Project Reality Forums

WARNING: Text wall.

-With the current AAS setup usually less than 50% of the map is used, strategic and tactical options are limited, and things like zerg rushing and the ever-present slaughter as squad after squad throw themselves onto objectives are common events. Flanking is often pointless as the time it takes to perform it means you'll be losing a lot of tickets if your team is bleeding and teams are forced into throwing everything at a flag in the hope that maybe they'll overrun the enemy. So instead of the linear and singular flag capping sequence I propose a more open alternative that makes use of the entire map and makes them a different experience every time you play them.

-Right now there's about 3-5 flags on a map(ignoring mains), spread out over a large area, jumping to and from north, south, east, and west. Due to this you have a basic and pervasive strategy where 1-2 squads stay back and defend(Yeah, like that happens a lot...) while the rest go throw themselves at the next objective. Once an objective is capped everything behind it is abandoned and the process repeats itself. Because of this Point A-----Point B setup there is often little point in "going off the beaten path" as the advantages of a superior position and/or surprise do not negate the penalties imposed by a lack of time, tickets, and manpower. Flanking movements are often on foot, they take time as you advance in a very indirect manner, if your team is bleeding then you lose tickets without being able to balance the loss, you're not in the radius capping, your team is low on manpower where the action is, etc. You're forced by circumstance to limit your options to a very small pool of viable strategies and tactics.

-As for map usage, Qinling is a good example. When have you ever been in the NW corner of that map? The SE corner sees a little more use only due to the proximity of coal mine, but large areas of the map are never used because of the aforementioned limitations on strategy and tactics on players due to the current linear setup.

-In addition, due to this linearity the gameplay on popular maps becomes increasingly predictable as the same areas are used for firebases and rally points, static assets become useless as the next objective is taken, and so on.

-What I propose is the following; see the map as the objective and use flags spaced evenly(or unevenly if that's better ) across the map as territory control markers. Instead of a single linear flag sequence you make it so that if a team holds a flag it can then cap any neighboring flag, as so:



-As an example lets use a 4x4 flag minimap where each side starts at their main to the north and south:



-The purple and yellow are main bases and the other colors are linear paths of advance. As each side hold their main they can advance and cap any of the flags in the line closest to them. Lets focus on purple at the top; as the purple team caps the black path flag in the NW corner the next black path flag becomes cappable, and when it's capped the next one becomes cappable and so on. Provided that there is no opposition the purple team can cap all the way to the last black flag. In addition, they can also cap any neighboring flag to the east of any black path flag they hold(The red flags in this example). As long as an unbroken chain of flags leads back to the teams main base they can can any neighboring flag north, south, east, or west of their current flags. For instance, you can cap the first and second black flags, then go straight east and cap all the way to the second blue flag. If you hold BLACK1, BLACK2, RED2, GREEN2, and BLUE2, you can also cap BLACK3, RED1, RED3, GREEN1, GREEN3, BLUE1, and BLUE3. You can cap east and west, north and south from any flag you hold with an unbroken chain to your main.

-Lets say yellow and purple teams meet at the center(Purple has all 1 and 2 flags, Yellow all 3 and 4). Purple pushes through on the black path all the way down to BLACK4. However, purple has now over-extended themselves and without the manpower to defend their dramatially extended frontline(Almost 50%) yellow simply moves into BLACK3 and recaps that(Which they can do as the have an unbroken line from their main to RED3, which neighbors BLACK3). As BLACK4 has now been cut off from the rest of purple's territory that flag drops down to neutral regardless of any purple players present in the territory. Yellow will still have to recap BLACK 4 though to ensure that no enemy is present there.

-The flags would represent the territory of their cap radius and all cap radii would be hugging each other, so to speak. Capping time would be drastically reduced(The time it takes to cross the diameter of the cap radius on foot would be a good guide) with a possible increase in manpower requirements(To be explained later).

-Some questions arise with this suggestion, questions that might be stupid, but since we're talking about the BF2 engine here stupid becomes necessary. Is there any limit to how many flags can be on a single map(Either due to arbitrary limits in the code or it for some weird reason devouring your CPU)? Is there any issue with removing/changing flag icons(A gabillion flag icons on the map would be a little meh...)? Are there any limitations to coding flags to behave like this? And would it be a real ***** to make this change to the maps themselves?

