Suggestion- If possible, remove flags markers on the player map but have them still exist. It’s basically the same exact command points that are currently used except players don’t know where the command points are. If possible, only allow the commander to see the true command points that need to be captured.
-Map starts. For each team there is one flag available for capture and is only visible to the commander. All other flags are kept invisible even to the commander.
- Your team's Initial flag is captured. When the initial flag is captured, two more flags are shown to the commander, one active and one inactive.The active flag is the enemies’ first initial flag. The inactive flag is the flag that would become active if you were to lose your initial flag.
-Second flag is captured. This is the enemies first initial Flag. They move to their last flag which was their inactive flag but it is now active.
-Third Flag is captured. Heavy Ticket Bleed begins. ( Game Over )
A problem would be that some people would memorize the exact cap radius of some flags and sometimes correctly assume where the flag is. A solution to this is double or triple the amount of possible flag zones there are if possible.
Commander- The commander’s role should as important than anyother role. Filling the commander role should be as important as is creating an infantry, tank or transport squad. There needs to be some sort of real planning and some sort of real head man in command each PR round. Currently squads just do what ever they feel like and do what ever they think is best. Which is usually rush and die constantly.
Suggestion- If the commander was the only player who could see the true map command points, than all other players are at the mercy of his command. At the beginning of the round, the commander has the choice to just tell exactly where the flags are, or hopefully devise a plan that he think will win the game. He could send out squads together more easily because the squads otherwise have no idea where to go. He can send out a patrol squad to get a step ahead of the enemy ect. The commander can truly command his team.
Another benefit from unknown flags to non-commanders is that squads will be less inclined to Rambo throughout the map ie. APCs and Tanks. All squads can’t easily anticipate where the enemy will be as they won’t know where the enemy is heading.
Infantry Suggestions
Rally points: Don’t serve as rally points at all. It is almost never the case where the rally point is used as a place to fall back to. ( Old ****, thought this up when I was asked about how to change the rallies)
- After being placed, the rally expires in 60 seconds.
- Can be deployed by anyone in the squad.
- Requires 2 people.
- Cannot be replaced for 2-5 minutes
So if 4 men go down( including the officer) during a firefight and 2 people escape. Those two people can set a new rally.
I've been playing a lot of ACE mod for Arma. I've always been a fan of their damage system and wounded incapacitation system. Once your shot in ACE, 80% of time, your going down.
In PR, there is its own system which I'm sure everyone one is familiar with. When your shot , 80% you get this very annoying bloody vision that represents your current state of combat ineffectiveness. Because there is no body drag method in PR, this way of damage system is used.I'm basically ripping of these two different ideas as they are basically the same premise as the ACE damage system.
- Change the effect of critically wounded state. Instead as viewing your self falling on your back and staring at the sky, have EVERYTHING completely black. No message saying your critically wounded. If possible remove ALL sound from the moment you go down, except if possible keep the VOIP squad system.
- If your hit anywhere around the chest or head, you should be sent to the critically wounded state. I don't care if your wearing body armor. I can imagine being shot is going to fucking hurt and going to knock the wind out of you. Fine, if your shot in the arm or the leg, go ahead and bring up the bloody vision, even if you shouldn't even be able to aim the gun or walk very far.
What it achieves (or at least hopefully achieves):
- A more convincing reaction of getting shot
- A better appreciation of your virtual life
I'll have to admit that these ideas are pretty extreme. They are not exactly a high priority problem, but I still think its something that potentially improve overall game play.
Use-age of the new ACVs
Currently, the ACV is a remodel of the UAV command center, but I have some more interactive use for the ACV. My idea would be to remove the spawn points from Fire Bases and creating a mobile HQ with the ACV that will act as the spawn point. The only spawn points that would be in the game would be the main base, the ACV and the rally points.
