Remove Vehicle Ticket Loss

[google]

When I first saw this change, I was happy. Good, I thought, people won't go willy nilly wasting assets for the team when they should be supporting the ground forces and striving to coordinate more. While the idea was a good one and was made in good spirit, I find that the effects have actually been quiet negative.

First off, if anything, I would like to see the removal of ticket loss on APCs and Trans choppers and not necessarily the heavier assets. The reason is that if they are doing their jobs, these 2 assets will often get killed. In the case of choppers, you're always going to have idiots flying and crashing them instead of being careful. I know someone will come in here and post "if you design a game for idiots, only idiots will play". Well, you're always going to have idiots playing and there really isn't anything you can do about it. Punishing an entire team for the mistake of one person like that is not a good thing in my opinion.

I have also noticed a timidity in the use of APCs. People are afraid to support the infantry because they will lose such heavy tickets. Not to mention that they are APCs, and meant to transport infantry/support them. Giving them a price tag only encourages their mini-tank like usage. Also, the qwai .50 cal APC is practically useless and nothing than a jeep with 8 seats. Why is that worth as much as a cannon APC? APCs tend to die alot if they are trying to do their job, this should not be punished so heavily.

One last negative thing from this is the amount of anger and stress that it creates. "Oh my gawd, you lost x asset you noob" seems to be the general feel in matches. So someone was bested by another player, does he deserve the entire team yelling at him and hating him for losing tickets? Not in my opinion.

Games should not be decided by assets, it's a shame to see the infantry focus degrade in PR because that is really what the game is about.

[BloodBane611]

The reason is that if they are doing their jobs, these 2 assets will often get killed....People are afraid to support the infantry because they will lose such heavy tickets.

I disagree entirely. If you use these assets correctly, they will not get killed. When used incorrectly, they will get killed easily and often.

As far as transport helicopters go, there are a lot of noobs out there who want to learn to fly while everyone else is trying to enjoy a game. There's no fixing it, it's up to server administrators to police the problem. But if used correctly, transport helicopters should not go anywhere near enemy forces. They are for dropping troops and supplies out of range of enemy weapons, not for delivering you right on top of an enemy squad.

APCs are often misused as tanks in PR, especially on maps that don't have tanks. Their crews just drive around recklessly, destroying infantry and light vehicles until they get HATed. That is not using them correctly in the slightest. They should support infantry by using their main weapons and optics to kill infantry and vehicles from a distance, avoid enemy fire at all times, and transport infantry when they need to move quickly. They are not tanks, they are Personnel Carriers, and they should be used as such. If they are used correctly in a support role they will last a very long time. If you drive aimlessly around qwai, someone is going to smash you with a rocket in short order.

[Alex6714]

APCs are often misused as tanks in PR, especially on maps that don't have tanks. Their crews just drive around recklessly, destroying infantry and light vehicles until they get HATed. That is not using them correctly in the slightest. They should support infantry by using their main weapons and optics to kill infantry and vehicles from a distance, avoid enemy fire at all times, and transport infantry when they need to move quickly. They are not tanks, they are Personnel Carriers, and they should be used as such. If they are used correctly in a support role they will last a very long time. If you drive aimlessly around qwai, someone is going to smash you with a rocket in short order.

While what you say is true, what the OP is saying afaik is that this happens anyway, if not more with the ticket loss.

[joethepro36]

I do think the ticket loss for certain vehicles needs to be adjusted. As google said, the heavier assets are fine it's stuff like apc's which cost too much.

IMO an apc should cost the same or 1 ticket more than a jeep. This is particulary apparent in the chinese "A" varient which is basically a big jeep. IFV's should be the ones costing quite a few tickets, but not as much as a tank. I find it strange they cost the same while being weaker (lav-25) and being more vulnerable in their usage (picking up troops).

Additionally I think attack jets should be boosted to 15 tickets each, if used properly they're not going to get shot down while simultenously taking out an armour piece every few minutes.

[Claymore]

Attack jets should cost a lot but there might be a problem with the game engine. There are many cases when this asset can be lost in an unrealistic way. It can fall off the runway and blow up or collide with something during the landing on unbelievably short runway or it can get shot down by an APC. I think that the team should not be punished as much if the jet can be lost this way.

[badmojo420]

"The team should not be punished for the actions of 1 player"

It's a team game, is it not?

I could say I don't want the actions of 1 player to be overlooked. Meaning i don't want the 1 guy with a HAT or AA launcher to only eliminate one ticket because the chopper only had a pilot or APC was 1 manning. Those are huge, expensive pieces of equipment, they should be represented as such in the teams progress.

