[Public Testing] Official rally point beta test has ended

[LionRock]

The more harsh and boring it gets better for me. As long as that harsh and boring is coming from depicting real life and not some arcade penalty.

Afterall, the reason I googled for BF2 mod was to get somekind of mod that is trying to depict reality to limit using BF2 engine. Because I was tired of game called BF2 that plays like arcade. And I paid some $50 for it.

Frankly I don't like respawn either. Harsher the game more serious it become. Firefight will be much more thrilling for mere PC FPS.

That's the spirit. Actually, would be nice to see gamemode in pr with no respawns at all and casualty limit. Your team takes 30-50% casualties and it's game over and next round. Might be boring, might be brilliant

[sylent/shooter]

hmmm... Guys if I remember correctly the servers with the BETA can still play it(?)

[Bringerof_D]

The only maps that worked with the beta are ones which both allowed both unhindered fob construction for both sides, and had quick transport relative to the size of the map. This basically leaves Muttrah, some layers of barracuda, and maybe west fallujah. Infantry focused maps don't work without rally points.

Insurgency, once the strength of project reality, is now the glaring weakness, with blufor struggling to approach their objectives by attempting to produce weak and exposed fobs against hordes of well equipped insurgents. As a result of the beta, numbers on bigd, the only Australian pr community have suffered significiantly (down about half), with a large percentage of players opting to avoid PR until the beta blows over.

If any of these changes become permanent, project reality will die in Australia.

lets not forget that this was only a server side patch, which does not allow the devs to deliver all the changes necessary to make things work, things like map changes or vehichle properties need to be done through a client patch. so just wait for the actual release and see what happens

[doggreen]

With a team limited to 32 players, the number of players defending firebases can significantly inhibit the team's capability to achieve it's objectives. If a squad is defending a fob on insurgency, the cache hunting capacity of the blufor is instantly limited to 80% of their previous capability. If the other 26 players find themselves in an engagement, they will be outnumbered by 20%.

The insurgents reinforcement routes are much shorter, and are therefore able to replenish their forces far quicker than the US. Any rare instance where the insurgents don't win in this situation is generally due to incredibly poor insurgent play, like firing off of unknown caches.

Anyway, you're correct on one aspect; the still ongoing project reality beta (in Australia at least), is purely a game of firebase acquisition and destruction, combat is only the decider in stalemates.

Maybe you do not understand I express myself better

Example Map Muttra City once dominated the docks, flag held by the rest of the U.S. team for the next flag "north" 1 squad defends FB dock the other squads attack north ok!

Domain docks consolidated the position no longer need to be defending the docks squad that made the defense moves to the next FB which should be near North remained there until the next flag to be dominated etc etc. ..

This strategy to understand why some people are saying and others attack is no need to defend all of every fb Built on the map. The Fb to be defended is that the closer to the goal.

Merry Christmas and Super New Year to you all and also to their families much happiness prosperity in this new year is coming.

And that god bless us all

[009783232]

Maybe you do not understand I express myself better

Example Map Muttra City once dominated the docks, flag held by the rest of the U.S. team for the next flag "north" 1 squad defends FB dock the other squads attack north ok!

Domain docks consolidated the position no longer need to be defending the docks squad that made the defense moves to the next FB which should be near North remained there until the next flag to be dominated etc etc. ..

This strategy to understand why some people are saying and others attack is no need to defend all of every fb Built on the map. The Fb to be defended is that the closer to the goal.

Merry Christmas and Super New Year to you all and also to their families much happiness prosperity in this new year is coming.

And that god bless us all

Unfortunately, in that situation, the fob is not actually out of the combat area and is therefore likely to be spotted and destroyed. You're completely relying on 6 troops to maintain a presence on the mainland; one missed AT rocket and an apc later and the mec have won.


Hell, even a particularly persistent rambo could remove your presence from the mainland. One incendiary should not finish the round.

Edit: I disagree that a few simple changes could balance the game without rally points.


Firstly, how would you even attempt to balance korengal in this situation?

Edit 2:
A far better and less realistic strategy is to have 2-3 guys trying to remain as close to the firebase limit as possible at all times. I did this on fools road twice with a 2 man squad, the second of which our team defeated the Russians easily even though we were losing nearly every engagement (approximately 0.5kdr). This was because it allowed the chechens extremely close reinforcement routes, even closer than what rally points used to provide.

[=]H[= JakCurse]

I enjoyed the increased amount of teamwork used when teams had to build multiple FOB's in order to be combat effective. Will increase mumble use as well, no doubt.

To 009783232; Since when has Korengal been unbalanced? It's tactically challenging, not unbalanced. Easy for the US team to win if they play their cards right.

[009783232]

I enjoyed the increased amount of teamwork used when teams had to build multiple FOB's in order to be combat effective. Will increase mumble use as well, no doubt.

To 009783232; Since when has Korengal been unbalanced? It's tactically challenging, not unbalanced. Easy for the US team to win if they play their cards right.

Well, the issue is that it is tactically challenging for the US, and nearly trivial for the taliban. Any decent group of taliban will acquire a positive kdr as the natural range of engagement suits the ak-47 far more than the m4s, scoped or otherwise. With the ease at which strykers and humvees can be engaged from close range, logistics trucks will rarely break a blockade for long enough to produce a firebase for force projection. The ease at which close range ambushing can be done lends itself to the taliban. Force projection on the taliban side is quite simple, and as a result they do not have to worry about making the decision of whether to concentrate on one side of the river, or split their forces over both sides.

[bloodthirsty_viking]

Well Korengal is a little unbalanced. I mean, the US main is almost ALWAYS being raped, outpost is usually in Taliban control, which give them more spawnpoints to flank US infantry. I would love to see how the changes to that map will effect gameplay. BTW Korengal is my 2nd favorite Insurgency map. 1st of couse being Fallujah West.

there changing korengal so, if i remember correctly, the outpost - bigger and remade - is the new main

[=]H[= JakCurse]

I can see how it's difficult for the US, no doubt, but with small infantry groups scouting out caches (and fighting sucessfully, of course) You'll make much more headway than repeatedly trying to break out of the main with solo logi trucks. The map could really do with an attack huey or cobra, I mean the Taliban already have an AA gun lying around... ;D

If the outpost is to become the new main, I can see a lot of baserape happening from those hills to the East/North east of it that tower over it.

[Expendable Grunt]

I think the only real issue is how slow it is to go higher in elevation for the BluFor. It's almost always just an uphill firefight against an unlimited number of enemy -- and they will find you no matter how sneaky you are.

M.

[-.-Maverick-.-]

As long as you stay with the "two men needed two request kits" I will be happy.

[arjan]

Its more a fight over firebases than it is over map sectors (flags)

I mean this all could be fine without flags, you dont need flags anymore.
Firebases are way more intresting...

And i suggest some DEV looks into this;
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... -idea.html
Would make a game way more intresting.

[Expendable Grunt]

You mean CnC mode?

M.