project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 General Discussion
17 Dec 2017, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 General Discussion General discussion of the Project Reality: BF2 modification.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2009, 05:07 PM   #21
snooggums
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedAlertSF View Post
Capping radius is not fine right now, most of the flags should have capping radius of around 200 meters, but the ones in specific buildings should have very small radius, like 50 to 100 meters. (Warehouse on Assault on Mestia for example)

I think it would be great to get more possibilities, where to attack. Especially on assault maps (Muttrah, Barracuda, Jabal).
AoM is a control area map now, not a location specific flag type.

snooggums is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 08:59 PM   #22
Ragni<RangersPL>

Ragni<RangersPL>'s Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

If you really want to know...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd View Post
1) Placement of flags
AASv2 vs AASv3
I like both AASv2 and AASv3, it really depends on the map itself. Some maps are good with both game mods some maps are good only with one of them. The only thing I don't like is some "tactically useless" flags in AASv3... I like to capture something that looks tactically important TBH. For me it's a huge difference between capturing oil production facility or bunker complex then just some random hill with nothing but grass and trees on it

Cap zones radii.
IMO, cap zone radius should represent the actual area of captured objective. If it's a single flag in the small city or a flag representing a part of the bigger city then I'm fine with large cap radius even up to 150-200m per flag... but if it's a some kind of storage bunker in the middle of forest then it should be relatively smaller and the cap radius should represent the area of that structure/complex without large part of the surrounding forest.
Why? Because if your objective is to capture enemy building (and by capture I mean going in to that structure, kill defenders and set defence on the perimeter) then you shouldn't consider yourself as someone who capture it while standing 200m away from that building in the middle of the forest doing nothing, right?
Another thing... players limit. You can have only 32 players (at most) per team.... 32 players max. With huge cap zone your forces are overstretched and you also need couple squads to attack so you can't have all 32 players to defend objective. There are 2 objectives on mestia and it's even worse there... 16 chechen players per objective within 380m (or 360m?) cap zone.... too few IMO to defend that area

I prefer smaller cap radius like 75-100m max. and exactly defined objectives in AAS, even if it means more control points on the map. It makes the fire fights more intense and on the larger scale within players view distance because there is higher "density" of players in the flag area. That's why maps with smaller cap zones have more so called "epic fights". There is a huge difference between fighting side by side with two other squads in the same area within visual contact with each other and the same fire fight with two other squads without visual contact somewhere within 300m cap zone.
If you had some epic fire fights before then you know what I'm talking about, it gives you that feeling of you being a part of the bigger war machine

BTW. The small cap zone doesn't mean you can't defend or attack from whatever direction or position you want. The difference is that you can't capture the objective without eliminating the enemy resistance first and the enemy can't block you with instantly spawned reinforcements on a rally point or FOB build inside the cap radius.... which is more realistic then capturing the objective without eliminating enemy first just because you've got more players inside the cap zone then the enemy has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd View Post
2) Order of Capping
Some more variety on capping order would be nice... instead of standard:

A + B + C + D = Win!

Maybe something like:
A + B&C + D = Win!
or
A + B&C + D&E + F = Win!
or
A + B&C + D + E&F + G = Win!
or
A + B&C + D + E + F&G + H = Win! (old Qwai river layout )
or
A&B + C + D = Win!
or
A&B&C + D&E + F = Win! (yeah I know, "whack a mole" but worth to try )

In other words a little more variety then simple linear capturing order for both AAS2 & and AAS3 would be nice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr2B Rudd View Post
3) Uses of bleed
Bleed effect could be used on double assault maps more often (two main bases + neutral flags). Because bleed effect is forcing people to increase their efforts in fight to win the round....Slight bleed should start if the enemy team has more flags captured then your team have and the bleed would increase if the difference between captured flags is growing.
On beach assault map the bleed for assaulting team would be in effect until the first flag is captured, the next flag in capturing order would be without bleeding but the third one if captured by assaulting team would start a bleed effect for the defending team (to motivate them to repel the assault).

There is also a down side of the bleed effect... exactly the opposite reaction of players if the enemy has majority of flags because there is no chance for counter attack with the chance to win the round, so some players would simply give up...

Quote:
Originally Posted by snooggums View Post
AoM is a control area map now, not a location specific flag type.
Area control could be an another game mode or at least an alternative layer. You could have one huge cap zone in the middle of the map and two main bases without possibility to capture them if you really want to have a real area control map
IMHO (and not only mine) previous AoM was almost perfect map... I'm not a big fan of the current flag layout TBH and old Mestia was one of my favourite maps before PR 0.8.