-Provided that none of those things are quarrelsome I believe that this would enhance the PR gamplay drastically. With the entire map now in play smaller and older maps would be rejuvenated and not have to be phased out for bigger maps, static assets would become useful for area control which is necessary with an extended front line. Throwing bodies at small areas would no longer be necessary as you have several avenues where you can advance. Defense would become necessary to maintain your front line(This is where static assets shine), and a multitude of strategic and tactical options would open up to the players.

-Now, the reason why the amount of people required to cap a flag might have to go up is because if you're a small squad trying to operate under the radar(Recon, Snipers, etc.), say 3-4 players, it would be a little hard to remain undetected if you start capping areas as you move behind enemy lines. An increase from the current 3 up to 5 should be sufficient as these squads should never be any bigger than 4.

-Flags should ideally go in a straight line between point A to point B, A and B being the opposing teams' main base, though for some maps it might be necessary to place them according to the demands of the map.

------EDIT------

As for ticket bleed, a % based bleed should be implemented. As a quick example:

51%+ = 1 ticket lost per minute
61%+ = 2 tickets lost per minute
71%+ = 3 tickets lost per minute
etc, etc.

-The specific amount of tickets lost and % is simply used as an example.

I've been kinda longing for somekind of system that exploits the whole map, would be alot more tactical talk between the squads/commander potentially.

I didn't get every single detail but as a whole it looks like a good idea.

well with the current random flags sometimes you use different parts of a map but that is only some rounds, i like your suggestion because it has a sort of frontline feel

yep. +1 from me...I think I made a similar suggestion ages ago "multiple paths" or something, but urs is much better thought out

i read it over, and i only see one problem.. ok, a few of them=P
1, i see lonewolfing, i see in the future lots of lonewolfs running to each flag and then just cammping there untill one squad comes and the lonewolf gets points for cappen...
2. i think that this will lower battle zones becuase although it may change the areas more, i think the perfect defnecne set up by a squad, and them waiting there its unfair for them if like the the "book" the black 3 was captured back and they were in black 4....
but for all i know this may work out, but it could not be big maps... this is almost something that would be perfect for a scirmish mode now that i think of it...

It feels a little like vanilla, where the flags go up/down/up/down and everyone is running back and forward. But.. i don't know.

Its a well thought out suggestion and from a quick read and thought from my point it seems good. Kinda like the system in front lines fuel of war.

I think its nice that you fight over the map and actually go to defendable positions but this is also its downside. Sides will go to hilltop estate in fools road, the bunkers in kashan etc. Theres no point in holding out open ground. Theres nothing there in the nw of qinling that has cover and is cool to defend for example.

And do you see any bleed in your set-up? because if not than theres no point in advancing once you have cover.

Also, I think that you tried to get away from the given paths and linear assaulting but you will have that in this system as well. Maybe even worse because you know how the territory is devided so what area's you need. You will end up advancing over the map in the same way with your team because you want every area to be yours. Maybe one game on the left and the other game on the right but you will want every bit.

Just look at maps without a bleed. People still slaughter themselves over a flag that has no bleed.

-For ticket bleed I think that if you hold over 50% of the flags/territory you get a 1 tpm bleed, then at 60% another 1 tpm is added, and one for 70% up a total of 6 tpm. Or maybe 2 tpms for every 10% over 50%, or in 5% increments, this would be decided by testing it.

-One issue that might arise is that teams will be so spread out over the map that the action is diluted, though I believe that it will be more rewarding as more types of engagement occur. Teams will be forced to work more closely together as well as it's not just one or two objectives anymore and the need for a commander might increase as well.

-About capping time, I said something like the time it takes to cross the diameter of a cap zone, but I think that's a bit too much. The ability to cap should only mean that you have forces in the area and so just 5-10 seconds to cap should be enough because, as you have more options, it will not become like in AAS at the moment where you can go from capping a flag in A4 to one in F2 and then an entire team will have to uproot because after the flag in A4 was capped a flag behind their front is now for some unknown reason actually in peril.

-As for "going to hilltop estate", they're welcome to do so but they have no control over most of the surrounding terrain from there and if they hole up in there they're going to lose territory. And I don't understand your objection about open ground, that has to do with strategy and tactics, not game modes. Open ground is still territory and you have to cap it. However, open ground is also, as the name implies, open and a pretty good area to cover with HMGs placed in an area with cover.

2. i think that this will lower battle zones becuase although it may change the areas more, i think the perfect defnecne set up by a squad, and them waiting there its unfair for them if like the the "book" the black 3 was captured back and they were in black 4....

