Project Reality Forums

So basicly it would be similar to Battlefield Bad Company's "Gold Rush" game mode, but instead of rushing a crate full of gold, you would assault a fortified possition. The rules would be pretty much the same as in Bad Company's "Gold Rush" game mode:

Flag Rush (suggest names?)

You play either as an Attacker hoping to slip or power your way through enemy lines to shatter the opposing team's defensive positions, or as a Defender whose sole purpose is to whittle down the attacking team. Of course, there's a bit more to it than that.

* One base only: You'll only ever find one active defending base at any given time. This helps funnel the action to predictable locations, keeping the flow of the game fast and chaotic. No more wandering aimlessly among abandoned objectives.
* Moving along: Once the attacking team captures current base, another Defender's base will activate and so press the action in a new direction. The base conquered by the Attackers is now theirs, so they may take command of their vehicle of choice without having to spawn back at their original base.
* Reinforcements: The attacking forces have a limited supply of reinforcements (defenders have a limitless supply), but they can swell their ranks with base they successfully captured.

IMO, it would require good coordination between squads and so on.

This is similar to Counter Attack game mode, but instead of objects scatered all over the map, they would be in kinda straight line (dunno how to explain it right, so here's a SS of how it should be: )

Thoughts?

to much chaotic = vbf2
If i see how it is in bf2 BC its rubbish and to chaotic with running everywhere.

arjan wrote:to much chaotic = vbf2
If i see how it is in bf2 BC its rubbish and to chaotic with running everywhere.

You won't be able to run everywhere. That would be salved by the "out of area" thing. You could not wander too far from current objective because of that, but as soon as you took it, the zone clears off further to the next objective. So that means no chaotic running everywhere.

To me it sounds great. It also sounds like an actionpacked gamemode, though I suppose it would be realistic too take one objective at a time, and move togheter against the next one.

arjan wrote:to much chaotic = vbf2
If i see how it is in bf2 BC its rubbish and to chaotic with running everywhere.

Dont agree with you. See the post above.

Sounds a bit like something we already have... And works alot more realisticly than this sounds. INS mode ring any bells? Trying to capture/destroy a point, and moving on to a new one when that is done...

And another thing: i dont believe its possible to move the "out of area" mid map. It would be like moving buildings or terrain around while playing

Gosu-Rizzle wrote:Sounds a bit like something we already have... And works alot more realisticly than this sounds. INS mode ring any bells? Trying to capture/destroy a point, and moving on to a new one when that is done...

And another thing: i dont believe its possible to move the "out of area" mid map. It would be like moving buildings or terrain around while playing

Well in INS you can wander off wherever you want + you're not fighting a conventional army, so no - it's not alike. And you would get some kind of reward for taking the objective, so again - it's not as INS game mode.

As for the "out of area" thing, if it's really as you say, then that's bad news. But since we don't know it for sure yet, i have some hope it's possible to "move it around".

I don't see how this isn't AAS with insurgent style defenders (limited supplies would be ticket amounts, the endless respawn...).

I think the same game style could be accomplished by having the flags capped by the attacker locked (so they can't be pushed back) and have a delayed bleed on the flags so that if they don't make ground fast enough they will start to bleed out, and they only win if they get all the flags without too heavy of losses. This would speed up the pace of the push (limited time for the attacker), while giving the defender a reason to defend (causing bleed).

snooggums wrote:I don't see how this isn't AAS with insurgent style defenders (limited supplies would be ticket amounts, the endless respawn...).

I think the same game style could be accomplished by having the flags capped by the attacker locked (so they can't be pushed back) and have a delayed bleed on the flags so that if they don't make ground fast enough they will start to bleed out, and they only win if they get all the flags without too heavy of losses. This would speed up the pace of the push (limited time for the attacker), while giving the defender a reason to defend (causing bleed).

Well in this game mode for taking objectives you would get some kind of reward, and i mean like more vehicles, air support etc. So if we put all that stuff together, it would be a pretty neat game mode, IMO?

