So it seem as a few totally mucked up the original because they cannot read, here is the new one.
This poll doesn't represent the community as a whole and does not sway the DEV's decisions. It only serves as a place to voice your opinions of the new rally point system. And really you can ***** and complain but this is really only a place to express your opinions.
Keep it civil, keep it relevant, keep it sourced.
Last edited by Dunehunter on 2010-03-04 23:40, edited 4 times in total.
well i voted for the last option and ill say why. The fact is that PR is just a game and we all play games to have fun. The thing that makes PR different from the rest is that a great deal of teamwork is required for you to be successful ingame. This means in a firefight you're more effective as a squad and i also think it's more fun fighting in a squad in which you can communicate with others.
The new rally system means that as soon as 2 or 3 people in the squad die then the firefight must end as you look to bring your mates back into the game. What was great about the old system was that the firefights went on continuously because each team would be getting reinforcements from each rally. The reinforcements could be stopped with a well executed flanking maneuvre and this made the game fun and firefights worth doing.
What happens now is 2 or 3 people die the squad moves back and lays a rally and the firefight has stopped. What happens most of the time is that squads are killed trying to retreat anyway. This means that a squad has to run 200m+ before they reach some more action. On other maps such as kashan it can be up to 1000m for infantry. This isnt what i would call fun.
Therefore lonewolfing happens more because people get fed up waiting 5mins while the squadleader dies along with the rest of the squad- finally after that they can regroup. This is no fun so people just run off. I have seen much less teamplay in 0.9
Ideally i would like things to go back to the way they were. However i know many would disagree. So i would say as a compromise servers should have the option of softcore and hardcore gamemodes. Hardcore would consist of the spawnsystem we have now and softcore the spawnsystem we had in the last release.
I feel that it works well in large open maps where squads need to stick together anyway, however i feel on city maps it is annoying and ruins firefights, i also feel the new system leads to alot of firebase camping and the like.
It is good in princaple and you do see many more FOBs which is good, but in general i don't think it works with the community.
I love it. It makes players think more before charging into the field. You have to be more tactical about your decisions. Squads are more likely to break contact, and make for a different approach.
Also, it puts more focus on the importance of establishing an FOB.
I thought one important funcion of rally points was to give an impression that there is more people in the fight than just one 6 men squad? If it looks like new grunts are pouring out of a building in a constant stream, maybe it's because IRL one battle, or even single firefight, takes lots more troops than a squad or two.
With a rally point, one squad could make a strong presence in a area that needs to be attacked/defended. Not every footprint will or even can be fortified with firebases and razorwires, especially if an unit have to be on the move. I think IRL it's more common to run into enemy platoon or company, than just one squad, when moving in hostile areas.
So rally point is actually a power multiplier, which is much needed in a game with 64 player limit on a 16 square kilometer map.
^yup, the amount of lone wolfs has increased dramatically this release people are not inclined to care or work with squads as much anymore, the benefits of being able to spawn on their positions readily are no longer there.
It takes away the reward of being a squad member, too much walking involved now, so people instead just say screw it and do their own things solo which are more rewarding for them personally. Not all of them of course, just more than before.
My opinion anyway. I have seen team play take a hit this release in general. I only play insurgency and militia AAS but I have been encountering many more loners.
Last edited by TristanYockell on 2010-03-05 05:59, edited 1 time in total.
I think overall players in general get more frustrated with the new system. We've become accustomed to having a rally point a few meters away from the our squad and it makes game play more convenient. I'm sure we've all died, looked at the map and said "wow wish that rally was still there" So in the end I feel it leaves unprepared players much more frustrated with the game, which can have a negative effect on gamer interest. I do like the intent of the new rally system although I think it needs to be fine tuned some more.
rally point was much better way to simulate that theres more soldiers in your squad/team than reviving system(i have readed somewhere that reviving fallen soldier simulates bigger amount of soldiers)
maybe new rallysystem here:
Because the game is limited to small squad sizes and a fixed amount of players, RPs attempted to simulate a larger squad, but why? The game itself it all downsized to a scale, so to speak. If it were a real larger squad size, the soldiers would not continue to return in never ending microwaves. That is one of the reasons it was removed. It was not, however, completely removed for practical purposes (squad member leaves, new one joins, etc.). It also gives you the chance to finish filling out your "realistic squad size" without last forever. The game could let you deploy a RP even if enemy are nearby. It would be a risk you take, as you won't get the RP again unless you are by a working FB.
The new system is good for games, held officially for Events and clan fighting. On most servers, where we have to play in normal times, this system is completely knocked the players confused, makes SL unbearably heavy, and does not promote team play. Most of the team engaged in construction of FOBs, while forgetting about the main tasks for the capture and defense points. The main purpose of the game players is now a search and destruction of FOBs. Key battles for the point of capture, as in previous versions, virtually none. On large maps, people just get lost and begin to deal with their affairs outside squads.
Battles are not like fighting regular troops. Now this is some small contractions. Guerrilla warfare.
In previous versions of 1-2 squads, on the occupied territory, in a safe place could installed the RP and it was possible to simulate a mass attack point of capture. The defending side had to exert maximum effort and squad work to reflect the attack. Battles were strained. Now the attacker squads, losing 2-3 people, must somewhere to run away, out of combat, seek hiding places to gather for the attack again.
