up very good defensive positions. stay calm, build FB at the flanks of your main and wait for the belligerent enemy to attack instead.
on the other hand, if the enemy is superior in skill and still manages to push in for your main, this means a risk for your flag but it mostly also means hes solely focuses on attack. why not send a small squad to sneak in on the city?

Just make every flag bleed and the more flags you have the faster you win the game, nothing could be simpler and improve the game more easily imo.

Wasnt that the system used in bf1942

What ticket bleed does to a map is basically concentrate the fight to 1-2 flags in the middle.

The only map in PR that currently has ticket bleed on all flags is operation ghost train. In that map, it is all about offense, there is no regrouping or falling back, once you loose the bridges, your team is doomed unless you can quickly rush one of the bridge flags to stop the ticket bleed.

So in terms of gameplay, we dont want PR to be about rushing blindly into an opponent for fear of the ticket bleed. We want teams to fall back when they are getting beaten, and attempt to hold their ground.

Your scenario above is a perfect example bassdrive - falling back to the marine base on kyongan is a viable tactic, and the PLA leadership needs to think smart about attacking that final position, if they blindly rush in they will be wasting tickets.

I agree its important to know when the ticket bleed begins, it is not entirely standardized yet... usually it happens when one team is down to their last (main) flag. I dont think adding MORE ticket bleed is a good idea though.

I was thinking something more of similar to qinling where there is a two tier bleed, the first flag doesnt matter so much as its slow but the enemy bleeds more as you cap more flags.

I'd like flags to concentrate the gameplay and set a kind of pace to the game

I dont like how the game can become a stalemate and the loss of tickets primarily set to the number of deaths which becomes zero so thats what I mean by pace. I'd prefer if deaths still mattered but map situation was the primary decider

Like all the games are very close now, 1-0 wins are fairly common considering we are playing hour long games. But if the battles were more decisive it would become like a ticking clock where you simply realise the battle cannot be won unless you really make a strong play and strategic push or whatever.

So in terms of gameplay, we dont want PR to be about rushing blindly into an opponent for fear of the ticket bleed. We want teams to fall back when they are getting beaten, and attempt to hold their ground.

Not rushing blindly but always a pressure to maintain and maximise the number of flags you hold yea. Like at the start of Jabal for example, both teams could start off bleeding because they only hold one flag.
We'd have less 'west beach' rush tactics, you'd have your own business to deal with and a greater ticket advantage would be had from each squad securing each flag as quickly as possible

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote: Not rushing blindly but always a pressure to maintain and maximise the number of flags you hold yea. Like at the start of Jabal for example, both teams could start off bleeding because they only hold one flag.
We'd have less 'west beach' rush tactics, you'd have your own business to deal with and a greater ticket advantage would be had from each squad securing each flag as quickly as possible

I think this will rush the game even more, especially the first minutes of the round. Remember that the average PR goer isn't the sharpest tactician (which isn't a bad thing) so when he sees that his team is bleeding tickets I doubt the first thing he thinks about is taking important ground. What he is thinking is "Holy **** we need that flag" then bada bing bada boom "BUM RUSH!!!".

And when bleeding causes more tickets than dying itself then the majority will revert back to mob tactics as that is the most effective way of taking positions but as we all know it isnt the most efficient. It wouldn't matter though because the flag is much more important than the costs of taking it. The thought process to every round would be attack only as defending doesn't accomplish anything. The maps re-playability would also go out the window as the majority of the rounds will be played the same every time.

Teams that are losing already feel it and they dont need this device to motivate them out of a stalemate. It would actually increase the stalemates because the maps would have to be flag balanced so it can be fair for both teams so they end up fighting over the same flags. Most stalemates happen because both sides tried a massive assault and failed or they both held in defensive positions(Kufrah B9) and only small reciprocating attacks take place. The bleed would cause this all the time but the only difference would be that the round would end quicker.

Ticket bleed forces people to drop everything and rush flags in human waves. While that used to work, it doesn't work now as they all get slaughtered without proper support.
Ticket bleed basically turns one team into panicking to get a CP to stop the bleed and completely blocks any sort of chance for tactical movement and flanking as the more you sit around the more tickets you lose. Ticket bleed should be only when the enemy has only their last flag left.
If there's one thing I hated in Bf2 and still do, it's the stupid ticket bleed forcing one team to capture CPs to stop it, then make the other team bleed and it just goes back and forth.

/offtopic