Project Reality Forums

Jabal Al-Burj is a perfect example for my suggestion.

I was playing a round on this map a few weeks ago as SL (USMC). We were given an order to take East Beach, which we did. I ordered our squad to defend untill West Beach had been taken. When we'd been sat there for ages and time was running out, a second squad spawned on a bunker we built so I asked the commander if he could task them to defend. We were swiftly extracted by an experienced pilot and dropped off at West Beach where we faced little resistance and capped it smoothly. Within minutes, East Beach was lost because the other squad didn't understand that defending required them to stay in close proximity of the flag and keep their eyes on it. *face palm*

I also had a similar experience on Road to Kyongan'Ni. The whole team was advancing on the left flank (USMC) and were getting nowhere for nearly an hour. We decided to take a wide flank to the east, to try and advance behind the enemy. As soon as we had crossed the river, just about the whole team decided to do the same thing. Within minutes, we lost Air Drop. *double handed face palm*

When a checkpoint has been captured, the capturing team is in control of that flag (obviously). Sometimes the whole team will tard rush to the next objective, regardless of the previous one. If nobody has stayed behind to defend until the next one is taken, the team should not be in control of that flag.

My suggestion is this:
(quick search neautral flag, neautralise, flag/CP defend etc...)

If a checkpoint has been deserted, it should slowly turn neutral (maybe after 5 mins), meaning a squad, or at least a few squaddies would have to defend until the next flag in the AAS chain has been captured.

This would mean that on Jabal Al-Burj, defending squads would need to defend the beaches until Dam/Bridge had been taken. Then they would be able to advance.

With the deployable .50cals on the way, I'd hate to see our defensive positions left un-guarded.

I've not thought too much about how this'd work with every map, so please help with additional ideas or simply pull my suggestion apart...

Also, yes, I am aware that players are hardcoded.

While this suggestion sounds good...I have to wonder the effect this would have on an assaulting team. Let's say the assaulting team has taken east and west beach, they would then by your suggestion be 2 squads down in their push to get the next flags, because they would have to leave them there to defend. While this does give realism to the gameplay it also severaly hinders the assaulting team. If we had massive servers with hundreds of players I could see this working better but there simply aren't enough people on a team to take away that many men from an assault.

I did see you said that it could be just a couple of guys holding the flag, but you also have to consider that most squads don't want to split up their forces. We don't have enought slots to make up a full squad as is much less take the firepower of two more guys away from it. So most likely what would happen would be the whole squad staying and defending or no one would and would just bum rush the next flag and try to cap it before the last goes neutral.

Not sO stupid man, I kinda foresaw this response. It's not asif a squad hasn't been tasked to defend before, maybe if it was a 10 min timer? It just seems silly that some flags are ignored as soon as they're captured. There's quite often a squad or two defending anyway but yeah, I see your point...

There's not enough players to do this, even at 32, you're streaching that out over up to four flags, there simply isn't enough people per side to make this practical.

I like this.

how about if there's more than 16 people to a side (and also have the inclusion that there has to be a minimum of 32 people on the server... it's like that 7 vs 8, the 8 gets the H-AT, Sniper, and Spec-ops, while the 7 on the other team don't...)

Which would mean one squad defend, one squad attack, and one squad for sniping/tanking/APC'ing. You can change these numbers around for when there's a branch...

15 minute timer, please.

could the devs possibly have it so that there only has to be a person in a 150m radius? Or, at the very least, slightly larger... so if a squad placed a rally between 100-150m they'd be fine...


And there only has to be one person... so you can have a sniper on a hill within 150m, but still has a line of sight to the next flag in the AAS sequence. Just one or two people per flag to hold them off, so they can yell at the commander to call the squads back.

Twelve people out of the fight because of this? There's already enough problems with not being able to have enough people per side. This encourages one man squads as well, the suggestion is good, but on the current scale it can't be done well.

Maybe i should have said INS Flag Neautralisation. I prefered it back when the VCP was cap'able but it was a bit spammy to be fair. Now, it's rarely used but should be valued. There should be an incentive for defending it. When that's been suggested I'll come back with this one.

