Project Reality Forums

Playing the way the op does is sensible but takes away the fun, especially when everybody starts camping.
The only admirable way of winning a round imo, is through good teamplay, squads working together, not by a couple of guys camping outside capzones.

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:I sometimes wonder if just removing the kills affecting tickets wouldn't be a bad idea (Keep the K/D board for those that find it important). And then focus all tickets and team score only on flag/objectives.


Just something to think about...how would the game play change if kills are not a way (or for some the way) of winning and the only way to win would be to hold objectives to drain tickets.

It would be a bad idea. I can already imagine never ending attacks on objectives by squads or even lonewolfs since they don't cost tickets for the team when they make a suicide attacks.
Something I see on insurgency teams is the carelessness of players regarding their K/D, who cares that you died like 15 times if you killed that single apc/tank/infantry/whatever....
Now imagine the same in conventional forces.... happening all the time.
Of course there would be some players that wouldn't do that but I remember someone here writing that his SL suicide himself because he was too far from main base. That was with the ticket loss for deaths, what would happen if there wasn't any...

Ok, lets have a battle where my team only caps flags and your team only kills and stays out of cap zones. Let's see who wins.

Holding flags is important because it makes sure you don't get a bleed.

Taking flags is important because it relieves pressure from your team and adds pressure to your opponent.

Pushing for the bleed flag is important because that would deliver a decisive win, as opposed to a possible win.

Tartantyco wrote:Ok, lets have a battle where my team only caps flags and your team only kills and stays out of cap zones. Let's see who wins.

Provided my team kills all of your team in the cap radius, we would win.

As mentioned I think removing tickets would create a war of attrition where no individual life really matters providing the objective is taken which imo is not how the current military works. If its something that can be implemented I think other rewards for gaining 'useless' flag such as being given assets or tickets to replace the men lost gaining them could be a good incentive. However I believe in most examples of infantry fighting the pressure/land control gained from taking flags normally outweighs the loses provided defenders aren't really dug in.

'[R-DEV wrote:OkitaMakoto;1349402']You could always have it track tickets in some manner, even just casualty counting on each side, so in the event of a stalemate timewise, the winner would be the team with least losses. (counting in armor and air assets, etc much like tickets currently work)

CRF's idea is interesting.

In that case I support it, so long as its watertight then it would be great when put into practice.

A lot of rounds would end by timing out, also, people would care a lot less about dying.

or we could do it the old bf2 way and make it so if one team controls more than half of the flags, the other team starts to bleed. But this bleed would be really slow. Like 1 or 2 tickets every minute. And the moreflags the team owns, the faster the other team bleds. It would encourage people to recapture the flag to slow or stop the bled. Cause of right now you can own 1 flag and ull be ok. This would make it so you have to keep pushing.

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:I sometimes wonder if just removing the kills affecting tickets wouldn't be a bad idea (Keep the K/D board for those that find it important). And then focus all tickets and team score only on flag/objectives.


Just something to think about...how would the game play change if kills are not a way (or for some the way) of winning and the only way to win would be to hold objectives to drain tickets.

No ticket loss for inf-deaths = tardrushing and stupidity making a come back.

Why not keep it the way it is, but benifit the team that captures flags with extra tickets, or just initiate a bleed if you have less then half the flags.

Removing ticket loss for infantry deaths wouldn't work well. It would very severely prolong rounds where the teams are somewhat even and it would be unrealistic, meaning that it makes objectives far more important than men. If so, you don't have a modern battlefield, you have something like WW1 with human-wave tactics, where you just send people at an objective until it's yours.

While I can't entirely agree with the OP's point that flags don't really matter, I agree that they should matter more. The best option indeed seems to be introducing bleed based on number of flags held, with the difference determining the bleed amount. As in, both teams hold 3 flags - no bleed. One holds 4, the other holds 2, so the difference is 2. Then the losing team bleeds 2 tickets every minute, as an example. If they hold 1 flag to the opposing team's 5, the difference is 4 and they bleed 4 per minute. Preferably, this system would only kick in a bit after the round starts so that one team doesn't bleed out on maps where they start with a disadvantage, like Asad Khal where the IDF starts with only their uncap and Hamas start with many flags captured.

Regarding tardrushing, I'm sure those people don't care about tickets, just about the excitement of maybe getting kills. Their score will still reflect it in the KDR, which they probably care about more. The ticketless mode could present a stale mate situation when both teams are equally entrenched in the center flag preventing it from going one way or another. However, it will probably result in some epic battle stories, which, aren't we all here for those anyway? To be honest, stale mates are part of life, and are even built into the BF2 engine.

It would be interesting if we went back to a BF2 style ticket bleed, since it would make fights for the central flag much more intense since the attacking team would be forced into action, resulting in probably an increase in action, especially for the defending team. It would also result in a more complicated teamwork decision, weighing a larger combined force vs a faster, earlier attack.

In theory, this could be run as a separate mode of a map that a server admin could choose, and let time decide whether it'll be something like Insurgency mode, or a CNC mode.

OP is basically correct in my opinion. Those who disagree and use the bleed argument are silly as bleed only occurs when a team captures the last enemy flag. Unless one team is incredibly stacked, this usually doesn't happen. Also, now that virtually every flag order in PR is a one v one flag setup, capping points is harder and a bit of drag with all the new FB assets. This kind of reduces the incentive to attack and rather sit on an FB in the middle ground somewhere...

So, my suggestion would be to bring back smaller cap radii (around 100-150m) or increase the amount of flags possible to cap at one time. This makes it easier to cap individual flags and gives more incentive to actually assault rather than sit on a Firebase somewhere.

