Push mode adjusment. Please add time limit for attacking side.

[Potilas]

If attackers havent got sector before 15-20min, then they lose.

Peace.

[Surfbird]

Elaborating with some examples why you feel so would be helpful. You can't really discuss it when there is no basis to start with. So take a few more minutes and tell why you think this should be added in detail with some kind of argumentation if possible

[TASSER]

I believe the factor of time is built into the ticket bleed algorithm. Tickets bleed far faster for the attackers if no flags have been capped for example. I'd imagine this is the same if they haven't capped out a sector.

Sooooo, what you suggested is already in the mod. Unless...?

[Ts4EVER]

Tickets always bleed at the same rate, except when a side has no flags at all.

[Potilas]

Elaborating with some examples why you feel so would be helpful. You can't really discuss it when there is no basis to start with. So take a few more minutes and tell why you think this should be added in detail with some kind of argumentation if possible

Ramelle for example. When attacking team is stuck around the bridge it is merciful end the round than continue 100% fail. St Vith, Brest and PDH sometimes occur round lasting stalemate what would be wise to whistle of.

I think majority would like that round ends when conditions become impossible to win. Even with balanced teams new element would not harm sector push. Defenders gain extra victory possibility what fight for than always kill enemys to the last man/ticket.

 
 

[Pejsaty]

Tickets always bleed at the same rate, except when a side has no flags at all.

So flag value doesnt have any impact on bleeding speed?

[Ts4EVER]

Nope

[hitm4k3r]

And that's one of the problems I see with the current full-on-attack maps. You can have occupied almost the full map and still lose by a few hundred tickets. I understand the idea behind this to a certain extend but it gives alot of maps this all-or-nothing feeling.

Though to rebalance this stuff would take alot of time and I would rather see eastern front released until we get up to this nitpicking stuff. 

[LuckyOne]

Sounds like lockdown from RO 2... I didn't really like that feature... it was very pointless on some maps, the attackers sometimes just need a little time or a lucky break to get the ball rolling.

But this really isn't fixing the real problem, and that is "why is it so impossible to organize a coherent attack in FH 2?" Is it the player mindset, the lack of communication, the lack of tools? Is it the fact that it takes someone to be playing the role of a totally passive and useless walking spawnpoint? Think about it for a second...

[|7th|Nighthawk]

^ I agree with that. Problem is: you won't change the players mindset, FH2 mumble has nearly nobody using it (I checked twice yesterday) and the SL system is vBF2 style. Now I don't want the PR system in FH2 but at least the Squad leader there does not feel like "a totally passive and useless walking spawnpoint" as it is in FH2. I often play squad leader when I play Forgotten Hope 2. Partially because I want to be in the squad with McKnight and partially because McKnight is the worst SL ever. He always rushes in and sometimes gets pretty good score and caps a few flags but he dies much too often. As SL, you can't allow that to happen so I stay back and try to not get killed all the time. In the end, you are just sitting in a corner near the flag giving your squadmates the opportunity to cap it. That is good for teamplay but the SL gets bored pretty soon and at the end of a game it looks like he has done nothing at all because he does not even recieve help points for whatever contribution he did.
Sorry for the off topic but that had to be said without opening a new thread.

[Surfbird]

@thread:
This just totally depends on the team balance and the specific game. Sometimes attackers fail to attack for hours but manage to break through in the end and the win is deserved becasue they actually managed to break a tough defense.

In other situations the defenders do a good job and still lose because the attackers have too many tickets, but it can also happen that the defenders  win because it's too hard to take the final flags, a time limit would be unfair for the attackers then.

Short: The poblems are way to diversified to change something about it. A big part depends on the skill of the team and on the map, a time limit would help in  1 out of 5 times, and do worse in like 3/5 times. It's all fine imo and rebalancing whole mas and assets due to this isn't worth it.

[Ts4EVER]

Theoretically you could do this by adding attacker tickets every time a stage is taken on sector push (and of course giving them fewer tickets to begin with).

[hitm4k3r]

But it is a fine margin and not that easy to balance if you ask me. To make it possible but not too easy and keep the attackers taking the intiative. If you balance this stuff wrong you get something like PeB. The attacker only needs two flags there to stop the bleeding and can just concentrate on raping inf with the tank thus winning by kills. Commander Arty does the rest.

Difference is that it is not a full-on-attack-map but a normal pushmap. It is a quite complex topic after all and needs good testing if it gets tweaked.

[CHRISTIEFRONTDRIVE]

Truthfully, I think it is way more important to change Sector Push to allow counterattacks than it is to start fucking with time limits for certain sectors. The Germans failing to take the last two flags on Falaise for 45 minutes is far less annoying than the fact the Canadians aren't allowed to attack.

[hitm4k3r]

Falaise is just a big fail in 2.45 anyway and needs improvements/a rollback to the pre 2.45 version for the next patch. Someone *cough* pulled on the sector push mode on this map though it was not designed for it. This map is just too small to allow static gameplay. And this has noting to do with our 64+ player server. Even with the intented player count this map gets annoying as hell.