How the ACV spawn system would work:
Do not mistake this as the old " spawn on APC" spawn system from vanilla; this would be quite different. The ACV would be a crew-able one manned vehicle that one would drive. The vehicle itself is not the spawn point. Rather, one would drop a "spawn crate" that would activate the requirements to deploy a invisible static spawn point that squad leaders must deploy within say 10 meters of the ACV. After about a minute the spawn crate would disappear. Now here's the tricky part. If possible, the spawn point can only remain if the ACV remains stationary or stays within the vicinity. The ACV would have the health of any normal APC that is currently ingame. AT would be effective against the ACV and is still prone to all old Fire Base dangers ( incendiary grenades). When the ACV is destoyed, it re-spawns back at the main base. A loss of ACV can be 5 tickets or what ever.
What it accomplishes:
- A mobile spawn point that can be used offensively or defensively but only one or the other.
- Reduces overall spawn point availability but increases spawn mobility.
Known problems:
I am aware of the old insurgent spawn point system with the red cars. Insurgents would take the red cars and slam them into corners and ally ways to hide them. But the ACV is bigger and still requires a crate to come out the back.
Hud: - Remove Capture progress bar. ( So when the commander tells a squad to defend an area, they don’t know if they are actually on the flag or not.)
The Battle of Ironsites and the Scopes: - Not many people complain about this because most people shrug it off. Its not hard to see that the scoped rifleman is the more popular of kits. What ends up happening is that the only people with iron site type weapons are left to the medic, specialist kit. Many firefights consist of 2 people shooting both with scopes. Worst case scenario- both people are shooting at each other 50 meters away, prone, missing, and constantly suppressing each other until one of them gets lucky enough to kill the other. In real-life, I can imagine it being really frustrating to look down your scope and identifying targets shooting at you. In PR, most of the time you already know exactly where the enemy is and you instantly scope at his location. That's what the 4 second rule represents, steadying your weapon after finding your target.
My suggestion would that the iron site weapon's settle down time be decreased to 2 seconds. In this way, scope rifleman would turn to the automatic-rifleman's way, rewarding people already in position and able to shoot down your targets. It is already difficult to aim with the iron site at long ranges where the scoped rifleman would dominate. What decreased settle down time for the ironsite weapon would bring is more popularity in all maps because the kit more viable. It will support people who like to site in quickly take quick accurate shots and duck back in cover. This would fix some awkward fire fights in PR and get people away from scoped combat.
"Specialized" kits are issued the ironsite gun because it is "balancing" the overall kit, while infact, I believe its creates a negative connotation that most people would not prefer the ironsite gun. Rather that creating a specialty within the kit, the kit itself is trying to reflect game play behavior within the kit. "Being a medic means I'm not supposed to fight which means I'm not issued a scope " "Carrying this H-At means I shouldn't fight which means I'm not issued a scope " Its saying to the player that a ironsite rifleman is not going to get as much action than a scoped rifleman which should NOT be true. The kit layout doesn't issue a gun based on preference but rather by forced gameplay.
Again, many people have complained about, but may have adjusted to, the current deviation system in PR. Though to be truthfully honest the deviation is absolutely ridiculous. You have about 20 guys per team with scopes staring at each other shooting wildly at each other until a magic special bullet happens hit someone.
Even with a full squad of six I have all my men shooting down a street a target about 250 meters away. The enemy crosses the entire street without getting hit! At least with ironsite scopes, you can at least blame the fact that you can't clearly see that your pointing at the target at the middle of the screen.
I'm not trying trying eliminate the scopes. They have their place, but I like to use ironsites more and I want more people to use them not because they more effective, but because they make more visual sense. When using scopes you have this view as if you eye is inside the scope but you literally see bullets going in different directions than when your aiming.
I return with another long and excessive rant! This time, it is about insurgency game modes and my total dislike about how rounds usually play out.
Insurgency Game Mode
- Bluefor die too much
- Insurgents get too bored
- Blufor are too scared
- Blufor revert to stealth tactics
- Blufor believe that Mobile Warfare is too ineffective
Usual scenarios
A totally non team work oriented squad walks directly into the city heading straight for the suspected cache- needless to say, they get wasted. (< - was being a little sarcastic here, obviously brute force works sometimes)
A totally team work oriented squad has APCs and logistics, they have the totally original idea of building a FO at D 8 on Al Basrah.