-I don't get what you're saying here; the inability of one team to defend an extended front is "unfair"? You don't set up a fortress in a protruding piece of territory with a shaky logistical connection to the rest of the team, you set it up at your front line where it will actually do some good.

I dont know,modern warfare are more about mobility than frontline warfare. I think objectives are fine really. You dont have to pass every inch of a city to occupy it, just head for objectives such as HQ and army depots etc. Could be fun to try a few maps with your suggestion.

TheLean wrote:I dont know,modern warfare are more about mobility than frontline warfare. I think objectives are fine really. You dont have to pass every inch of a city to occupy it, just head for objectives such as HQ and army depots etc. Could be fun to try a few maps with your suggestion.

-AAS as is in no way reflects modern warfare or mobility. Think of if like this; (Kashan)South Village is an objective and holding the village itself is how you take it. In reality, using South Village as an example, this is in no way holding this area. Surrounding it are hills/mountains from which an enemy can directly or indirectly engage South Village with a decided advantage. In fact, holding South Village would depend on controlling these hills/mountains. From South Village you suddenly jump to either the bunker complex or MEC Outpost, half-way or all the way across the map, circumventing the entire opposing team in the process as if they were nothing when in fact this contradicts the entire basis of warfare.

-If the gamemode as explained in the OP were to be implemented then these issues would solve themselves as specific areas of no intrinsic value on a grand scale(as the game is too limited to be able to simulate this) or strategically on the map itself were removed and the actual terrain on the map would become decisive.

I have no idea if it's possible, but if commanders could "override" attack objectives every 30 mins or so, it would help in a number of ways, allowing commanders to effectively set up diversions, etc.

Basically, how I see it going down is, there's a standard "AAS" order as usual, but when the commander's timer (or maybe base it on a ticket cost too, etc?) is ready, he can change the team's next goal to an alternative flag (changing the opposition's defence marker too, obviously) to divert resources to the new objective. It could be used to bypass stiff defence, to throw up diversions, etc etc.

Would make commanders significantly less redundant than they are now, and stop maps from being predictable and repetitive.

I like the idea but I would limit the number of chains to two instead of four, simply because I don't really think that there would be enough people to populate such a scenario. Having 8 flags seems about right oriented in two chains of four with the same capping rules or perhaps a set of 7 like below.

Sniper_dog14 wrote:I like the idea but I would limit the number of chains to two instead of four, simply because I don't really think that there would be enough people to populate such a scenario. Having 8 flags seems about right oriented in two chains of four with the same capping rules or perhaps a set of 7 like below.

-I think the number of chains is irrelevant as it would in the end come down to the same amount of territory. The flags are irrelevant, they only convey territory control, and the same amount of territory must still be defended. I would think that the more chains there are the better it would be. I would also add that I do not intend it as chains, but as independent flags that, when you control them you can gain control of any neighboring flag. The examples given are just that, and the amount of chains could be anything from 3(Which I'd say is the minimum, representing the center and two flanks) to 60(Though that would be ridiculous) or more.

-To conserve time the maps could be preset with flags already capped(Friendly/Neutral/Hostile: 50/0/50, 50/20/30 70/0/30, or whatever % would best suit the map) so you wouldn't have to drive around capping everything first.


-Ace42, I feel that your idea would simply necessitate a commander through adding some feature rather than making the commander useful through the virtue of such a position being advantageous. It's like artillery and build orders in previous versions, the CO simply becomes the feature instead of being a CO. Currently we simply have 2 minute artillery COs and previously we had Bob the builder COs. The Commander won't be utilized until his presence is innately useful to the squad, until logistics, teamwork, and strategy require the CO. That is what I think this will do.

There are not enough players to effectively defend or attack that many areas at once. 32 per team, possibly 4 CPs to defend, with maximums of like 8? There is no where near enough bodies to populate a battlefield that is that spread out. It would become small groups of players roaming around capping CPs until they found someone who moved in to defend. PRs transportation is slow, and the maps are huge. It takes too long to react to advances. If there were multiple pathways it would make it impossible.

Kudos to Tartan for thinking this suggestion through in fine detail. If this sort of gamemode were implemented it would go a long way toward using those heretofore unused areas of maps, especially larger maps.

Someone commented that this gamemode would recreate the 'gophering' that occurred on BF2 maps, where one player could cap a flag behind enemy lines thus creating a situation where teams run around with 'hammers' hitting gophers on the head, so to speak, as they pop up in various places on the map. Obviously that would not be a problem here since the chain would have to be in place to make capping possible in the first place.

