Project Reality Forums

Why are we attacking Flag Objectives?

I came to this question when looking at maps like Silent Eagle, Asad, Barracuda or any map with many many flags until a cap out can happen and not even a bleed on one team.

Often, and I am sure everybody saw this happen hundred of times, the teams attack and maybe 1 or 2 squads defend.
Also very often the attacking squads get killed very often and have a negative k/d ratio and keep attacking no matter what.
Also often the attacking squads succeed at one point because the defence is very weak. This is obviously the case because both teams attack with all except 1-2 squads and all available assets.
So it depends on who gets the flag greyed or capped first. If the flag is capped the enemy team disappears from the map. They still are "attacking" a flag that cannot be captured and often can't get any transport out because of behind enemy lines.
Also if they can move away from that flag they dont move to the flag with the defence marker on it but to the flag with the attack marker on it. Of course.
On that note: How often have you experienced that a team is capped out with only 10-20 kills ON THE WINNING team? Recently that happened to me very often and no: not noob teams or wrong server or wrong time. People just keep attacking or "rushing" like some call it.

That doesn't happen always, I know. Good teams find a balance between attacking and defending.
But why on earth should we attack anyway?
It only brings risks but no gains.
You have to put a lot of efford in that attack but gain nothing except the slight chance of a capout if the other team is also stupid enough to attack with full force too just like your own team.

Some might say: "hey, players are hardcoded idiots". I say: True. So maybe we should change the gamemode?

People keep attacking and attacking but for what? So often nothing comes out of it and the game is only lost because the players on the enemy team did the same as your own team.
ATTACK, attack and attack....
Maybe the game is won by that, but the game is not enjoyable anymore.
The winning team has no enemies to fight and just cap one flag after the other with nearly no resistence and the losing team tries to fall back but can't do it in most cases, because nearly the whole team is 2 flags behind.

AAS needs to be changed or removed imo.
Bring back counter-attack or just the gamemode "attack and defend".
One team attacks the other defends the flags.
Or at least give the "objectives" a sense, I mean why do I have to take a hill objective in qinling if there are still 2 more other objectives to cap?
Is that PRs war criticism like saying: "See in war you have to die for nothing and CO can say WE HAVE THE HILL 133 CAPTURED but we lost 10000 soldiers(tickets) for it!!".
If you know what I mean...

So after this I post the question again:
Why are we attacking flag objectives?

HunterMed wrote: Bring back counter-attack or just the gamemode "attack and defend".
One team attacks the other defends the flags.

Yes, maps like Kozelsk would greatly benefit from a counter-attack mode without the actual counterattack.

The dirty secret of flags is that they keep gameplay focused and interesting.

Without a consistent objective, there is no teamwide goal. Without a common goal, there is nothing to work together as a team. No teamwork, no PR. That and it's easily possible to go 4 hours in a 2x2 map without seeing anyone but a handful of enemies unless you focus them somewhere.

Also, Hill 133 allows us to construct a firebase which allows us to deny enemies a tactically useful route through the mountains, as well as extending our protective umbrella of anti air coverage.

One last point. Defending is already excruciatingly boring on most maps. It's even worse when both teams settle in for a siege. Attacking gives people a reason to move around and provides entertainment.

If we can concentrate the action, then why not make more situations where one team has all flags, and can set up a defense, with fewer mobile heavy assets compared to the enemy, and the attackers have more mobile firepower, with the defenders having spawns on the flag.

It's a way to concentrate more squads in areas of battle.

google wrote:Yes, maps like Kozelsk would greatly benefit from a counter-attack mode without the actual counterattack.

Exactly.

mat552 wrote:The dirty secret of flags is that they keep gameplay focused and interesting.

Without a consistent objective, there is no teamwide goal. Without a common goal, there is nothing to work together as a team. No teamwork, no PR. That and it's easily possible to go 4 hours in a 2x2 map without seeing anyone but a handful of enemies unless you focus them somewhere.

Also, Hill 133 allows us to construct a firebase which allows us to deny enemies a tactically useful route through the mountains, as well as extending our protective umbrella of anti air coverage.

One last point. Defending is already excruciatingly boring on most maps. It's even worse when both teams settle in for a siege. Attacking gives people a reason to move around and provides entertainment.

I am not saying about removing any objectives. but I think it is not concentrating the fight really.
And the thing about the hill xyz, that is just not true. these random flags pop up randomly and have no strategic position at all...
I agree that attacking is a good objective to get people to work together. but if BOTH teams attack constantly there is so few resistence and you will have no concentration in firefights.
I'd say maps like Sunset city with 1 flag concentrate the fight the best. And this could be easily achieved if only 1 team attacks and 1 defends maybe with the possibility of counter-attack at one point.
But this constant forth and back is no good for teamplay imo. The defenders always are low on manpower and have to yell constantly for crates, support or anything while the attackers just keep on storming to the "objective".
How often in reality two armies try to "rush" to the same objective?
I imagine a war different... I imagine the way that most of the time one army/units are already on a certain spot and the other army tries to take it from them.
But maybe some real military personnel knows that better than me and I am mistaken.

