Project Reality Forums

First, I want to say that I think this thread belongs here and not in the suggestion section. It's something that needs to be discussed.

I've been playing PR for about two years now, so I've played through many versions of it. I also play in the PR tournament, which is quite an experience. And playing PR (or any other game) in an organzied and serious way gives you some very good insight in how the game works. Insight you would never get from just playing public, because in a organized game world you push the game to the max and every single detail counts.

And what I've learned and realized from my playing time is that PR lacks good strategy features that rewards teams for playing with a succesful strategy in AAS mode, which for the time being is the main game mode in PR. Notice that I'm not talking about strategy itself now, because it most certinly is possible to make strategies. What I'm saying is that there are really no strategy features in PR that has significant outcome on the game. If you don't know what I'm talking about,
let me explain it to you:

The control points (a.k.a. "flags"), which are the objectives on all AAS maps. Why do we fight over them? Because the game tell us so, of course. But here's the problem - fighting over the control points and taking them don't give teams any significant advantage, unless it's the bleed one (which are rarely reached, and therefore pretty much an irrelevance here). And the reason for that is simple - they are nothing more than an icon on your map. They don't give your team any extra tickets and they don't make your enemy lose any tickets, and they don't give your team extra vehicles or any kind of shorter spawn time.
What about the position itself then? Well, I can't think of any CPs that are actully placed on advantageous ground. You might aswell position yourself in an equal, or even better, position next to a CP and just kill the enemies trying to capture that CP. And in fact, that works even better and is what PR is without any real strategy features - it's about kills and your teams k/d ratio.

It's not that hard to figure out really; you can only lose tickets in AAS and you lose them by getting killed + control points that has nothing to do with tickets = k/d game (a.k.a. deathmatch). The team that can waste their enemies tickets first wins, with or without CPs. And if you don't believe me, I can tell you that when my team played Op. Barracuda in the tournament (as USMC), our whole plan was to take over the airfield, hold that position and just kill enemies from there until victory was ours.
The CPs was never relevant. And it worked! We won simply by scoring kills. And that map is just a prime example - we figured out that a superior k/d is most important way before that and always prioritize our k/d over CPs. And the other teams did to and also play that way as far I can tell. And it's not because we want to, it's because that's the way it is.
Now, pubbers don't care about this because most of them don't know it and don't care about it. They just want to have a good game. But it's of course different in a match between two organized teams, where everybody is following a plan and have victory as their goal. The effect this k/d dominance have on organized PR games is that it make teams play conservative and defensive to preserve tickets. That in turn creates stalemates, because there's simply no gain on attacking and taking CPs from the enemy. The only thing it will do is to cost you a few lives, which is tickets, which in the long run will lose you the battle. Public games are not played this way because of the players, like I said, but it still makes the team with the best k/d win out there aswell.

I think this is a problem because it's not realistic or fun. I'm not a soldier, but I'm pretty sure that war is mainly about acheiving certain objectives. For example, taking ground and valued positions. And I'm also pretty sure that it has a bigger outcome on battles and wars than the casualties. It's relevant, for sure, but not the main factor. And if it were the case, The Soviet Union wouldn't have won over Germany in WWII.

And I know I'm not the only one that have noticed this and see it as a problem. It's been discussed very much on the tournament forum.

The good thing is that this is a solvable issue. It can be done in three ways as far as I see:

#1: Bring back the CP spawnpoints. It gives CP capping an advantage, but ultimateley doesn't solve the problem. And it would make PR spammy. So no on this.
#2: Connect vehicle spawning to CPs. Sounds good on paper, but it's not exactly logical or a good thing to make vehicles spawn more often than they do now. And it would lead to an overflow of vehicles on maps like Kashan and Qinling.
#3: Connect the CPs to the tickets. This is the way to go if you ask me. It makes sense from a gameplay perspective and will give a solid reason for teams to attack and defend the CPs. It can be done so a team lose X tickets when they lose a CP, or so a team gain X tickets when they capture one, or a combination of both. Or maybe something else. It's a simple and effective award for playing with a good strategy and actully playing AAS maps the way they're supposed to be played - by fighting over the CPs.


Discuss!

#3: Connect the CPs to the tickets. This is the way to go if you ask me. It makes sense from a gameplay perspective and will give a solid reason for teams to attack and defend the CPs. It can be done so a team lose X tickets when they lose a CP, or so a team gain X tickets when they capture one, or a combination of both. Or maybe something else. It's a simple and effective award for playing with a good strategy and actully playing AAS maps the way they're supposed to be played - by fighting over the CPs.