E4$Y wrote:Well in this game mode for taking objectives you would get some kind of reward, and i mean like more vehicles, air support etc. So if we put all that stuff together, it would be a pretty neat game mode, IMO?

In insurgency when you take down a cache you get more tickets as a reward.

It just sounds like Insurgency mode with conventional forces...

Also VBF2 is a fast paced game. PR however is a much slower paced game, because when a game is faster paced you are more inclined to just gun & run or even run & gun. If it's chaotic then your standard pubby would just do w.e he wants.

Also it seems to constricting on Squad Leaders who want to do something clever, forcing them to play the game it's way, rather than how it is now with the game letting the players decide how the game is played, by being clever and forcing the enemy to do what they want to do.

Its a good idea, if implemented with a map only designed for this game mode. If the map had enough flank options rather than just having to human wave the first line of defence then It could work.

Herbiie wrote:In insurgency when you take down a cache you get more tickets as a reward.

It just sounds like Insurgency mode with conventional forces...

Also VBF2 is a fast paced game. PR however is a much slower paced game, because when a game is faster paced you are more inclined to just gun & run or even run & gun. If it's chaotic then your standard pubby would just do w.e he wants.

Also it seems to constricting on Squad Leaders who want to do something clever, forcing them to play the game it's way, rather than how it is now with the game letting the players decide how the game is played, by being clever and forcing the enemy to do what they want to do.

Well it might aswell be Insurgency with conventional forces, i don't really care when it's fun to play. Change rewards, change armies, change some rules - there ya go, a new game mode.

PR is a slow paced game? Yup, it pretty much is, but not when it comes down to skirmishes. So why not have something similar to it but just in bigger scale?

Tim270 wrote:Its a good idea, if implemented with a map only designed for this game mode. If the map had enough flank options rather than just having to human wave the first line of defence then It could work.

Well you would have a flank option. The "out of area" thing would prevent you from wandering too far from the current objective and from wandering of to the neutral objective, while at the same time leaving space for flanking and tactics.

i played it in BFBC2 on the games com in cologne, and its quite fun, the interessting thing is, that the defender really has to focus on defending the 2 spots in one area, since, once eh lost them, there is no chance to get them back, this emphasises the defending role much more then AAS does, so, i would welcome to have something like that in PR, at least on some maps

Sounds fun but not realistic...

Maybe it should be designed for 12v12 or so first...

EDIT: Just noticed E4$y had a similiar idea, I will post in his thread too. If mods agree delete my thread.$

As some of you might have heard, some outposts have come under intense insurgent siege.

How about a gamemode with insurgents/Taliban, where the BlueFor team has to hold its base, a flag, with a low ammount of tickets, like 50, for a given ammount of time ? The insurgents win if they capture the flag before the timer runs out or the bluefor runs out of tickets.

Eventually at the main, not the outpost the bluefor needs to defend, could be air transport, to resupply the outpost under a dome of death in an unacessible area, simulating that the helicopters are coming from a distant area the opfor can not access.
Maybe CAS could be added too, to help the bluefor stay alive and keep the enemy from overrunning the outpost.

While the blueforce has a lot of advantages being in a defensive fortified position and having CAS, it can not do too many errors, or will lose the game.
The Insurgents/Taliban will have a hard time assaulting a stargegically placed and fortified oupost, but have the numbers on their side.

This sounds pretty interesting, but imo it would end to quickly if we would only give 50 tickets to BLUFOR. Other than that - it's all good.

LudacrisKill wrote:Sounds fun but not realistic...

Maybe it should be designed for 12v12 or so first...

Why not? If it succeeds on 12v12, we could move on onto larger scale battles.

Well that is something that needs to be tested out. IRL There has been a similiar siege at Helmland over several months even (on and off) and I think the british only lost a dozen men or so.

arjan wrote:to much chaotic = vbf2
If i see how it is in bf2 BC its rubbish and to chaotic with running everywhere.

Do not agree this would just make everyone to go for one flag and not evrywhere, plus its alot more intense whit 40+ people in one town