Teamwork

[RGG:Dale]

The Community is bigger so the bad parts are more evident, the mod is still there, it just requires more like minded people to congregate in one area.

the people who are hard working go one way, the easy going go another.

I know for a fact that PR hasn't changed community wise, it still has like minded groups of teamplayers, it just requires the squad leaders to be more persistent and hard-lined, also I notice that only 20 different players are stating their thoughts, get 100 and you may have more of a point.

You've got to work with what you've got, stop thinking negative thoughts, in fact remove the thought process completely and just focus on what you can do for the PR community?

Maybe the small group who posted on here should set up a Project Reality School, where by you teach everything, from new players to new devs?

Or maybe join Arma PR? i play both, if i get bored of BF2 PR i play Arma PR, two different mods which have their good and bad points but keep you entertained

[Trooper909]

All you have to do to relise why teamwork went down the pan is look at past versions where team work was common place and look at now where it is a rarity.

Nobody really likes to go infantry because PR becomes a walking simulator on large maps witch is why the larger maps are unpopular.Look at the maps that are overplayed all tiny and look at the maps that are huge,server killers.Was the opposite back in the day maps like fools road used to kill a server and kashen was a server filler.

There's normally just one fully functional infantry squad on a asset heavy map and for one squishy infantry squad to build a FOB to spawn on is suicide near the front lines (where inf should be all round).You have to either get a chopper to drop crates witch attracts the whole enemy team to your one squishy inf squad.Unless the FOB is so far from the front that it takes 10mins to walk it will be destroyed in 5mins or maybe 2 random inf may walk past and make it unspawnable.I personalty don't find walking for 10mins after every squad wipe fun.Belive me there are lots of wipes what with auto sniper's, thermals, UAV's etc.Just look how much K/D ratio's have inflated over the years.

Look to the past what eliminates endless walking for inf?

Infantry are the most important asset in PR but the game is very unforgiving towards them.Every asset on the map is basically there to support infantry the only ones capable of capping flags and completing objectives.Infantry used to be allot more self sufficient and every infantry squad knows you cant rely 100% on your support (tanks,apc's,choppers etc)now you have to rely on them witch never really works out as we all know.It never did that much at least has never changed.

[Wicca]

Its an FPS. Its a game, i dont think of men in uniforms and massive structures when i play PR. I try to organize the groups of players on the map, to locate and eliminate the enemy. Why are you being so stubborn on this?

[PFunk]

Its an FPS. Its a game, i dont think of men in uniforms and massive structures when i play PR. I try to organize the groups of players on the map, to locate and eliminate the enemy. Why are you being so stubborn on this?

Because I disagree with you?

Mainly for the fact that you seem to reject a lot of the basic ideas that inform the identity of this mod.

And that when I put the kibosh on your 'its more realistic this way' argument you shift to a 'I don't even care about it being realistic, its about fun' argument.

[Mikemonster]

Not to put words in Wiccas mouth, but I believe the essence of what he is saying is that the maps in PR represent squad level engagements, Ie. the whole map is already a 'Flag' or objective, hence there is no need to give the Lance Corporal (Playing SL as an 'officer') an 'objective' to take as he [presumably]has simply been given orders to sweep and destroy.

As such it's a case of sweeping and destroying better than the enemy, including digging fortifications (symbolising an MG emplacement or trench).

[Wicca]

Its like pointing a finger at a small boat and say. THIS IS A SHIP.

Its not a ship, im not playing real soldier, i am playing PR. I am not going to imagine something that isnt there, thats why i want the mod to be more "true" and honest to its players.

[PFunk]

Not to put words in Wiccas mouth, but I believe the essence of what he is saying is that the maps in PR represent squad level engagements, Ie. the whole map is already a 'Flag' or objective, hence there is no need to give the Lance Corporal (Playing SL as an 'officer') an 'objective' to take as he [presumably]has simply been given orders to sweep and destroy.

As such it's a case of sweeping and destroying better than the enemy, including digging fortifications (symbolising an MG emplacement or trench).

But thats the thing, at squad level you never just drop them in a forest and say 'have at it'. If you ever were to conduct search and destroy missions it would be a minimum of a platoon size patrolling with a helluva lot more *** to support it when and if it did get into contact. If the maps were 1km or even 2km then yes, but PR has shifted, deliberately, to 4km combined arms.

Combined arms implies a higher structure and organization thats meant to permeate the gameplay. This is beyond simply uncoordinated objectives. You can't have a lot of assets and supply and support and expect small units to engage other small units effectively to any meaningful end.

Small units like the ones we are stuck with aren't meant for that. On a 128 player server maybe.