I like that idea alot.

i like it too.

knowing that if you leave a flag unguarded it might cost the team 10 tickets (or whatever) could *maybe* help persuade people to defend the control points as well.

i'm all for #3 and some parts of #2
#2 will be good on some maps, i.e. you start with small amount of light non-respawnable assets but when you capture airfield/railway station you get some heavy assets

#3 other way round is not bleed, but immediate gain/loss of tickets
i would suggest such scheme(numbers are relative):
1.when you capture CP you get 10 tickets
2.when you loose CP(completely, not white) you loose 20 tickets
3.when you capture last flag->bleed
this will solve different things: 1. CP give you some advantage 2. you have to defend them, because their loss can be crucial for your team 3. if team loses its last flag it gets pwned by bleed

Really the CP don't bleed much because, in reality, a stalemate is not a victory. Different maps have different bleeds, important to learn these before your clan match, that way you can work out which points you want to push for, and which you will sit back, defend. combat over.

Personally, I find, the better team gets better frags and as a result ends up capping more points, a key element to the game is, if you stay still, your opposition will surround you and own you in a descent match. So wether your moving to the next CP, or just around the map for frags, its no different, as far as realism and good gameplay is concerned I feel. Changing the bleed system would hardly change the gameplay for me.

Now the gun accrucys relative to one enough, and types of gun and kit, especailly the marksman, they need tuning!!

-I'd propose an alternate solution that I think would solve the issue without adding an additional feature, but incorporating it into the base game mechanics, namely the Improved AAS suggestion. The implementation of this would instantly give the terrain strategic value, increase the amount of strategic options, make the entire map playable, and make maps much more re-playable as the focus of any given match may be drastically different depending on the decisions made by either team(Something the "Random AAS" mode has tried and, in my opinion, failed to do, and something the normal AAS mode will never be able to do).

Nice post Farks, I'm all in for this!

DankE_SPB wrote:i'm all for #3 and some parts of #2
#2 will be good on some maps, i.e. you start with small amount of light non-respawnable assets but when you capture airfield/railway station you get some heavy assets

I agree, but the vehicles should only spawn at main, and maybe the spawn times could be lowered on some assets as a bonus?

DankE_SPB wrote:#3 other way round is not bleed, but immediate gain/loss of tickets
i would suggest such scheme(numbers are relative):
1.when you capture CP you get 10 tickets
2.when you loose CP(completely, not white) you loose 20 tickets
3.when you capture last flag->bleed
this will solve different things: 1. CP give you some advantage 2. you have to defend them, because their loss can be crucial for your team 3. if team loses its last flag it gets pwned by bleed

I'm with you here as well, but I think you're a little too kind with only losing/gaining 10-20 tickets, should be more like 30-40, so it really hurts.

I agree with you. I was really "dazzled" with the removal of bleed from most of the flags. Really gives the idea of: "SL: Sure, I want to attack that flag, but in heavens name, why?!" idea when your in a battle.

Idea 3 seems nice Doesnt seem that it can be used as a way to let battles last longer if you let them lose more tickets than they gain when they lose the flag. Might be better to try and do something like: If you lost the flag within X ammount of time when capped than you lose 30 tickets. Otherwise its going to be harsh when a team is having a bad run of luck. Dont forget with the random deviation and the public gamers, luck is a fairly important factor. So if a team loses 2 flags soon after each other, its pretty much game over.

The reason behind my timer solution is, to make sure a team cleanses the area and than captures the flag or makes sure the area is secure. If they use it to get tickets fast by letting the enemy neutralise it and than cap it back, they will lose tickets fast!

I like the idea of events happening when capturing a flag, or giving them better positions on the map. Or just put back some sort of small bleed, but increase ticket count so you'd end up with the same length of battles as right now.

Good post and good arguments btw

make the entire map playable

not sure if this needed, there is already "lack of boot on ground" problem, spreading team on even more area doesnt seem very good

I agree, but the vehicles should only spawn at main, and maybe the spawn times could be lowered on some assets as a bonus?

hmm, why only at main? i see no probs with spawn on airfields/railway stations

you're a little too kind with only losing/gaining 10-20 tickets

as ia said numbers are relative, just to show off difference between capturing and loosing

If you lost the flag within X ammount of time when capped

makes sense

[R-COM]cyberzomby wrote: I like the idea of events happening when capturing a flag, or giving them better positions on the map. Or just put back some sort of small bleed, but increase ticket count so you'd end up with the same length of battles as right now.