How about instead of a ticket bleed, a team can regain tickets for capturing flags. So like the US on Muttrah holds East City, they will get x (like 1 per flag) number of tickets per minute, since more forces would be committed to finish the job, rather than retreating while your ahead. Thus meaning that the MEC could still make a good come back, and conserve their tickets (defending is 100x easier than attacking), while the US attempts to push forward.

Over four hours, if US held East, they would get somewhere near .5(modifier)*(4 flags)*60 (minutes)*4 (hours)= 480 tickets, where as the MEC, with only holding South would get 120. Using this system, initial tickets should be much lower, and rather than costing tickets, a team earns tickets. However, dieing and losing assets still lose tickets. What ever team can balance their "income" against their cost and make a profit, will win.

So a team earning less can still win, if they are careful

Thank you google.


Anyway, I've edited the OP on two points.

1) I never said that your entire team needs to camp your last flag. That's dumb and boring. You WILL get wiped out if you're stationary. Combat 101. I'm sorry for the misconception.

2) My idea is to go forth to areas of the map where you can get the most kills. A key building, or hill, or bridge, whatever. As long as it ties down the enemy so that they have to die a lot to get rid of you. You will find these areas MORE effective at reducing their tickets, because you will start off with a lone squad walking by that you ambush. They come back with vengeance, die again. This time they bring an APC, or some extra help. You kill that, and now you have a serious effort to displace you. One of TF21's award winning strategies is thus. You will find that you are either wiped out by outrageous odds (which allow the rest of your team to move up), or ignored and bypassed, in which case you have now made your section of the map a no go zone. Move out to another building, rinse and repeat. If every squad (except 1 on the current defensive flag to serve as a warning that hey, fall back and help) could locate key areas, and lock them down, they would win every time.


The current system is fine, people just need to learn how to do it. In reality, if too many of your men die and you don't seize all your objectives, you lose, that's it. And that's what happens in PR. If the DEV's INSIST on a change, I'd say no more than +15 tickets ONCE when you capture a flag. You would get the tickets again if you recaptured it. This is enough of a boost that it can tip the tide, but not a constant stream that will make it impossible to win if you're down for more than 10 minutes.

I think having a good time is the most important matter

Fess|3-5| wrote:Thank you google.


Anyway, I've edited the OP on two points.

1) I never said that your entire team needs to camp your last flag. That's dumb and boring. You WILL get wiped out if you're stationary. Combat 101. I'm sorry for the misconception.

2) My idea is to go forth to areas of the map where you can get the most kills. A key building, or hill, or bridge, whatever. As long as it ties down the enemy so that they have to die a lot to get rid of you. You will find these areas MORE effective at reducing their tickets, because you will start off with a lone squad walking by that you ambush. They come back with vengeance, die again. This time they bring an APC, or some extra help. You kill that, and now you have a serious effort to displace you. One of TF21's award winning strategies is thus. You will find that you are either wiped out by outrageous odds (which allow the rest of your team to move up), or ignored and bypassed, in which case you have now made your section of the map a no go zone. Move out to another building, rinse and repeat. If every squad (except 1 on the current defensive flag to serve as a warning that hey, fall back and help) could locate key areas, and lock them down, they would win every time.

Really, the way I read this and imagine putting it into practice... this reads just like the way we intend the game to be played...

You're saying you want to kill the enemy and keep them from advancing past you. Thats essentially what the idea of flags is. You arent ordered to just sit inside the flag radius, sure you can do that, but thats not exactly the best tactic for every single map in PR. Taking a ridge line, a forest line, or a nice hill overlooking key points on the enemy advance to the flag is what you want to take, ideally.

Agreed there.

I cant help but feel youre extrapolating the idea that killing is important and in the mean time completely forgetting that everything you say deals with the flags as well.

You want to take the flags, get into good positions to rack up as many kills as possible around that flag or on the advance to it, and keep the enemy from regaining lost ground(flag or otherwise tactically advantageous). Taking ground/flags and killing the enemy go hand in hand, two sides of the same coin: war.

[R-DEV]OkitaMakoto wrote:A good argument

I know. The thing is, key zones on the map aren't necessarily where the flag is located. If the two coincide, then I'm sure the DEV's can rest easy. But I still don't like taking flags because then the enemy knows where I am, and everyone's basic BF2 instincts say to go for the flag.

I want to revisit my example on Beirut. While we were being pushed back, our squad (including Savage with an impressive 25-0 KD/R as medic) turtled up in an apartment complex on the east side of the map, that was at least 300-400 meters away from the nearest flag, which had been capped out anyway. As we held that position, we would find ourselves under attack from 2 full squads plus 3-4 stragglers at once. We survived countless waves of this until they realized it wasn't worth it and left, so we hopped in a helo and picked another building closer to the action. Rinse and repeat. Now if those 15 dudes had been pushing on our last flag, we would have lost. Even if our squad had been on the flag, we might have still lost because flags are often much harder to secure than a good building. What I'm saying is, that round of Beirut went exactly as it should have. The team that mobbed the flags took the most, but lost. The team that took the key points killed the most and won. It was one of the best rounds of PR I've played to date.

Also, please change the title of this thread back. The current edit is counter to my point. See your PM's.

I wasn't the one who changed your thread title. The "edit" notice from me was when I fixed one of your italics codes. You had [/i] words [/i] which did nothing, the others were fine.

Ill change the thread to what you want though, if I have the moderating capability. Thanks for the PM

What about time limits to capture an objective? For easier flags early in the level low times, for harder flags longer times. once the time runs out you had to get said flag you start a ticket bleed.