Rallypoint System - Feedback

[Cpt.Kawakowitsch]

Originally Posted by ReaperMAC

Just remember, you can't play v.8 like you did in v.756.

Sure I'll take that into account, but I am still thinking that the RP thing is not very good.

For example I just played Korengal as insurgent, US are searching for the caches and we were defending and so on. And in the search progress form the US more and more RPs vanished even when they didn't found a cache. It is obvious that in the search process the US-Squads are passing by rallys. I don't know if the RP-vanishing thingy is working for the insurgents like for the regular troops or the US simply found the RPs by eyes. But if the RP-System is working for all factions the same, there will be one point, even when the insurgents are able to defend some caches, where there are no more are only a few RPs for them.
Some would say that this is like IRL the enemy forces are moving deeper in occupied area and so on, but this is not the point, because the insurgents can come out of every house even when the area is kind of controlled by the enemy forces. So maybe this is a point.

More to come...

[Farks]

My first impression is that it's to easy to remove RP's now, especially since you can do it unintentionally. There's no gameplay/realism involved, which I think should be. I think it was fuzzhead who said that the PR- team wants to avoid "gamey" solutions as far as possible, and I think this is pretty gamey.

[Noobofthenight]

Admittedly, its not as bad as I thought it would be, but I'm with Farks on this one, you should have the intention of finding an enemy RP rather than just advancing and accidentally taking it out, half the fun was RP hunting

The 2 min cool-down is a bit frustrating too, but it DOES encourage more hiking, cos noone puts RPs that close to the action now.

[Zeppelin35]

It's incredably easy to destroy a rally now. An example was on Rammel when my squad set a rally in a building and then a few insurgents showed up about 30m from the rally. There was no way they would know it was there but it ended up being destroyed. I definatly say bring back the old system. It also makes searching for rallies harder since there is no way to know whether you destroyed it or whether it's still up.

[DeePsix]

Originally Posted by Noobofthenight

Admittedly, its not as bad as I thought it would be, but I'm with Farks on this one, you should have the intention of finding an enemy RP rather than just advancing and accidentally taking it out, half the fun was RP hunting

Before the emphasis was placed far to much on an "Easter Egg Hunt" that detracted from actual squad combat. Remember back in the day when you could still spawn on the squad leader, and all he would do is hide in house or behind a hill and let his squad fight? Same concept. With it switched now, its goal is to create more of a focus on setting up anywhere but moving together as a unit. I hope that it plays out like that, and squads now work together more as units.

Just keep in mind that 0.756 tactics are obsolete now. It's a brand new bag.

[=WFL= Sgt Bilko]

I'm with Farks.

I partly understand the reasoning (RP's in trees and such), but they were managable!

Having RP self destruct just because a few enemies happen to pass by, not even knowing that they found it, is not very realistic.

Easter Egg Hunt, well I'd say actively searching for and destroying a RP is the PRM way of cutting off/slowing down the re-enforcement of enemy troops. Afaik that's a vital part of any war.

[HolmstN]

I like such a change. It encourages the placing of rallies outside of a battlezone. They're no longer mobile battle-points, but rather simply forward spawns.

As DeePsix said, the manner rally points used to be placed has been changed. You can't expect to go putting them in the same places and coming out victorious. With this change comes a new style you have to adhere to.

[gclark03]

I would have preferred a compromise: disabling spawning while a certain number of enemies are around.

[stoobywon]

Well today when I was playing, I killed 3 guys near my rally, but it went down. So my squad couldn't spawn even though I neutralized the threat. So my compromise would be to have the rally go away if there are 3 enemies near it for a certain amount of time, maybe a minute.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Zeppelin35

It's incredably easy to destroy a rally now. An example was on Rammel when my squad set a rally in a building and then a few insurgents showed up about 30m from the rally. There was no way they would know it was there but it ended up being destroyed. I definatly say bring back the old system. It also makes searching for rallies harder since there is no way to know whether you destroyed it or whether it's still up.

I agree. The RP system was perfect before and now it is messed up. This samething happened in 0.5 I believe? Remember the 2-3minute timer for RPs then when they were destoryed or first put down? It was a nightmare and pretty much screws whatever team is on the attack and not defending.


IMO, it should be changed back because hunting down an enemies RP was half the fun and challenge. If you want to keep a piece of land, you should have to fight for it, and the RP symbolizes that. Now, if you are defending, some retards can stumble over your RP and be handed the flag you are defendign on a silver platter.

A RP represents a small area, and no conventional military would would give up that area or piece of land without a fight, and right now, there is no fight at all. This is why Muttrah and Barracuda are very hard for the US to win on right now because it is so populated by MEC or Chinese that it takes nothing for them to walk close to a RP and for it to disappear. And with idiot chopper pilots and no CO trucks, you can't exactly depend on a Firebase to be up if your squad loses its RP, forcing you to spawn back at main.



Also, the 2 minute wait time to put another down is frustrating. As history has shown TWICE now, timers for RPs just don't work. They set a squad back too much and waste vaulable time to defend or attack.