[MISSION] Siege of Nagara

[mayr]

It's ready to be put on regular rotation on the RGG server. Everything is quite polished.

[galzohar]

I think Nur is just way too far off from the other 2 areas and it's breaking up the fighting way too much. Minimizing the area a bit (by maybe taking out Nur or replacing it with something closer and moving the insurgent main closer) would probably make this mission more enjoyable.

[NuclearBanane]

Originally Posted by galzohar

I think Nur is just way too far off from the other 2 areas and it's breaking up the fighting way too much. Minimizing the area a bit (by maybe taking out Nur or replacing it with something closer and moving the insurgent main closer) would probably make this mission more enjoyable.

From past experience in other PR:BF2 Ins maps, having targets with great distance between each other give both sides the time to reorganize and make the second cache as epic as the first.
When a second cache spawns near the first, the attackers keep moving forward at the same pace and rinse and repeat. However the defenders who are still alive from the defense of the first tend to hang around the dead cache

What I'm saying is the defenders won't move on to the new cache but the attackers will because its their objective however the defender are just looking to put the hurt on the attackers.

Since the attackers are forced to leave the old cache area as it is futile to stay, the defenders also leave meaning you have more players in the central action versus having loads of stragglers at the old cache.

And you cannot say people won't suicide to re-spawn there because it happens even on bluefor in PR:A2.

*Avoids talking about past*
~Nuke

[galzohar]

- Suicide-respawn is not a behavior that should be encouraged by the mod.

- The large distance means that it's more about who re-organized faster, rather than who can set up better assault/defense. While effective organization is somewhat interesting, I find actual trying to setup effective attacks and defenses much more interesting, and when one comes at the former comes at the cost of the latter I'd rather have the latter.

- Just because I don't like a huge area doesn't mean I want a single tiny one where the caches are right next to each other. Save the annoyance of moving the battlefront to a new and remote location, but don't shrink so much that the caches are too close together. The closest mission that demonstrates this sort of balance is zargabad uprising, and even that is a bit too big as some caches can spawn way too far where it requires getting a new FO or 2 up in a position that is difficult to defend, on top of that mission already giving bluefor a hard time to set up FOs due to how it's set up. But it's still way better than the 2 takistan insurgency missions.

Basically, I think the missions need to aim for less time spent out of combat and more time spent in combat. Otherwise, while some people might be interested in logistics for a while, most will lose interest (instantly or quickly) when they constantly have to deal with stuff that aren't directly related to engaging enemy forces.

[danielritual]

galzohar - takistan insurgency maps are the best!

- Basically having to create another fob to engage the enemies of next cache is simply satisfying.

- Everything you said is making things easier for the side BLUFOR since it will not have the trouble of creating new fobs and using transport to move to the next cache.

- In my view, larger maps cause greater realities, it won a game requires work!

If you want ease, do not play PR!!!!


In relation to the map "siege of nagara," I've never seen anyone playing it!
I would really like play it, but I was told that there is a bug in it.

That's it, no offense.