The system is not perfect, neither in terms of simulation of real battle, neither in terms of make better gameplay. So I am more inclined to option number 3. There are positive points and good ideas, but the system needs refinement.
I personally can live with the new system, but I think it should be changed back to old terms. The reason I think this is the following:
The Squad-Leader is just not important anymore. When Im playing as SL I dont really care about the officer kit anymore cause its simply not needed. When Im in a firefight and everyone gets taken out except for another one and me I can do the following things: Kill the rest of the enemys, take a medickit and revive rest of my squad ( Im often medic as SL this times ); Try to retreat and get slaughtered on the way to a "save" position; Hold positions and stay hidden untill they leave and take medickit and revive rest.
When youre getting killed as SL its over anyway when theres no medic around since you cant set yourself a rally when youre dead.
What Im trying to say: The Officer is not important anymore cause for the rare occasions where you have to set a rally for someone joining late, well, unlucky for the one guy. And in every other situtation either the medic does the job or I rage-quit ( lol ). Often there is a FB near too.
When I stumble over a special-kit ( probably even a enemy one ) I often find myself keeping it regardless if Im SL since well, read the above.
Hope I wrote it somehow understandable, still slightly drunk.
From my original "toilet over flowing" forum post:
"Love it, brings the need to build FOB's to the forefront, and forces SL's to THINK before they deploy; "Battle Awareness" is needed and therefore improved....adds urgency to operations...PR has always had it's share of rules and protocol, these are no different...learning is GOOD!"
Last edited by bazza_1964 on 2010-03-05 19:50, edited 1 time in total.
"Sir, I am unaware of any such activity or operation... nor would I be disposed to discuss such an operation if it did in fact exist, sir." - Captain Willard
Voted "I dont like it and the community is having a hard time using it."
I actually don't have a problem with it on the large wide open or wooded maps where FOBs can be hidden and easily built like Iron Ridge/Yamalia for example. But it still ends up being frustrating because my squad will end up seperated at some point or another and if your transport pilots suck, especially on Yamalia you are screwed. But on practically every other map, all the good FOB spots have been memorized like all the T-shaped buildings/under the hotel on Muttrah or easily spotted on small maps like Fallujah or Gaza, so it makes defending a FOB almost pointless.
Another big problem comes with city maps, city battles, and especially Insurgency. You are GOING to take casulties in a city battle. You can be as careful as you want, but there is a reason why urban fights are the most brutal in real life and its no different in this game. Rally points essentially allowed a squad or a team to gain a foothold in or right outside of a city to make an assault. This was especially important in Insurgency where you have the Insurgents and Taliban who have no requirements to build a hideout, just a SL with a SL kit. Now you end up with the Taliban/Insurgents having 6 Hideouts to spawn on, 1 permanent main spawn point, plus both caches and even the SL RPs on Taliban side. The Insurgent side can pretty much have 2-3 Hideouts in one area while the US have 1 big one and easily traceable because the troops usually just go straight in. That gives the Insurgents/Taliban a massive advantage, especially in the city fights. I've won playing insurgency as US/UK/RUS too in 0.9, but it usually comes from 1-2 man squads sneaking into unknown enemy caches dressed as insurgents and taking them out themselves, not 1 or 2 full squads attacking.
Also, battles are a lot smaller now, don't end up in stalemates, and they are very quick, almost skirmish like now. Sure, I guess you don't have to hunt down enemy RPs anymore, but that comes at the cost of having exaggerated numbers because of the RPs and thus bigger battles. IMO, the current system rewards camping because those on offense are at such a big disadvantage. Probably the biggest problem comes from the fact that on some maps, the OPFOR team can win simply by camping the enemy main or supply route and cutting off the BLUFOR logistics. If HAMAS simply mines the roads on GAZA, there is no way the IDF can get their lone supply truck into the city to build. If they camp the roads with a technical, you get the same effect too.
The survival of the entire team shouldn't depend solely on 1-2 guys with supply trucks to held build.
Some things just don't make sense with the new RPs either. What if....
-You use it to respawn fallen squadmates back into battle, but a new guy joins the squad and wants to spawn?
-Encourages the SL to stay back and hide as opposed to take part in the battle which was possible with RPs
-How many times will you actually be in a battle and have a chance to fall back, let alone 100M to place an RP? Battles aren't a big frontline like WW1 anymore.
-What's the point in walking all the way back to rearm it off a FOB when the guy can simply spawn back in and rejoin the squad in the same amount of time???
Well as I voted before I hate it, it doesnt work, destroys gameplay [explain]
I would prefer something totally different than going back to what we had before for many of the reasons we now have a new system. And the current short one time spawn is inadequate. Squads now get too fragmented spawning all over the map even with an SL that tries hard directing spawning. An frankly I’m doing way too much digging and walking. Suggest tie a floating spawn point that stays 150 – 200m from the SL much like Parachuting in some PR maps and BC use.
SnipeHunt wrote:The new rally system has not improved teamwork.... unfortunately.
very true.
when playing PR - i ALWAYS play with new squadmembers, cause I'm not in a clan - I think lots of others also play clanless. so it's very hard - and it destroys the squad-/gameplay completely: people are widespreaded on the field.
So in the end I feel it leaves unprepared players much more frustrated with the game, which can have a negative effect on gamer interest. I do like the intent of the new rally system although I think it needs to be fine tuned some more.