+1

Korengal Valley has this now: When you control the Outpost, you get vehicles, strykers and a chopper. If you lose the control, no assets.

This could be implemented to many current maps and I'd like to see the effects.

E.g Muttrah: Teams starting with the basic transport (choppers and trucks) and receive better assets when they control more and more the cityarea. (Huey, Cobra, APC's etc)

Fools Road, Qwai (atm), Jabal, Kozelsk etc, you name it.

I'm glad other people have got this idea, because i thought connected asset spawn --> flag caps would be a good idea. I also like the thought of "cap a flag gain X points" since that could help foster a team that's losing to actually try harder, and not just bleed to death.

Ah this old PRT argument spills over onto the main forums

I didn't support it before because I didn't think we should bring things into the game that weren't actually in normal PR but if it were to be put in by the Devs officially then ideas 2 and 3 I very much support.

jigsaw-uk wrote:Ah this old PRT argument spills over onto the main forums

I didn't support it before because I didn't think we should bring things into the game that weren't actually in normal PR but if it were to be put in by the Devs officially then ideas 2 and 3 I very much support.

Well, the point is sort of to discuss it outside PRT and hopefully get something done about it.

ye Farks this is something I've seen for a long time although fuzz hates any kind of ticket bleed hence why basically all the maps now have no ticket bleed what so ever and I agree, become a huge problem from a strategic point of view and a gameplay one too.

Idea 3 has been what I've been thinking to myself thou I had not though about your idea on giving tickets to the team that capped the flag, only reducing tickets from the enemy who lost the flag

BF2 as it stands dose have a feature to deduct tickets from a team that looses a flag, BUT its very buggy and as such, isn't used.
I quote from my Audit tut:

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;431800']
this box says "EnemyTicketLossWhenCaptured" but some of it is hidden. this means when you capture the flag, the other team will loose a set amount of tickets. Bare in mind that this can be exploited by letting the enemy take the flag, then once they have it neutral, ponce on them, kill them then retake control and you get anouther chunk of enemy tickets off. Its best to use the ticket bleed.

Thou what I would like to see possibly in the future is for this to be recoded so it works in such a way that its not buggy and can not be exploited and may possibly be a replacement for ticket bleed etc in the future.


Thou any other ideas anyone might have I would love to hear as this has been an ongoing problem for some time that really needs to be sorted.

All factions have vehicles created for it but most maps don't include all vehicles made for them. IMO I think some vehicles and aircraft should be disabled at the start and only enabled through point capture victory. More or less nothing that would completly unbalance things but tools that could be used for a minor advantage. Like a spawn of a transport heli but the helicopter is a merlin or whatever its called for example. The bigger transport heli as a bonus.

If APC's are in-game, have a scimitar as a spawnable bonus. Only one asset that is given to the team with over 50% of the CP's. When it dies it respawns like any other asset as long as you still have over 50% of the CP's.

Also additional tickets is a nice idea.

We also do a lot of serious competition at =QTF= and I agree sometimes, "flag" capture seems worthless. Actually, the only reason to try and capture any flag is to ultimately try to capture it all to start the ticket bleed but if you cannot capture the bleeding one, its worthless.

Maps with no ticket bleed at all are to avoid for clan battle in my opinion.

I don't think having more vehicle spawn as you capture cp would work very good but connecting CP to Ticket could be an interesting idea.

Farks speaks the utmost truth on the matter.
I believe that this single aspect of PR is the next step to further improving game play, as it would seem over history that this is what PR has ultimately achieved to do.


The Issue

We had seen the issue Farks has spoken of, years and years ago, but with lesser game mechanics, it was overlooked by all and thought nothing more of.
During Release 0.4, during Campaign 4(?), USEF(Now currently NATO) and RFAD(Now currently CATA) played a map known as Al Falujah Region.
The map bore little incentive for the USMC to attack the MEC, as one side was forced to smash into the well prepared defences of their opposition.
With many casualties and hardship suffered by both sides, the first, official stalemate appeared.
Both teams had realised that attacking outwards from/attacking the Valley CP was illogical and the way to ultimate failure, and so both forces sat and waited.
The battle lasted approx 02:40 - 03:00 hours of gameplay, as and was more than boring at times.


