Delay all vehicle spawns at round's start

[RGG:Dale]

I agree +1, this helps team players who aren't a part of a clan for a start.

I think delayed re-spawns on different vehicles from the initial briefing end would be good too.

with Light Ground assault vehicles first,Then Trucks, then Heavy Ground assault Vehicles, and lastly Air vehicles.

in this way the teams are made to rely on RP's till the trucks spawn(like a skirmish), then FO's are able to be transported to the frontline.

After this Mechanized and then lastly Armoured.

Overall this will break up the blitzkrieg style play you are experiencing. moreover it will hopefully stop people from waiting for a vehicle at base till the point where it does spawn.

[Charles Darwin]

You could make maps where certain assets are objective specific..IE in order to get helicopters you must control the "AA site" objective

in order to get jets you must control airport objecive

in order to get tanks/heavy APCs you must control armor base objective

^^ certain maps only obviously not on all maps as thatd get old


+1 to the OP idea though. 2 minues to get lined up would be perfect, and intrepid i get what youre saying but this would improve team work immensely IMO and that makes it worth the slight imbalance as i want to play on a team work team against a team work enemy

[Beee8190]

Originally Posted by Charles Darwin

You could make maps where certain assets are objective specific..IE in order to get helicopters you must control the "AA site" objective

in order to get jets you must control airport objecive

in order to get tanks/heavy APCs you must control armor base objective

Good one.I like this idea

[Charles Darwin]

Also on A&D maps..defenders should get at least 4 minutes of time to set up Defenses before the attacking team gets vehicles.. not doing this defeats the whole point of this map

[Intrepid]

Evidently you guys don't play enough Starcraft.

20NR
20 Minutes No Rush - Used to characterize an inexperienced player who plays a heavy turtle game and does not attack until the 20 minute mark.

For those of you who want to build big bases and dig in peacefully before getting shot at, you do know there is an editor right?

[[R-CON]Psyrus]

Originally Posted by Intrepid

Evidently you guys don't play enough Starcraft.

For those of you who want to build big bases and dig in peacefully before getting shot at, you do know there is an editor right?

Buddy, after a quick rescan of the posts in this thread, you're clearly in the minority being against this idea. Of course that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion... but talking down to people (the majority of people in this thread btw) is just downright rude and a pretty dumb idea if you ask me. Definitely not gonna get people on-side that way

[ytman]

I have a feeling that their is a miscommunication of ideas here.

Originally Posted by Intrepid

So what we're saying is that there should be no penalty for teams which take longer to organize? If you can get 9 people in cars moving on objectives with a good concept of what they need to do when they get there before the other team, the decisive starting advantage should go to you!

I agree. There is no disagreement here about initiative = advantage and I fully subscribe to it.

What if a squad takes longer to get into an objective radius, or what if a player takes longer to bring a .50 caliber weapon on target? That's right, decisive failure.

Again agreed.

What this really amounts to is an imbalance in initiative. Some players have it, some players don't. That's not to say there's never a time for pace or organization... but at the beginning of the round it's a race for the initiative.

I agree as well. Initiative in warfighting, however, should not be, about zerging in with no organization, structure is the hallmark of any real military. This is a Mil Sim PvP experiment not an arcadey RTS.

Imagine the 2:00 Minute mark to signify the actual beginning of a round, prior to that it was just pre-game-in-game briefing . You nerf no side and give no leverage to any team/squad leader/player and infact facilitate coordination, cooperation, and strategy.

In effect I'm just asking that we replace Zerging with "Blitzing". The difference between the two is Zerging is mostly unorganized and Blitzing is organized.

[Intrepid]

Originally Posted by Psyrus

Buddy, after a quick rescan of the posts in this thread, you're clearly in the minority being against this idea. Of course that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion... but talking down to people (the majority of people in this thread btw) is just downright rude and a pretty dumb idea if you ask me. Definitely not gonna get people on-side that way

Buddy, won't question your majesty's established 'status quo' of suggestions which are here specifically to be discussed. Who exactly am I talking down to?

I see us not agreeing on something, but from what I can tell... you're the one stooping to trolling, mocking me for being the only one of what... eight people who have actually posted in this thread that disagrees with the suggestion?



Lets get around all the belittiling comments. Comparing a viable strategy and gameplay approach to 'tactical zerging' or 'simpsons: road rage' or calling it a 'tactical bum rush' belittles an argument without lending real consideration to its stronger points.

Originally Posted by XxZIOIMIBIExX

i have to agree with this one, good idea yt.
ive seen alot of bum rushing, and it really does win battles XD

If I defend my position here, I'm defending a 'bum rush' as stated above so eloquently. And who really wants to defend a 'bum rush'?. Makes it very hard to disagree with such broad generalizations about people's playstyles.

I agree as well. Initiative in warfighting, however, should not be, about zerging in with no organization, structure is the hallmark of any real military. This is a Mil Sim PvP experiment not an arcadey RTS.

Ytman, you make a false assertion here that rushing off means that you don't organize.

