Project Reality Forums

Flags are useless? Wow i had no idea I thought every flag had some ticket bleed for the other team. I think now that people know flags is useless we might see alot more camping going on. However, it does feels like on most maps the team with the most flags usually win.

I think that in PR we don't have flags. We have Control Points with their Capture Radius. There is no flagpole. The "thing" on your map doesn't represent the flag. It represents control over a certain area.

for that last time...IT'S NOT CALLED CAMPING.

it's called defense.

staying and defending after a successful attack is normally the fastest way to get more action. the squads that take a flag and then start moving to the next flag, only to have to turn around and attack the first flag again waste a lot of time. if that squad would have just stayed in position they would have stayed in the action.

camping...lol

I think EA should redo the whole flag taking system and make it something like there are about triple the amount of flags on maps or more , but some flags are larger than others and if captured will cause larger ticket bleeds than other smaller flags, this way you have more important sectors of the battlefield than others like in real life.

I hate how the flag system works on Muttrah. I don't think you should have to capture the flags in order to take them. I think it's more fun to sneak behind the lines, take a flag, and cut off supply lines so the forward line can move up to you.

Other than that, I think flags are useful because they give everyone a common objective, especially on massive maps.

PFunk wrote:Why not just camp? Because we're all indulging in our culturally indoctrinated war fetish and we all know that in war you take objectives.

I don't understand why you'd play a game with flags and actually wonder why you cap the flag.

I think you may have misread my post. It was merely asking about the technical game effects of having a flag or not, as this is quite obscure.

And getting people to defend is one of the biggest problems in PR ..

Threedroogs wrote:for that last time...IT'S NOT CALLED CAMPING.

it's called defense.

staying and defending after a successful attack is normally the fastest way to get more action. the squads that take a flag and then start moving to the next flag, only to have to turn around and attack the first flag again waste a lot of time. if that squad would have just stayed in position they would have stayed in the action.

camping...lol

Well I'm glad you're laughing, because the use of the word camping was a joke .. kozelsk campsites -- ha ha ?

Threedroogs wrote:for that last time...IT'S NOT CALLED CAMPING.

it's called defense.

That's just what the guys sitting on the flak cannon in UT say too...

And having different assets spawn depending on flag control is a key feature of the BF engines, although most map designers tend to use it conservatively. I designed one map where an objective on the map was marked "Potential AA threat". When the Opfor held it, it spawned mobile AA and the Blufor only spawned boats / LAVs from the carrier; when Blufor secured it, their air-assets would spawn on the carrier instead.

Thor wrote:I hate how the flag system works on Muttrah. I don't think you should have to capture the flags in order to take them. I think it's more fun to sneak behind the lines, take a flag, and cut off supply lines so the forward line can move up to you.

So, you want to play Karkand?

There's nothing to stop you from doing exactly that on Muttrah, disrupting supply lines and wreaking havoc, you just cant cap the flag.

Think about it realistically, please.

1. As the US attacks they need a secure position on the mainland to begin to clear the city, hence the need to capture docks.
2. They secure their LZ there and then they can begin to push through the city (north city objective).
3. If they are then successful they begin to push towards West and East city. Notice here how both are cappable giving variety in the method of their assault. They can either attack via RIB from the sea, heli drop directly onto east city or simply go linear and push through capping west then east in order.
4. All the while there is the possibility of attacking behind enemy lines you simply wont be able to cap the flags.

As someone said earlier it is wrong to call them flags. The capture radii simply represent control over an area. If you are attacking behind enemy lines then you are not controlling the area you are, as you stated, disrupting enemy activity.

Remember this is a realism game, not vanilla. The "flags" are placed in such a way as to make the battle realistic and this applies also to the order in which said flags must be capped.

Menigmand wrote:Well I'm glad you're laughing, because the use of the word camping was a joke .. kozelsk campsites -- ha ha ?

you werent the only one to use the word camping...

Ace42 wrote:That's just what the guys sitting on the flak cannon in UT say too...

i dont understand what that is supposed to mean. people who whine about 'camping' are basically complaining about someone using tactics and position and intelligence.


getting people to defend shouldnt be that hard. it's one the easiest way to guarantee your squad some action.

Threedroogs wrote:you werent the only one to use the word camping...




i dont understand what that is supposed to mean. people who whine about 'camping' are basically complaining about someone using tactics and position and intelligence.


getting people to defend shouldnt be that hard. it's one the easiest way to guarantee your squad some action.

Camping and defending are not the same.

If your defending you are with in a flags radius.

If your camping your out side of a attack and/or a defense point camping the spot to cut off access off of the area camping and defending are tactic's and should not be looked down on.

Threedroogs wrote: i dont understand what that is supposed to mean.