1. They stay too long and get mortared
2. The APCs get wasted by a bomb car slipping in the rear ( usually )
3. The infantry squads ends up in scenario 1s position
A squad who is semi- teamwork oriented try to “sneak” into the cache area and use maximum stealth tactics to basically bump into the cache- someone needs to explain to me why this is the most accepted strategy
Random thought up suggestions
Blufor – Reduce tickets to 100-150
Insurgents - Remove a “fixed” spawn point
- Allow only one cache to be available to be seen by Blufor
- Second cache must ALWAYS be at least 400-500 meters away from the first cache
- The second cache is the only static spawn point
- Hideouts disabled upon 100-200m interference
- Decrease damage of bomb cars, at least 2 to destroy a APC let alone a tank
What this does- Allows the Blufor to actually BREATHE inside a city and not feel like they are constantly being overwhelmed. Nothing is worse to have cleared out a sizeable area move 50 meters away and being killed because enemies took up the position you just cleared. Blufor should feel more pro active; insurgents always get bored waiting for Blufor to trigger their traps and usually end up doing stupid **** like wandering around the city. If there is only one cache that is seen by Blufor, the fighting is always centralized BUT the Blufor can feel like they achieved something when they know they won’t be immediately be counter attacked within a 60 second time frame. Blufor should be worried about cache location and not “ uhh the cache is INSIDE the city, we better not do shit and just kill people till a easier cache is spotted.
The tricky thing with APCs and tanks is that THEY ARE COOL AS FFFF but are usually either OP or killed within minutes losing a ton of tickets. This is the way I see it, if the cache is inside the city, the tank/ apc should be denied access by mines and IEDs. So if the armor is doing its job by providing over watch for infantry to ENTER the city, then they shouldn’t be punished by having a face full of bomb car to the ***.( a bomb car hit to a APC is a disabled track and turret, second hit death; 2nd hit on a Tank is disabled turret and track, 3rd hit is death) which bring me to my next topic- the ATs!
I already had a hour long rant with Falkun about ATs awhile ago repeating the same stuff over and over
Anti- Tank
-LAT should be more quickly assembled and more quickly be accurate( have you ever tried shooting a rampaging APC???)
-One LAT hit to any APC is disabled track and turret
- Second hit is Death
- The HAT should be new stationary TOW that does not require a FO( something like a deployable carried by a soldier)
- One TOW shot should only disable turret and tracks to tanks, second is death ( APC should be killed outright)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
I like to address the issue that some of you bring up which is the conflict between the ideas of how we want people to play vs what actual happens in any given game. Obviously, there is going to be a vast differentiation in opinions based upon individual experiences and other variables- such as maps
First I'd like to touch up upon suggestions based on ultra ideal circumstances. Such accusations saying a team "sucks hard", based upon that fact that they aren't operating in such high standards that some of you may expect from a team, is a premature citation. Its like you make the accusation without considering the quality of the other team and random circumstances. If one's job is to watch the rear of a convoy but lets his guard down for a few seconds, you can't blame the entire team. Likewise, you can't blame that one player for not doing his job because we cant expect him to stare into open desert for basically two hours while also not knowing if an enemy is coming or not. If one WERE to expect him to do it consistently and forever alert is playing in a fictional world of ultra ideal circumstances.
(repeat explanation with how alert the enemy team is)
Second issue is ideas based on team equipment. Saying a Blufor team should always be on the upper hand because they have guns with scopes and tons of armor shouldn't necessarily mean that they should easily or always win an insurgent map. This is because again we cant put an instant expectation that armor is going to be used 100% effectively or that the scopes on a gun will instantly make it easier to win a small arms fire fight( let alone the fact that insurgents prefer taking scoped weaponry because they are almost always on the defensive)
Lastly, it seems that some of you may not be thinking "big picture" enough. So what if Blufor has a better kill death ratio than Insurgents based upon weaponry and assets. It doesn't mean anything if the Infantry dies and doesn't find the cache because of the high availability of close and multiple spawn locations of insurgents.
Unarmed kit
-Unarmed kit should have a shovel