My consistent "infantry squad leader" round starting line is

"Forget kits! Forget kits! Gimme a medic for now. Everyone else get in my truck! Move to me, hop in my truck and if you don't fit get in that offroad/jackal/gun-truck beside me. If you can't find the truck I'm honking the horn. We're leaving time now! If you ain't with us, you are getting left behind."

Then on the way I give a 30 second briefing roughly approximating my intent and our first objective. Fragmentary orders ensue.

Does this mean we rush into the fight unprepared? Never. I move to contact with a rifle squad. We have all the equipment we 'need' with us. Once the FO goes up I dictate kits appropriately. Having a more efficient kit selection dialog for squadleaders to approve/bar kits from use like Charles Darwin mentioned elsewhere would go a long way to rendering your suggestion a lot less necessary.

Following that it's either a) dig in and hold forward position or b) move bodies into a flag radius because for all the heavy weapons, fireteams and tactical bounding overwatch you want to get/organize what WINS and I repeat WHAT WINS (which is the capital objective of the game)... is the presence of enough men holding guns (to defend themselves) inside of a flag radius to achieve the necessary multiplier in order to secure the position to achieve the strategic objective.

Imagine the 2:00 Minute mark to signify the actual beginning of a round, prior to that it was just pre-game-in-game briefing . You nerf no side and give no leverage to any team/squad leader/player and infact facilitate coordination, cooperation, and strategy.

If you want to brief, use the briefing time already alotted. Put marks on the map, chalk and talk with your team. You don't need to be in squads to make a plan. We don't all need two minutes to stand around waiting after waiting to slot and then waiting at map screen.

This is the period in BF2 used for squad kicks, locks and mic-checks. Do we really want to be that kind of community?

It will be just another wait to see who will steal what vehicle from who, smashing a carefully crafted plan into smithereens when you don't get this logistics truck or that gun-truck.

1. Mainbase comms are a disaster at spawn as it is now with everybody talking all at once.

2. Add to the tower of babel the general (true zerg rush) for 'tha stuffs' (mostly sniper rifles and apaches) on spawn.

3. Add to the hubbub and chaos the previously established importance of closing with the objective, not with the enemy.

Look at spawning in as a race. A race to see who can organize the fastest, a race to see which team can get people moving quicker... we should encourage people to strive for excellence by making good decisions quickly rather than rewarding or directly supporting a plodding approach.

If I can get out of the main in under 30 seconds with my squad and a plan and an enemy squad needs 5 minutes (or roughly 10 minutes from slot screen to briefing end) to kit up, sort out and begin trickling toward the objective, why should I have to fight them fairly?


This will overall become less and less important anyhow as more people get good enough at this game that we won't even need a briefing time because people will (like a professional soldier in your 'structured military') have a fundamental grasp of what is needed and of what they can do.

In short and addressing all complaints: If I or YT or anybody else can effectively rush, why can't the enemy counter-rush?

[snotmaster0]

It's really a matter of what you want out of a round of PR. I don't give a flying **** whether or not I win. I care about the gameplay I find within a round. I don't play PR to see two blobs of troops engaging because they rushed out of base and managed to blunder into each other. I want to play a game with organized squads fighting each other. Winning a round in 15 minutes is not fun IMHO and does not fit with the philosophy of PR. I think most PR players would agree with that sentiment to a large extent.

Intrepid, if you can get a squad off and organized in 30 seconds with no previous prep, great for you. But why would you not rather be able to organize your squad and form a plan of attack? Is it fun for you to meet a completely unprepared enemy and steamroll them? Is it any more fun to meet a blob of disorganized enemies? If I wanted that, I'd play vanilla A2!

[XxZIOIMIBIExX]

Originally Posted by snotmaster0

It's really a matter of what you want out of a round of PR. I don't give a flying **** whether or not I win. I care about the gameplay I find within a round. I don't play PR to see two blobs of troops engaging because they rushed out of base and managed to blunder into each other. I want to play a game with organized squads fighting each other. Winning a round in 15 minutes is not fun IMHO and does not fit with the philosophy of PR. I think most PR players would agree with that sentiment to a large extent.

Intrepid, if you can get a squad off and organized in 30 seconds with no previous prep, great for you. But why would you not rather be able to organize your squad and form a plan of attack? Is it fun for you to meet a completely unprepared enemy and steamroll them? Is it any more fun to meet a blob of disorganized enemies? If I wanted that, I'd play vanilla A2!

now this is how i feel about PR as a whole. and this is the reasone i SOUL-LY have PR installed on my comp.

couldnt have said it better myself.

ive played ALL the other "tactical shooters" and NONE of them even come CLOSE to the level of teamplay demonstrated in just about ANY server in PR BF2. but PR ARMA 2.......not so much.

and "as you intrepid would like to call "tactical rushing" (you know i love ya tho) :P
kinda ruins alot of the teamwork because i find that like more than 50% of the time if i join a squad in PR BF2 and the leader doesnt really care so much about planning, it will NOT be as good of a round as if i found an SL who plans the CRAP out of those 2 mins.

so again we come back to yt's suggestion about the delay of vehicles for a min or 2 at round start.