But at its core I still disagree with the implication that 'freeing' the players from upfront critical goals would improve gameplay. It would lead to some fun firefights, but it would feel flat overall. You'd be fighting in your little world as others go off in theirs. It would be CnC but without the REQUIREMENT to actually find and destroy enemy FOBs. CnC has already been a flustercluck most of the time, even with dedicated attempts to make it work.

Its like pointing a finger at a small boat and say. THIS IS A SHIP.

Its not a ship, im not playing real soldier, i am playing PR. I am not going to imagine something that isnt there, thats why i want the mod to be more "true" and honest to its players.

Then what is the point of calling it reality? What is the point of making any attempt to replicate the mechanics of real war? Why don't we just do whatever we feel like and make the guns into laser beams and the jets into sci fi abominations of practical science?

The implication with a 'Project Reality' is that you're trying to create an environment thats true to the very thing you're dismissing. Its just pixels on a screen, but its designed to be played to a great degree as if you're a soldier. If we're not, then why bother with USMC and US Army and British Forces and Taliban et al. Why not just make generic factions with whatever balance we want to create a game thats all about fun and giving people a great time of going out and fragging each other?

There are better ways to accomplish that than cornering us with the requirement that everything we implement in the game has some real world precedent. Every act of balancing this game and adding or removing features is done with that in mind. To say that we're not really here to play war like the big boys do it, to scoff at the notion of us even trying to 'play soldier' is to basically reject the whole premise of the mod!

You don't really want to play PR by your argument, you want to play sandbox tactical frag arena. Its like downloading ACE2 for your Arma2 and saying you wish they didn't make it so focused on realistic details.

Its like playing an F1 game and wishing you didn't have to race with all the rules of real F1. The label on the box is saying "we want to play like soldiers". Most people who play this game are here for that, and usually the ones who suck and lonewolf ARE STILL doing that. Why else is every new player obsessed with Snipers? Its because of the symbol they are in the mainstream perception of the military.

If I didn't want to play soldier, and just wanted to frag for fun, I'd be playing TF2 every day and never look back at PR. Now THAT is a game thats all about fun and playing together and getting mad kills and just laughing at how awesome it is but... even they have objectives. Cap a point, push the cart. The most unpopular mode in TF2 is Arena, which is stripped of all requirements except to kill each other. Even the spammers prefer team objectives.

[Wicca]

But thats the thing, at squad level you never just drop them in a forest and say 'have at it'. If you ever were to conduct search and destroy missions it would be a minimum of a platoon size patrolling with a helluva lot more *** to support it when and if it did get into contact. If the maps were 1km or even 2km then yes, but PR has shifted, deliberately, to 4km combined arms.

Combined arms implies a higher structure and organization thats meant to permeate the gameplay. This is beyond simply uncoordinated objectives. You can't have a lot of assets and supply and support and expect small units to engage other small units effectively to any meaningful end.

Small units like the ones we are stuck with aren't meant for that. On a 128 player server maybe.

But at its core I still disagree with the implication that 'freeing' the players from upfront critical goals would improve gameplay. It would lead to some fun firefights, but it would feel flat overall. You'd be fighting in your little world as others go off in theirs. It would be CnC but without the REQUIREMENT to actually find and destroy enemy FOBs. CnC has already been a flustercluck most of the time, even with dedicated attempts to make it work.


Then what is the point of calling it reality? What is the point of making any attempt to replicate the mechanics of real war? Why don't we just do whatever we feel like and make the guns into laser beams and the jets into sci fi abominations of practical science?

The implication with a 'Project Reality' is that you're trying to create an environment thats true to the very thing you're dismissing. Its just pixels on a screen, but its designed to be played to a great degree as if you're a soldier. If we're not, then why bother with USMC and US Army and British Forces and Taliban et al. Why not just make generic factions with whatever balance we want to create a game thats all about fun and giving people a great time of going out and fragging each other?

There are better ways to accomplish that than cornering us with the requirement that everything we implement in the game has some real world precedent. Every act of balancing this game and adding or removing features is done with that in mind. To say that we're not really here to play war like the big boys do it, to scoff at the notion of us even trying to 'play soldier' is to basically reject the whole premise of the mod!

You don't really want to play PR by your argument, you want to play sandbox tactical frag arena. Its like downloading ACE2 for your Arma2 and saying you wish they didn't make it so focused on realistic details.

Its like playing an F1 game and wishing you didn't have to race with all the rules of real F1. The label on the box is saying "we want to play like soldiers". Most people who play this game are here for that, and usually the ones who suck and lonewolf ARE STILL doing that. Why else is every new player obsessed with Snipers? Its because of the symbol they are in the mainstream perception of the military.