I really don't think they put a ticket value on assets to prevent the idiots from doing what they do best, rather I think they put it there to give value to a game object. So real players, who play the game properly, now start to treat the asset differently. (ie. taking it back to base for repairs, hiding it, recovering abandoned vehicles, etc)

[Hunt3r]

In a game where helicopters and jets are shot down by lucky tank shots, I think it's preferable to reduce ticket loss of helos and whatnot. Take Op Barracuda, where usually, if the PLA team is competent at all, 50 cal and aa literally blankets the entire island. Throw in a few flipped choppers, and the entire game is lost. Helos can't even do a drop on land, and on water means that the squad will just get riddled with fire.

[Conman51]

at first i saw this and i thought no way, but now i see your point, this is only for AAS correct? i think loosing a APC in INS should still cost tickets, it simulates a sort of morale loss


but i do not agree completely that they should not loose any tickets, it still should count for something, rewarding the team that killed the APC, and what about assets like log trucks and such?

[Hunt3r]

at first i saw this and i thought no way, but now i see your point, this is only for AAS correct? i think loosing a APC in INS should still cost tickets, it simulates a sort of morale loss


but i do not agree completely that they should not loose any tickets, it still should count for something, rewarding the team that killed the APC, and what about assets like log trucks and such?

Well logi trucks should, in theory, count a lot more in terms of tickets then an APC. In reality, you can only extend your battle lines as far as your supply lines. Destroying a log truck should be, in theory, as expensive as APCs, and trans helos.

[google]

but i do not agree completely that they should not loose any tickets, it still should count for something, rewarding the team that killed the APC

By taking down the APC, the team has
1. Prevented a transportation of troops
2. Prevented friendlies by being shot at by the APCs main armament
3. Prevented the use of this asset for X amount of time

I could say I don't want the actions of 1 player to be overlooked. Meaning i don't want the 1 guy with a HAT or AA launcher to only eliminate one ticket because the chopper only had a pilot or APC was 1 manning. Those are huge, expensive pieces of equipment, they should be represented as such in the teams progress.

I really don't think they put a ticket value on assets to prevent the idiots from doing what they do best,rather I think they put it there to give value to a game object. So real players, who play the game properly, now start to treat the asset differently. (ie. taking it back to base for repairs, hiding it, recovering abandoned vehicles, etc)

So, if this chopper/APC only had 1 member why in the world was it exposed to hostile fire? I find your argument odd...

I really don't think they put a ticket value on assets to prevent the idiots from doing what they do best,

So basically you want to exploit idiocy?

[Rudd]

I think the ticket loss was a good idea, but has just resulted in punishing teams that lose assets.

You can do everything right and still lose your chopper/tank etc

So I'd remove ticket loss.

I'd perhaps pop the respawn time for all combat assets (i.e. those that are designed to attack stuff) up by 30% or so to more properly punish teams that lose their assets, since if there's no good pilots on the team the asset might as well not be there, if there were good pilots on the team and the enemy were good enough to still catch them the enemy should be rewarded anyway. 10mins passes in a flash in this game.

But also at the same time I'd modify the hitboxes of all the vehicles to only take significant damage from LAT/APC AP rounds when they hit specific critical areas - engines, fuel tanks, areas of weak armour. (atm it seems more like use LAT...maybe get it in one shot....use 2 and you definately got it disregarding where I actually hit; if I hit a piece of the vehicle that isn't critical...surely the vehicle shouldn't be too fussed?) And this would also mean there would be a gameplay basis for alot more LATs on the battlefield.

All this together would benefit the vehicular experience in PR.

Sorry If I went on a bit there, I'll probably load the hitboxes up in the editor and make my own thread on it.

[Joeziah]

I found that often when we move with the infantry and support them you are still easy fodder for hats, in an APC that is.

10 tickets is fair though, for the number of casualties/ticket loss it can wreak on the opposing team is significant.

I do say that light attack helos need to have their tickets reduced. Heavy attack helos like cobra/apache/havoc should be more resilient (reduce the damage they take in "not as critical" areas and AA)

Supply trucks could be worth no tickets because they are almost always abandon in the field, fact of the matter theres not enough people content with driving supplies to people all game. I know they exist but they are rare, on the flip side if you made them worth 10 tickets your talking about server admins taking supply truck asset wasting much more seriously.

[badmojo420]

So, if this chopper/APC only had 1 member why in the world was it exposed to hostile fire? I find your argument odd...

You've never seen a helicopter being shot down returning from an insertion or supply run? Or maybe an APC after the gunner lost connection or CTD'd?

So basically you want to exploit idiocy?

No, my point was that you believe this ticket loss system is based on the idea that it will stop idiots from wasting assets. Which i believe is false. The only things that can stop those types of players are good admins, and reporting the problem players to those admins. It's a player problem, and should not be reflected in the game mechanics.

