Project Reality Forums

I completely disagree with this idea.

You're creating a limitation of strategy which is very bad.

There are tactics that forces will use to strike quickly and move quickly and they will need their entire force to pull that off. What if I'm a commander and I want to utilize a shock strategy to hit the enemy very quickly with my entire force and never give the opposing force a chance to mobilize? I should be able to make that happen.

Control points are merely strategic parts of the map where the enemy can gather. Your team's job is to clear the control point of enemies and move on to the next one.

EDIT: Another problem with this is that it will take a lot longer to secure a flag completely. This means that a weaker defense force can fall back out of the flag and throw grenades into the flag zone that the other team must go into. What about rally points outside of flags? No one will use that extra time to set up defenses, everyone will spawn on friendly rally points most definitely get their flag back.

It's hard enough to cap a flag as it is with people constantly counter attacking.

What you're talking about here, really, is extending the time it takes to cap a flag - that's it. Until you can move on to the next flag, the current flag will not be considered "capped" - bleed or no bleed, flag on the pole or no flag on the pole.

Here's an alternative:
This needs to be a different game mode with fewer flags. This will not work on many maps (such as the Meeting Engagement maps where both sides start with main flags and there are a ton of neutral flags in the center). By the time each team would cap 3 flags the entire round would be over.

It's a good idea, but it needs a separate game mode with maps specifically geared towards it (or atleast control points specifically geared towards it)

'Artnez[US wrote:;525993']I completely disagree with this idea.

You're creating a limitation of strategy which is very bad.

There are tactics that forces will use to strike quickly and move quickly and they will need their entire force to pull that off. What if I'm a commander and I want to utilize a shock strategy to hit the enemy very quickly with my entire force and never give the opposing force a chance to mobilize? I should be able to make that happen.

Control points are merely strategic parts of the map where the enemy can gather. Your team's job is to clear the control point of enemies and move on to the next one.

I do believe the gamemode in question is named [AAS] "Assault and secure". Not [AKEMAFAYCTGTNF] "Assault, kill everyone, move as fast as you can to grab the next flag*


You must attack and then keep the base secure while other squads continue the attack.

Simply greying the flag over the course of 3-5 minutes if less than 2 people are within a certain radius would be more efficient than a dual-flag AAS. After all, as stated above, AAS emphasizes that the flag is secured, not only captured; as long as it takes as many people to maintain the flag as it does to capture it, proper gameplay can be achieved.

l3etrayed91 wrote:I do believe the gamemode in question is named [AAS] "Assault and secure". Not [AKEMAFAYCTGTNF] "Assault, kill everyone, move as fast as you can to grab the next flag*

You must attack and then keep the base secure while other squads continue the attack.

You "must" not do anything.

This is why the brits had so much trouble fighting against the americans during the revolutionary war.

Yes, Assault & Secure would be the most logical tactics - however sometimes it isn't the best. It should be up to the team to decide what to do.

The worst way to do this is to force people to defend. It completely ruins the open ended nature of PR as it is. There needs to be a benefit to staying and defending a flag -- or atleast very harsh consequences for not doing so.

In this case, you're basically stopping gameplay until everyone does what they should... that's nonsense.

I don't see why everyone tries to force the game to be what they want it to be. You can't force that. PR would absolutely suck if it wasn't for all the teamwork oriented players out there.

Imagine the vBF2 community playing PR... in all their masses. It would pandemonium. There is a lot you can do in PR to ruin the teamwork sense of things and not leaving someone to defend a location is the least important of any of those.

Things like this need to be up to the team. Are you going to force people to walk in formation too? Are you going to force players to stay within a certain distance of their squad leader? Surely, that would force the players to stay close together as a team right?

Again, defending is fine and dandy but you have to leave that up to the team. There needs to be a reward for good teamwork, otherwise it's not good teamwork anymore. If everyone is forced to do things in the map then good teamwork players don't stand out.

gclark03 wrote:Simply greying the flag over the course of 3-5 minutes if less than 2 people are within a certain radius would be more efficient than a dual-flag AAS. After all, as stated above, AAS emphasizes that the flag is secured, not only captured; as long as it takes as many people to maintain the flag as it does to capture it, proper gameplay can be achieved.

I too prefer this approach, provided the greying out wasn't too fast. It would leave open more flexible tactics, such as rapid advances, while at the same time strongly encouraging defence, but not forcing it per se.

I think the principle behind the thread is a good one and there is definately an issue with people legging it off regardless. But as has been said, it may be overly complex, which although need for some of the comcepts in PR, should be minimised where possible, and put a bit too much of a straight jacket on your forces.

Let's see how it's gonna develop with the APC spawn getting removed. I figure running back and forth from posts will be largely cut. And taking over a CP will become much more difficult when APC spawn gets removed.

the only reason i can think that this should not be in game is it MAKES people defend a flag. The game shouldn't MAKE you defend a flag. YOU should make YOU defend the flag. Or commander. But adding a flag so it forces people to defend seems ... moronic and somthing that makes you do something that should be a 'No shit" thing to do is pointless.


Let the best and the brightest win.

not

Let the poorly skilled and single minded win

'Artnez[US wrote:;525993'] What if I'm a commander and I want to utilize a shock strategy to hit the enemy very quickly with my entire force and never give the opposing force a chance to mobilize? I should be able to make that happen.

By and large, in most games the commander doesn't have this much control over his team or even competence. All the things that the objectors point out is true, however in the vast majority of the games that are played, infantry squads are constantly on the attack, and bases are abandoned as soon as they are captured. The ideas aren't aimed towards the folks that have it together, but rather the numerically superior l337 attacker players.

Sure, you can decide to defend by yourself, however, if you're on the only squad who is defending.
1)that sucks for you
2)it doesn't even matter because one squad can't cover all the control points.

I have to say that on one hand I really like the idea of the consolidation flag. It does provide incentive to defend the area that has just been gained, and almost requires people to work in a squad.
But realistically, how does the current AAS mode not do this? Assaulting the next flag is defending the flag you have, by tying down and destroying the enemy who would take the flag back. You don't need to stick around waiting to take an assault head on to be able to lay claim to territory, you just need to kill everyone else who would take the territory from you.
I think that a consolidation flag would seriously limit the ability for individuals, and especially commanders, to use strategy to make any real difference on the battlefield. It would limit all engagements to back and forth meat grinders with no speed, action, or thought.

As an addendum, I second SevenOfDiamonds post in saying that the smart people should win. If you're smart enough to defend a flag when necessary you'll win.