The lack of strategy features in PR

[[uBp]Irish]

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.

[[R-MOD]Jigsaw]

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.

[Farks]

Originally Posted by jigsaw-uk

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.

[[R-DEV]Rhino]

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:

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

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.

[Demonic]

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.

[Skodz]

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.

[Wags]

Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd

I like that idea alot.

I really like the idea. It needs to be put in PR. NOW!

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

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":P


...mongol....

[[R-DEV]Drav]

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-DEV]Rhino]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude

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.