If I didn't want to play soldier, and just wanted to frag for fun, I'd be playing TF2 every day and never look back at PR. Now THAT is a game thats all about fun and playing together and getting mad kills and just laughing at how awesome it is but... even they have objectives. Cap a point, push the cart. The most unpopular mode in TF2 is Arena, which is stripped of all requirements except to kill each other.

Yeah sure. I guess you are completly right. I dont have time to write any response.

[PLODDITHANLEY]

The idea of gameplay outside of a tournament or organised match without any flag objectives or a serious CO scares me.

Already very often we have squads doing strange things I look at them and their kits and cannot see what they're trying to achieve.

Even now on the better servers quite often no one even defends and just last night someone Norwegian was saying 'everyone go to the next flag' leaving no one defending.

If you want to do that run a few more flagless event nights.

[Wicca]

WE WON PLODDIT WE WON THAT GAME!

[Arc_Shielder]

I am going to agree Wicca on one aspect, in that we should trust the players more.

I will open up to the possibility that there's less teamwork than before and I have been enjoying the debate of different gameplay styles (even though little has been referred to why).

\rant

However, I'm struggling with this notion that the new gen of PR players are dumb kids on acids aka COD kiddies. Because not only is COD from my generation (27 years old) - even though I don't play the recent ones -, but you seem to forget that it's no kid with a misconception of a mil-sim (or an attempt of) that will download a mod of a 6 year old game - or the very least, rarely. I will even dare to say that it's moronic to label people like this as it is an easy scapegoat.

I always play with random people and I did fine and have good rounds most of the times. I know where the good servers are.
Just yesterday I typed in squad chat "Why the fuck is everyone silent?". Gimmepeas took the lead soon after and thanks to our squad communicating with others, the team got their shit together. It was easy, although I do not look upon most people with seriousness, they are fairly intelligent beings to play a goddamn game. Give them that through a comment that makes them see that they're not playing up to their potential, even if that means showing indignation with a "fuck" in the middle of the sentence.

Not only some of the users here seem to have unfounded opinions but their egocentric attitude contributes to the problem. Most of you have not presented a reason to why is there less teamwork, other than describing what you do, what you like and blaming others. For PR vets, this is embarassing. It's a ridiculous glorifying of the past and respective personas.

\rant

As far as I see it, if there's really a problem of less teamwork then it must have been something that changed in the mod with time - fairly obvious, I know. So let's pretend I'll assume that such drastic perception of teamwork is real.

The flag discussion is interesting, it sure is as I can see room for improvement in the future. But is it really a valid argument when it constituted no problem in the past?

Map sizes are not that much relevant as I see most servers barely rotating 4km maps.

I think we should return to ticket count + asset attribute changes and discuss how that affects the psychology of players. If they're more lazy and afraid of assuming responsibility than before. Because to me, this the only thing that could ever make sense.

[Wicca]

I dont think there is less teamwork now, then what was before. Before there was no mumble. And teamwork is more normal with mumble in use, due to the fact that its more easy to communicate to other SLs.

This discussion for me is how to make PR more teamwork based, and less focused on map defined goals, such as capping flags and taking out caches. I have always thought, that giving more responsibility to the player, will make him do more. Giving him less responsibility, IE telling him where to win, is a bad thing. The ultimate goal is to kill, and not get killed.

People are smart enough to learn that, "that is where the enemy is, this is where i should position myself" And from that notion, they are also able to remain in a cap zone. But the next level after that is just where is the enemy, and then coordinate with team to eliminiate enemy. If your team does not coordinate, then they will lose.

I have a hard time understanding what you guys mean when you say Teamwork is declining in PR due to COD kiddies. I havent seen any cod people in a while, just the occasional sniper.

[Sgt. Mahi]

... but you seem to forget that it's no kid with a misconception of a mil-sim (or an attempt of) that will download a mod of a 6 year old game - or the very least, rarely. I will even dare to say that it's moronic to label people like this as it is an easy scapegoat.

Interesting point... and a good one too. I think most players a willing to do the teamwork but not many are willing to do the actual leading, which is essential for the good teamwork.

A different point of view is the medic kit... Often I see squads being made in the start of a round who seems to be pretty serious about the teamwork but often infantry squads get dissolved quickly because nobody wants to be the medic or the medic isn't doing a good enough job, which leads to frustrated players who thinks "Fuck it! I'm better of on my own".

Too often there are squads now without a medic. If there's no medic people just spawn on the nearest spawnpoint, thus spreading the whole squad all over the map making it impossible for the squadleader to organize anything...

Keep the medic close and you will keep the rest of the squad close...