Hunt3r wrote:If we can concentrate the action, then why not make more situations where one team has all flags, and can set up a defense, with fewer mobile heavy assets compared to the enemy, and the attackers have more mobile firepower, with the defenders having spawns on the flag.

It's a way to concentrate more squads in areas of battle.

Exactly! I think that would make the game much more enjoyable for all...
At least some maps should be counter-attack or attack&defend only.

AAS is to center the fighting around locations to ensure fun and action as we'veonly got 64 players on the map

for those wanting more freeform games, please do try CnC

though I think Huge cap radii improve AAS alot to make strategies more about area control than specific objectives

I interpreted the question as more orientated towards the fact that there's no real value in going out and going for more flags. Let's be honest here, if you want to go for a win, it's usually better to dig in and defend a flag rather than risk attacking one. Capping someone out only really happens if you're a good deal better than the opposing team. Why is there no small ticket bleed for having more flags capped than the opposing team?

AAS is very fun its alright the way it is

It's purely for the fun factor of it and little to do with any strategic value. If your whole team does sit back and defend their second to last flag you're pretty much assured a win but not everyone will find it all that fun. I would love attack and defend maps especially if the defenders can't recap lost objectives. Also more maps with assets tied to objectives would be nice since it would add incentive. Like if you secure the VCP on some MSR certain vehicles will spawn down the road.

Pirate wrote:I interpreted the question as more orientated towards the fact that there's no real value in going out and going for more flags. Let's be honest here, if you want to go for a win, it's usually better to dig in and defend a flag rather than risk attacking one. Capping someone out only really happens if you're a good deal better than the opposing team. Why is there no small ticket bleed for having more flags capped than the opposing team?

That's it.
Exactly.

Why not just stay at home and defend?
a) because nearly all want to attack and this is legimated by AAS
b) because AAS says we need to take that objective for what reason ever
c) the fun element (that's a point)

I dont need to cap a single flag to win a game, so why bother doing it?

fun element:
Right, everybody has fun attacking. Me included.
But sadly too many players attack and too few defend. This leads to fun decreasing for all though.
Why?
Team A attacks with 20 players.
Team B attacks with 20 players.
Remember both teams are attacking different flags.
So on both flags it is 20 attackers vs 10 defenders.
What fun is it for that 10 defenders?
And what fun is it if that flag gets capped?
Most of the time if that's happening on public servers, the team that lost the flag is beaten.
The attacking team just rushes from flag to flag and caps it without even meeting a single enemy soldier. That can't be fun for the attackers too, not even to speak of the defending team.

So now you could say: Then players have to learn to prepare for that case. Build FBs at 2nd flags and fall back and all...
Indeed. But what if the players doesn't learn it?
What if the players just keep attacking?
And this is reality in a days game of PR. People do not learn it. And dont tell me it's the server or the time I play. It is too often like that...


Where is the fun in that?
I am extremly sure that all defending players constantly have to moan about their own team because the defence is always losing to that manpower.
The faster team caps and the fun is over for one of the teams.

To hinder that fun to disappear I would vote for a gamemode where one team simply has to defend and can't retake flags and the other team has to attack and not to worry about defending.

I already said the same thing in this blog. To be exact: here

And here a quote from Rhino:

I will be the first to admit the current AAS system with the reward for capping the flags only comes once you get the final flag is not that grate but if you have better idea please post it in the suggestion forums.

I agree with the OP. Either bring back counter attack and apply it sensibly to maps such as Siege at Ochamira etc... - which is why Zatar was so fun, MEC get raped for 45 mins whilst trying to hang on with the commander trying to hold the sinking ship together, then Tanks appear to save the day - sort of.

Otherwise....as I have suggested previously, each team starts with *many* tickets, both factions has a gentle bleed, if you cap far into enemy's half of flags, their bleed increases and yours decreases but at no point does bleeding stop. Increase vehicle tickets loss to make it doubly painful to lose armour and air in accordance to increased tickets, but with greater reward in increasing the ticking bomb on the enemy side.

This would require some mathematical calculations to make sure it is balanced for each map, but it'd focus both attack and defence IMO.

Remove all flags, remove bleed.

Play.

Most maps play out like there are no flags.

Why can Russia win Kozelsk, a map where they are supposed to be the attacking force, without gaining a single flag? Why are there so many flags on Kashan, spread so far apart, that the only time there is flag related bleed is when one team is completely dominated. Is bleed only there to end a map?

See my delayed bleed suggestion in my sig for a way to have area control (by flags) influence game play while still allowing a team to regain ground before a bleed.