I was just teasing you, don't take it personally. My point was that in most FPSs camping is viewed as a pretty cheap, juvenile, boring, and unsporting "tactic." From Doom, through to Quake, to the Unreal series; "camping" (AKA setting up an ambush near key items or terrain) is derided, even though it's effective.

In a lot of ways (for example the massive move-deviation which requires you to be locked in place to pop off accurate shots, rewarding campers) I think that a lot of the arguments for "realism" from the PR community tend to be a front for people who want to legitimise good ol' fashioned camping.

I mean, that's fine and all. There's no reason why there shouldn't be a game / mod orientated in such a way that it caters for people who are inclined to be campers - there's plenty of games out there for non-campers. It's just amusing that a big chunk of people here try and draw out from their personal preference arguments of "realism" and "rationality" and "teamwork" etc etc etc.

Man, that's always rich.

So yah, I was just teasing, but given how much subtle irony I crammed into a small paragraph, I can see why you asked me what I meant.

R.J.Travis wrote:Camping and defending are not the same.

If your defending you are with in a flags radius.

If your camping your out side of a attack and/or a defense point camping the spot to cut off access off of the area camping and defending are tactic's and should not be looked down on.

No I disagree. Just because you're not in the radius doesn't mean you're not defending. Many cap radii are restrictively small and in order to stay on them you lose tactical options. If it means cutting off an attacking party's approach by moving out of the radius it still counts as defending the point.

But yes it should not be looked down on. Think about it, you're attacking a defender everytime you take an objective. Someone has to defend or else there would be nothing but meeting engagements and they'd be few and far between.

I think camping is just a pejorative word used by unimaginative gamers who don't like the concept of their quarry actually being good. If you ever hear these people die its cause of cheating or someone else being stupid or in effect using an illegitimate tactic, usually one which takes advantage of someone's bumbling charge through enemies with no regard to his flanks.

Ace42 wrote:I was just teasing you, don't take it personally. My point was that in most FPSs camping is viewed as a pretty cheap, juvenile, boring, and unsporting "tactic." From Doom, through to Quake, to the Unreal series; "camping" (AKA setting up an ambush near key items or terrain) is derided, even though it's effective.

this is the view by a certain group of people who like to whine about everything. i have been hearing the 'he's camping' BS for the entire life of FPSs. it's this kind of attitude that is driving FPS development, unfortunately. that's why your average FPS players want to run at 30mph, jump off 10 foot walls unhurt and be able to take 7-8 "bullets" while running and shooting all at the same time. a lot of people find this style fun, i do not. turn it around...do you think it's fun for me to be in a much better position but still get killed by a charging enemy that i had the drop on? in the twitch games, strategy and position mean nothing. that's why PR is not for everyone. your average FPSer wants to run-and-gun.

Ace42 wrote:In a lot of ways (for example the massive move-deviation which requires you to be locked in place to pop off accurate shots, rewarding campers) I think that a lot of the arguments for "realism" from the PR community tend to be a front for people who want to legitimise good ol' fashioned camping.

this gets back to the root problem. 'camping' as you call it has always been legitimate. people just whined about being killed by someone who had a huge advantage against their blind charge. i can sort of understand complaining about 'camping' in games where you get one life like rogue spear where some guy grabs the sniper kit and sits there the whole round doing nothing, while all the other dead guys have to wait for the timer to run out. this was bad for gameplay in rogue spear and it the main reason i played with a 3:00 timer on rounds.

in games where you can respawn, however, this isnt a problem at all.

Ace42 wrote:I mean, that's fine and all. There's no reason why there shouldn't be a game / mod orientated in such a way that it caters for people who are inclined to be campers - there's plenty of games out there for non-campers. It's just amusing that a big chunk of people here try and draw out from their personal preference arguments of "realism" and "rationality" and "teamwork" etc etc etc.

this game does not cater to people who want to camp. it caters to people who want to use tactics and strategy to win the fight. i am not interested in twitch battles. i want teamwork and tactics. the best times in PR are when i have my squad in perfect position and the enemy has done exactly what i anticipated. it's rape time at that point and that's the whole reason to have a strategy.

like i said...i do not like twitch FPS games. they bore the piss out of me. that's why i play PR. and believe me, i realize i am in the minority (a very small minority) of FPS players. like the devs have always said...PR is not for everyone. it's made for a niche audience.

PFunk wrote:I think camping is just a pejorative word used by unimaginative gamers who don't like the concept of their quarry actually being good. If you ever hear these people die its cause of cheating or someone else being stupid or in effect using an illegitimate tactic, usually one which takes advantage of someone's bumbling charge through enemies with no regard to his flanks.

nicely put!

Why must there be war

Cassius wrote:Why must there be war

^^ lols...