[Errant Pulse]

The medic is the center of the PR squad.

[PFunk]

However, I'm struggling with this notion that the new gen of PR players are dumb kids on acids aka COD kiddies. Because not only is COD from my generation (27 years old) - even though I don't play the recent ones -, but you seem to forget that it's no kid with a misconception of a mil-sim (or an attempt of) that will download a mod of a 6 year old game - or the very least, rarely. I will even dare to say that it's moronic to label people like this as it is an easy scapegoat.

I've personally never bought into the 'mainstream infection' theory. It is true that those kinds of players have no idea how we play. I watched an obviously console based gamer reviewing BF3 during Beta and he said he wasn't a Battlefield fan either, meaning he never played, meaning he was a CoD fan, and as he ran around dolphin diving he kept complaining about how he got killed as he ran around corners with no conception of cover. He thought he'd out played a guy by running around a corner and prone diving and turning around to shoot him.

However that kind of player isn't our problem. My feeling is that most people are just not very dedicated, even if they're interested. A lot of players really aren't very smart about gameplay. They crest ridges, they walk far and away from their squads, they aren't snappy about doing what the SL says and their situational awareness is really god awful. I was tasked with overwatching my squad while playing the AR and I had one guy left with me to cover my back. I ended up looking behind me and shooting a guy, instead of it being my cover man who was supposed to be doing that. He had clear instructions and still couldn't help himself from doing that tunnel vision thing of looking straight towards the direction of travel that the squad was moving in, even if he was not moving at the time.

Players are dumb and it takes exceptional patience and personality in an SL to push them to play smarter. Its also impossible a lot of the time if they're just not willing to put the effort into being better.

I have no solid theory as to why its 'declined' in recent times, the quality of gameplay, but I suspect that if in the past things were actually better that perhaps it was the departure of a lot of great leaders that lead to this situation. Maybe our SLs just aren't as numerous or as high quality as they used to be. But then I have nothing to substantiate this.

I think we should return to ticket count + asset attribute changes and discuss how that affects the psychology of players. If they're more lazy and afraid of assuming responsibility than before. Because to me, this the only thing that could ever make sense.

I think that part of it may be that some of the subtle changes have affected team play. Overall fun has been sapped at times by retarded flag reorganizations on certain maps in new versions. Little balance shifts. For all we know we had a nice balance of teamplay and fun in a game version that was far from our goal for realism.

Maybe we're in the interregnum before the next 'happy time' comes again. Or not. Who knows. All I know is that I try to create the best atmosphere in my squads and work with anyone who will. Sometimes though its a dry well on some servers.

This discussion for me is how to make PR more teamwork based, and less focused on map defined goals, such as capping flags and taking out caches.

And as I continued to counter-point you you acted like I was being mean. Its gonna take a lot to convince these guys that a military game would be better without an objective.

I have always thought, that giving more responsibility to the player, will make him do more. Giving him less responsibility, IE telling him where to win, is a bad thing. The ultimate goal is to kill, and not get killed.

In my experience its the opposite. Responsibility without direction means that you end up with people as left and right as possible. Some will do this, some will do that. Some will play smart, some will indulge their desire to just 'fuck around' with assets or something. Without the impetus of "we have to cap that before they push us back to the bleed flag" then its much harder to rationalize why someone is hurting the team by not doing what someone is saying.

You don't believe Commanders are necessary Wicca. With no objectives, and no commanders, how do you expect squad leaders to agree on what to do? Every single thing every SL sees becomes the only important thing going on in the map because they're in thier little bubble. At least with a flag you can see that you're winning or losing and can gauge the value of your little firefight to towards the larger teamwide effort. Maybe you should kill these guys, maybe you should disengage and get to the objective. We have cache intel so its probably not worth it to chase these insurgents down who are half a map away from where the team is staging to attack.

People are smart enough to learn that, "that is where the enemy is, this is where i should position myself" And from that notion, they are also able to remain in a cap zone. But the next level after that is just where is the enemy, and then coordinate with team to eliminiate enemy. If your team does not coordinate, then they will lose.

I don't see why having flags mitigates the need to coordinate over the destruction of the enemy. The problem with flags most of the time is that teams don't coordinate so you end up with guys just being on the flag to keep from losing as others go off and gratify themselves with some kills in buttfuck4kp6. When you have a team actually working together you're not just gonna sit on the flag, you're gonna be moving all over the place, fighting to get an advantage over the enemy, hit him as he attacks your flag, or attack his supply routes so you can keep him from getting a FOB up on the flag you're attacking.