In all fairness, you want to exploit idiocy. You want to remove the ticket loss on the commonly wasted vehicles.

I want to punish idiocy. Big difference.

[Sidewinder Zulu]

This is similar to an idea I proposed a while back of having assets themselves worth very few tickets, but the crew/pilots worth more tickets.
People didn't seem to agree with this suggestion, but this really is an important issue and I think something along the lines of what the OP proposed should be implemented, albeit with a few changes.

And saying "use the vehicles correctly and you won't have a problem" is a pretty naive argument.
The fact is, many people don't use the assets correctly, and unless someone has a way to magically make everyone in PR do what they're supposed to, the problem won't solve itself.
Ideally, the game should be tailored to the players, not the players to the game, because most people are very stubborn on the internet and don't want to be told what to do.
I know, it's frustrating, but that's the way it is.

Anyway, I think this idea has some merit.
It needs to be tweaked, because vehicles can't be worth just 1 ticket like vBF2, but it's kinda dumb when three bad helicopter pilots can lose the game for 29 other people.

[Sniperdog]

I'd like to see ticket loss on trans helos reduced or even removed as imo simply losing the ability to transport with the helo is a good deal of punishment on top of the ticket loss that already exists. But whatever...

[google]

my point was that you believe this ticket loss system is based on the idea that it will stop idiots from wasting assets.

This is untrue. I recognize that the Devs wanted to put value on assets to make it a more team-oriented game to change the direction of gameplay. I simply think that it doesn't work and has caused more un-necessary harm than good.

Rudd has a point in upping the spawn time. A team should not be punished in terms of tickets but simply the loss of that asset should be scathing to the team. If you want to put value on assets, make them valuable.

Though I still think PR games should never rely on the better asset users, which is what tends to happen now. It's just so ridiculously easy to kill assets. On maps like Kozelsk, it's usually better to just not use the vehicles because they're too easy to ambush and take out with spandrels. This results in loss of 100s of tickets. That map is almost always literally decided by how sneaky the Spandrels are. This I believe detracts from gameplay.

[Herbiie]

But also at the same time I'd modify the hitboxes of all the vehicles to only take significant damage from LAT/APC AP rounds when they hit specific critical areas - engines, fuel tanks, areas of weak armour. (atm it seems more like use LAT...maybe get it in one shot....use 2 and you definately got it disregarding where I actually hit; if I hit a piece of the vehicle that isn't critical...surely the vehicle shouldn't be too fussed?) And this would also mean there would be a gameplay basis for alot more LATs on the battlefield.

I like this idea, it's similar to FH2, where if you hit the tracks, arse, or engine block you're going to do more damage.

[snooggums]

I agree with google to an extent, although I would prefer a decrease in vehicle tickets. Having both a time penalty and a ticket penalty is too much when you also have the limit on how many are available. APCs are too valuable to use for transport currently because you lost the value of a tank+passengers if the APC has a TOW type weapon.

Tanks, Attack choppers, TOW humvees: 3 tickets
All transports (light APCS/com trucks/humvees): 2 tickets
Supply trucks: 1 ticket

When there is a limited number of vehicles with a long respawn and a ticket loss that makes the asset too valuable to lose. On Kufrah, the APCs always determine the game because they are the mobile anti-tank, worth a lot of tickets (and more when transporting) so their loss determines the game. This makes everyone outside the APC squads only useful for capping flags and killing other APC. Kashan and every other map with TOW type APCs works out the same way. APCs are used for antitank because that is what they are good for. Even on Muttrah as MEC I run APC squads as attack first and transport second because it is much better to shoot down a chopper and 'pay for the APC' before trying to transport anyone a 5 tickets a vehicle (+2 crew).

APCs are the biggest victim of the ticket system because of the point and duration loss. Just give them fewer TOWs, make them cheaper in points and they may be used for infantry transport again someday.

[TheLean]

I think its good that vehicles cost tickets. Thats why I dont fly jets, because I know I would crash them and loose the team the tickets. If it was just the ticket for the pilot im not so sure I would resist that urge to grab the A-10 when it sits there empty... Giving assets longer respawn time instead is a bad idea aswell. Basically, its boring to have to wait for assets. There would also be a more "dull" battlefield with half the vehicle combat if spawns times where doubled. That said, I do think that the cost of vehicles need to be changed. The APC should cost less, the IFV slightly less, the transport chopper slightly less aswell since they usually carry many tickets in the form of passengers. Lastly, the light attack choppers should also cost considerably less since the attack littlebird and the mec bird are rarely used with success. Jets should be made even more expensive to represent their power if used right.

[Mutherpucker]

Humm I don't think they will remove ticket that way, people do know what to do and what not to do