The Problem(s)


Often, while playing AAS, I find myself with my face resting in the palm of my hand, contemplating the often illogical nature of my and my foe's objectives; these Restrictive Flag layouts.
I would ask myself this:
"WHY-THE-HELL do we have the need to secure A SWAMP (on op. Barracuda)?
I can only assume that the island was not in fact housing warheads, but was fronting as a Nuclear Silo for what is really a PLA Swamp-Monster R&D facility."

Yes, my fellow Grunts, commanders, airmen, crewmen, seamen, illegal combatants and 'civilians'.
A Swamp....
Now honestly, we can see here that this is a prime example of where a flag exists for the sake of existing. This swamp is a place no army wants to go, as it is generally associated with poor cover and poor mobility.
This is not a place of military interest. Its a point of interest for tourists and holiday makers.
This is an example of where flag is located in a position that bares no worth to either side, yet they are forced to quarrel over due the AAS.
What exactly is the relevance of hill 133 CP (Quinling)?
It doesnt appear to be a defensive strong point or useful staging point.
Its simply a hill on a map, that for some reason, it is Army X's mission to secure; shortly before they move on to secure a farm, for what I can only assume is looking for a decent meal for the evening....


Points of interest to a conventional force would include Cities, Embassies, observation points, fortresses, Main basses, vantage points, hospitals, UN buildings, waterworks, supply facilities, ammo dumps, communications outposts, fuel reserves, the list goes ON.
There is no reason why a hill in the middle of the countryside could not be a CP, but as long as it has characteristics that a military force would deem desirable or important to gaining control.


Our Options?


From what I can see, Farks has done a good job at narrowing down the solutions to Connecting the CPs to tickets. I can agree, that from those options, its the best for realistic, dynamic, varied gameplay.
However, I believe there is a way to improve the situation to a further extent.


4# Leaving it down to the Players to decide the strategy.


Flags should not be set in place to govern how the teams will play the round, but should be the basis and incentive as to how to conceive and play the round; and to go even further, the reason why people are fighting here in the first place.

For example: The map objective is that the occupying US Army forces are to defend the City of Rangoon from a large PLA Assault force to the North East.
Main bases are set into the US embassy and the PLA staging point.
Now the city would be divided into a couple of sections, each marked by a flag. Perhaps another flag for the British and Australian Embassies (these buildings are adjacent IRL).
-Here, the only objectives that have been forced onto the Forces is the Defence/Attack of the GB-AUS Embassy and Holding the city generally. The teams are free to base their strategies and operations around these realistic and non-restrictive objectives.

No longer will be holding the Distant, Swanky, Suburban Penthouses or the Slightly-higher-than-averagely-price-Gas Station flags digress the forces from their objectives, which really lies in the city in the case I presented.
As I see it, even CnC mode, in its buggy early life poses a refreshing change from AAS.
At least players wont have the hassle of getting to random point A, and then to B, when really the ultimate goal, flags or no flags, seems invariably to kill more of them than they kill of Us.


To take a step further, this could be combined with Farks's mention of the Ticket-for-flag concept, that each flag would hold a respective 'value'.


Going about it


By no means do I mean that the issues are to be blamed on PR mappers, or that they have somehow been slacking or causing problems for PR. Far from it. They have been slaving away to churn out high quality maps that we more often then not, tear up with heavy ordinance.
Their efforts have greatly pushed forwards the evolution of PR.


But it is here in the mapping department that I believe we can spur further evolution of PR's gameplay. With thought, I could see myself as a mapper, dotting flags in places where I thought would be aesthetically pleasing and what would showcase my map. One flag at the mall. One flag at the Prison Building.


Well, iv run out of steam and am afraid I'll be running into "M.Warren Time"


...mongol....

Ye I'll counteract the M.Warren in this thread by keeping it short.

I agree with what Farks is bringing up, the problem of most flags actually being pointless to capture. I agree it would be nice to put in something like rewarding a team for a flag capture with tickets. Of course some time would have to be invested in making it work for different styles of map for instance, and making it hard to exploit, but I like the idea.

[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude wrote:But it is here in the mapping department that I believe we can spur further evolution of PR's gameplay.

This topic is really much more of a game mode issue rather than a map/mapping issue.