Tirak wrote:Twelve people out of the fight because of this? There's already enough problems with not being able to have enough people per side. This encourages one man squads as well, the suggestion is good, but on the current scale it can't be done well.

by my experience this would be a very bad suggestion.....not that its bad simply because the gamers are bad.

from what i've seen this would be very easy to pull off if you had people who knew what they were doing. this is just another one of those issues that is a player based problem. this can never be fixed unless you put every gamer through basic training in the forces. i'm all for it, just doesnt seem civilian player friendly

i have led a 6 on 6 round on road to kyon gon ni before and won, all you really have to do is organise your men properly.

I actually like this idea. Top-notch squad leaders talk about splitting your squad into fireteams to accomplish a task. If a flag would revert to neutral after 5 mins, but required only 2 people around it to keep it until the next flag in the AAS order was taken, then this would be a perfect job for a fireteam. You guys are also making way too big of a deal out of this. Two guys per flag is NOTHING in a full game, or even a large game. The most flags I've ever seen open at one time was 4, so at most you'd have to give up 8 guys out of 32.

That really isn't that many. It'd also require teamwork and coordination to keep it all working, which is what this mod is about. And not being "civilian player friendly"? What is that? Honestly, you don't have to join the army to realize "Hey, maybe we should sit here and defend". It's not rocket science.

To be honest I really don't think this game should worry about dumbing down for the retard players. Either you can do it or you can't. If you can't grasp the fact that you need to work as a team, and do more then just bum-rush and kill enemies, then go to a differant mod.

And just to be clear, I imagine the neutral drain would dissapear once you've progressed through the AAS order, correct? Like on Bi Ming, once you've captured Bi Ming and Coomunications, and then were taking Munitions Dump/Supply Road, Bi Ming would no longer drain as it's no longer available.

Delete Please, Wrong Forum

I think it's a good idea, but it would be much better if you ask me if bunkers were a substitute for squaddies. So if a flag got taken, a squad would have to wait until a bunker was put up on the flag. Not sure if this would work out all the time due to the amount of flags on each map, and the number of bunkers available (can't remember how many it is now).

Commander wouldn't be a problem, cos in the next patch there doesn't need to be a commander present to construct any assets.

AnRK wrote:I think it's a good idea, but it would be much better if you ask me if bunkers were a substitute for squaddies. So if a flag got taken, a squad would have to wait until a bunker was put up on the flag. Not sure if this would work out all the time due to the amount of flags on each map, and the number of bunkers available (can't remember how many it is now).

Commander wouldn't be a problem, cos in the next patch there doesn't need to be a commander present to construct any assets.

That's a good idea, but the problem is if it's just a bunker with noone there to defend it, the enemy will just destroy it and then take the flag. I believe the whole premise of forcing players to defend it was to be there when the enemy arrived. If you can hold the flag without actually defending it, it negates the entire reason for implimenting the feature.

i like it but on pub matches it would be a great problem...

maybe all 64 player versions could have it implemented that you need people or a bunker/commander placed object to be placed to stay in control...

Shotgun wrote:i like it but on pub matches it would be a great problem...

maybe all 64 player versions could have it implemented that you need people or a bunker/commander placed object to be placed to stay in control...

I don't really see why it'd be a problem. Either people do it or they don't. I mean it's like, either a player shoots the enemy or dies. Saying we shouldn't do this is like saying a player shouldn't be killed cuz he didn't shoot the enemy. Sure it might not be the most appealing thing in the world, but in reality forces would be left behind to defend whatever position they took, and sometimes you have to force reality. This idea would force players to treat flags in a realistic manner.

It'd also be like in real life, the forces could choose to just leave it, and not defend it. But then with noone there to protect it it's easy for the enemy to come in and set up a base. Which is why ingame it'd go neutral. It makes perfect sense, and would be realistic. And in the end, realism is what we all want from PR.

the hardcoded attackwish of most players is too serious that it could be handled by just that flag going grey. ive seen a couple of hundret rounds where players got their asses handed out at the end but still even expierenced players dont get the sense of defending.

i suggest to go classic style and benefit / punish a good defence and a bad defence with kit accesses/restrictions. a team looses a flag = loose special kit or asset amount + receive neg points, double the negpoints if commanderorders had been disregarded. defended flag for amount of time and/or against amount of enenies = benefit wth kit access or assets. then, somehow bind the defense work benefit to individual players.

hard and strictly rules to make the players think of whats AAS says : advance and SECURE.
each server i play on(and that means nearly every Northamerican and european servers) i expierience 50 % of rounds suffering utter fails regarding defending. theres no fun, not even for attacking forces, if theres no fight for the objektive.