That's all for now

RANGERS LEAD THE WAY!!!
Do not post stupid suggestions just because you had a bad round in PR
Ragni<RangersPL> is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2009, 09:09 PM   #23
bloodthirsty_viking
Send a message via Yahoo to bloodthirsty_viking Send a message via Skype™ to bloodthirsty_viking
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

i dont quite like the huge area flags, i like the 200 metter flags- 300 meter flags,

and i dont like the kolzek example, just becuase of epic rounds you have in the tunnels.

we came up, grabbed tunnels, my squad and one other defended, the other squads set up at main to attack.

sure, we held the tunnels, but if the enemy had 3 more ppl atacking us, we would have lost the tunnels. they tunnels are epic battles, and the multiple flags kinda limits gameplay in my opinion, becuase its more spread out and more.... unepic...

if it was 200 meter- 300 meter flags, that went from
.....A
X<....>B <-- that kinda thing i like better, big flags arranged like that. you can cap only x, then you can
.....A cap both a's, then after that the last ditch effort for the losing team at b.

but thats just me, everyone has diffrent playstyles.

bloodthirsty_viking is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 12:10 AM   #24
ChiefRyza

ChiefRyza's Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

Well the main point we tried to put across in our thread is that cap radius' are far too large for some maps. The fact that you can cap without combat is a big no-no. You can still defend the surrounding area of a smaller cap radius but when you have matches where you win just by running into a 300m zone in the middle of nowhere (Fools Road Cap zones for example, these make for very, very repetitive gameplay).

More cap zones give more objectives, which means focusing the players a server has into a specific attack and defend area. As I also said in that thread, it might sound linear but you still have the option to attack from any direction. A building for example as others have said shouldn't be capable from a forest 100m away.



Current project: Operation Tempest
ChiefRyza is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 07:09 AM   #25
RHYS4190

RHYS4190's Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

I often wounder what PR would be like if it was not solly centred around Flag's.
RHYS4190 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2009, 07:33 AM   #26
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Supporting Member

Rudd's Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RHYS4190 View Post
I often wounder what PR would be like if it was not solly centred around Flag's.
CnC mode


Rudd is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 05:40 PM   #27
chimpyang

chimpyang's Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

To solve the attacking problem - how about a upwards slow 'bleed' or gain of tickets with each team starting with only a limited number - say 50. Then you gotta be careful at the start with your life AND there is an incentive to cap flags.

You obviously need to find balancing value bleeds for each flag - to ensure an evenly matched game lasts long enough to be fun - whilst preventing overexertion through a stricter time limiter. Or limit the number of tickets a flag can give - with the counte running down as each team withdraws tickets from the flag 'bank'

Otherwise - create a lot of overlapping flags to cover a 2 km x 2 km map/area of expected combat- and delay flag capture information by 30 seconds. Also make it compulsary to have a rally point in flag cap radius to move the bar. Then get rid of the 3 person rally destroy distance thing whilst keeping the deaths near rally effect.
chimpyang is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 06:19 PM   #28
snooggums
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by chimpyang View Post
To solve the attacking problem - how about a upwards slow 'bleed' or gain of tickets with each team starting with only a limited number - say 50. Then you gotta be careful at the start with your life AND there is an incentive to cap flags.

You obviously need to find balancing value bleeds for each flag - to ensure an evenly matched game lasts long enough to be fun - whilst preventing overexertion through a stricter time limiter. Or limit the number of tickets a flag can give - with the counte running down as each team withdraws tickets from the flag 'bank'

Otherwise - create a lot of overlapping flags to cover a 2 km x 2 km map/area of expected combat- and delay flag capture information by 30 seconds. Also make it compulsary to have a rally point in flag cap radius to move the bar. Then get rid of the 3 person rally destroy distance thing whilst keeping the deaths near rally effect.
What would stop the ticket increase? Would it just count for say 250 tickets? I do like your required rally to cap to show you control the area, but the current you must have 2x the enemy to cap requirement fulfills the same purpose.

snooggums is offline Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2009, 07:09 PM   #29
Rudd
Retired PR Developer
Supporting Member

Rudd's Avatar
Default Re: Flags, how do you like them?

that would be interesting...a ticket gain for defence flags like barracuda

would definately give teh Chi an incentive to regaine their lost positions


Rudd is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
flags
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:23 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2015, Project Reality.