Someone else has commented that 32 pax per side are insufficient to sustain this sort of gamemode. I do not see this problem myself. Consider that typically 6 or at most 12 players are doing anything other than attacking normally. Also, since only adjacent areas to currently held areas would be able to be attacked it would necessarily mean that engagements would tend to be concentrated along fronts. If by chance each team advanced along two fronts that did not meet they would cut each other off simultaneously anyway and would each then have to fall back to recover lost ground.

To be honest, I think the success of AAS is attested to by the popularity and playability of PR. I would not call this gamemode an improvement over AAS, but a variation of it. For PR veterans obvious patterns will begin to show on maps and re-playability will be less for any game mode. That is why researching and implementing a gamemode like this one is important for the longevity of PR maps. AAS Random does a lot to address this problem by making maps play out in different ways. AAS Tartantyco, would be a great way to reuse maps and make them play out in even different ways. I have seen hints from DEVs on the forums about a Defensive game mode too. The more the merrier in my mind, as long as they work in-game.

Nice post, Tartan.

-Yes Scandicci, upon reflection I think it would be better to switch this with CnC or add it as a new game mode instead of messing with the established AAS as the current AAS has proven itself to be a highly successful game mode. Probably best to leave it alone so it doesn't confuse the common pubber.

TY2D2 wrote:There are not enough players to effectively defend or attack that many areas at once. 32 per team, possibly 4 CPs to defend, with maximums of like 8? There is no where near enough bodies to populate a battlefield that is that spread out. It would become small groups of players roaming around capping CPs until they found someone who moved in to defend. PRs transportation is slow, and the maps are huge. It takes too long to react to advances. If there were multiple pathways it would make it impossible.

-The error you make is thinking of these flags as specific objectives instead of simply territory control markers. You have to understand that controlling territory is not the same as controlling a specific location. You're not supposed to defend four flags, you're supposed to control the map territory itself. And again, contrary to what most people seem to think, controlling territory does not require your physical presence in that territory. Below is a map of Kashan which shows certain positions in the center line(Referring to the chain of hills running from the north to the south) that can be used to control a good amount of the surrounding territory:



-From the black line SW of the central peak you can cover the entire bunker complex and within 10 seconds have the entire force positioned there moved to cover the area south and south-east. You wouldn't have to place any units inside the bunker complex to defend that area, you simply deny access to the area in the first place. I could lock down the entire center line from four positions on the map, providing overlapping lines of fire so they cover each other, from dug in positions requiring the enemy to move into our line of fire to engage us, and still have plenty of units available to attack.


EDIT: I also think you're misunderstanding some core mechanics of my proposal as well, TY2D2.

I think some people would like that game-mode but I personally prefer the current one. On the map you have strategic targets that your team needs to take such as the coal mine. On the map they are obvious targets you need to take because all the points are either at mini-bases, villages or other targets like the coal mine.

In your suggestion it wouldn't really make sense because if everything is spaced out you would have a lot of points just in the middle of no where and in real-life there is no way that would be a valid target to risk you're men to take. Just some open field of forest area.

Demonic wrote:I think some people would like that game-mode but I personally prefer the current one. On the map you have strategic targets that your team needs to take such as the coal mine. On the map they are obvious targets you need to take because all the points are either at mini-bases, villages or other targets like the coal mine.

In your suggestion it wouldn't really make sense because if everything is spaced out you would have a lot of points just in the middle of no where and in real-life there is no way that would be a valid target to risk you're men to take. Just some open field of forest area.

Then it comes down to where you will defend certaintly a place thats full of cover and overview will be an ideal place to put up defenses. That will also make it a tactical choise, as tartantyco showed its all up to the location your defending. Then its the tactical choice of leaving easy attacked areas open and sthrengthen you strong bases or use more on the push to the next area.

Demonic wrote:I think some people would like that game-mode but I personally prefer the current one. On the map you have strategic targets that your team needs to take such as the coal mine. On the map they are obvious targets you need to take because all the points are either at mini-bases, villages or other targets like the coal mine.

In your suggestion it wouldn't really make sense because if everything is spaced out you would have a lot of points just in the middle of no where and in real-life there is no way that would be a valid target to risk you're men to take. Just some open field of forest area.

-As I stated in the post just above yours I've concluded that it could be a new game mode or switched with CnC.

-Just bumping this thread as I believe the issues discussed in another thread should be fixed through the implementation of the concept proposed here.