AAS Flag Neutralisation

[AnRK]

I think it's a good idea, but it would be much better if you ask me if bunkers were a substitute for squaddies. So if a flag got taken, a squad would have to wait until a bunker was put up on the flag. Not sure if this would work out all the time due to the amount of flags on each map, and the number of bunkers available (can't remember how many it is now).

Commander wouldn't be a problem, cos in the next patch there doesn't need to be a commander present to construct any assets.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by AnRK

I think it's a good idea, but it would be much better if you ask me if bunkers were a substitute for squaddies. So if a flag got taken, a squad would have to wait until a bunker was put up on the flag. Not sure if this would work out all the time due to the amount of flags on each map, and the number of bunkers available (can't remember how many it is now).

Commander wouldn't be a problem, cos in the next patch there doesn't need to be a commander present to construct any assets.

That's a good idea, but the problem is if it's just a bunker with noone there to defend it, the enemy will just destroy it and then take the flag. I believe the whole premise of forcing players to defend it was to be there when the enemy arrived. If you can hold the flag without actually defending it, it negates the entire reason for implimenting the feature.

[Shotgun]

i like it but on pub matches it would be a great problem...

maybe all 64 player versions could have it implemented that you need people or a bunker/commander placed object to be placed to stay in control...

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by Shotgun

i like it but on pub matches it would be a great problem...

maybe all 64 player versions could have it implemented that you need people or a bunker/commander placed object to be placed to stay in control...

I don't really see why it'd be a problem. Either people do it or they don't. I mean it's like, either a player shoots the enemy or dies. Saying we shouldn't do this is like saying a player shouldn't be killed cuz he didn't shoot the enemy. Sure it might not be the most appealing thing in the world, but in reality forces would be left behind to defend whatever position they took, and sometimes you have to force reality. This idea would force players to treat flags in a realistic manner.

It'd also be like in real life, the forces could choose to just leave it, and not defend it. But then with noone there to protect it it's easy for the enemy to come in and set up a base. Which is why ingame it'd go neutral. It makes perfect sense, and would be realistic. And in the end, realism is what we all want from PR.

[-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba]

the hardcoded attackwish of most players is too serious that it could be handled by just that flag going grey. ive seen a couple of hundret rounds where players got their asses handed out at the end but still even expierenced players dont get the sense of defending.

i suggest to go classic style and benefit / punish a good defence and a bad defence with kit accesses/restrictions. a team looses a flag = loose special kit or asset amount + receive neg points, double the negpoints if commanderorders had been disregarded. defended flag for amount of time and/or against amount of enenies = benefit wth kit access or assets. then, somehow bind the defense work benefit to individual players.

hard and strictly rules to make the players think of whats AAS says : advance and SECURE.
each server i play on(and that means nearly every Northamerican and european servers) i expierience 50 % of rounds suffering utter fails regarding defending. theres no fun, not even for attacking forces, if theres no fight for the objektive.