Describing it in such a way that we should remove flags so that we can focus on working together to kill noobs as a team is saying the new version of PR should be:

Project Reality: Team Deathmatch

I find it hard to describe your idea in any other terms. There is no game out there that has no objectives aside from killing the enemy which isn't called a "Deathmatch mode". Deathmatch is the simplest and least intellectually stimulating mode of combat. Its the lowest level. The highest level is being able to play a killing game and refraining from killing someone cause it hurts your ability to achieve your objective.

PR has reached the level of the latter. Games that we all hate tend to be the former.

[Wicca]

I actually think flags have made us unimaginative. Sure on the squad level of combat, alot of people are extremely pro atm. But team cohesion to eliminate and destroy the enemy is just as fun.

Flags makes for stale repetetive gameplay, i have seen that so many times. I dont know what to say mate. But the idea of COs is just "he is in command" but he doesnt have to be in the CO seat to be in command, He can be a SL. People do that on alot of servers.

The idea that PR is a capture the flag game, creates the illusion that the game is about capturing flags, not communicating and coordinating.

I never said i belived in objectives btw, i just dont want flags as objectives. Who is wrong to say that an APC/Tank/Infantry/FOB is not an objective?

PRTA does great with flags. But i think we are all abit tired of fighting over kashan bunkers 100 times. It would be a nice change to have no restrictions to movement in the form of flags, fobs or caches. But be free like the Bluefor teams in INsurgency. Find the enemy, kill the enemy.

I think its the new big thing. Sure its nice to fight over flags, but i have had enough. I want freedom of movement without feeling guily, without feeling responsible for the team, i would rather follow other squads around and killing the enemy team in awesome firefights.

CnC and Insurgency are the closest, but its like that, only without caches or fobs being important. You the team, and the enemy team, are the only important thing.

[KiloJules]

Even though I see both sides of the medal I have the strong feeling that without flags or in general "objectives given by game mode" the game would become what PFunk talked about.

Why I think that is the well known situation without a known cache. You know what happens most of the time. Blufor is most likely to spread out all across the map, loosing precious tickets, trying to find an unknown instead of forming some sort of a frontline and engaging opfor to "shoot some intel". I remember countless games when exactly this costs blufor victory. Cause the loner tank gets destroyed in A1 while Infantry 1, 2 and 3 get slaughtered in A13, M1 and M13 and elite-sniporz getting raped on the highest building there is. For me that is a sign what would happen, if you would remove the objectives. Everyone would be fighting over their favorite landmark. Somehow I feel that the objectives are like democracy. Not the best but the only thing that works

Although I would be totally interested to see how I would behave and how it would turn out along Wiccas' idea! It might just be the other way around and form a completely new style in how maps are played.

[PFunk]

Flags makes for stale repetetive gameplay, i have seen that so many times. I dont know what to say mate. But the idea of COs is just "he is in command" but he doesnt have to be in the CO seat to be in command, He can be a SL. People do that on alot of servers.

Well like I said with objectives its easier to agree on what to do as a group. With no objective theres less to unite the team tangibly. Either any random Infantry marker becomes a rallying cry that could end up just being nothing, or SLs will disagree on what they want to do. Like KiloJules said, in INS when there are no caches you don't see the team coordinating whatsoever most of the time to collect intel. They only muster when there's a big red thing on the map around which EVERYBODY is focusing cause its staring them in the face! Now, a CO could change that. He can have the imagination and the focus that cuts through the BS. It can happen, but the less you provide direct incentives towards teamwork like an objective the less likely SLs will spontaneously work as a unit. You plant an infantry marker on the map you don't see everybody rally on INS with no intel.

As for imagination, thats not gonna change with a different system. People generally have it or they don't. The freedom of choice rarely changes anything unless the map layout really locks you in. I'd say a map like Korengal is less imaginative just because of the strict controls on movement. A map like Fool's Road however... thats a pretty sexy bit of 4x4 to walk around in with or without flags.

The idea that PR is a capture the flag game, creates the illusion that the game is about capturing flags, not communicating and coordinating.

I don't see how stripping it down to killing stuff and that alone would improve the need for comms. If anything a deathmatch scenario relieves you of a lot of that need because without flags the teams are more likely to spread out to find each other and fight in smaller units. You're more likely to not need support or possibly even win or lose the firefight before the choppers drop your friends nearby.

I never said i belived in objectives btw, i just dont want flags as objectives. Who is wrong to say that an APC/Tank/Infantry/FOB is not an objective?

The depth of a varied and interesting game for me is that I can choose to engage or not. That I may say 'don't shoot at them, we don't want them to know we're here'. That can be pretty exciting. Its also really challenging trying to gauge whether or not its expedient to engage or not, and trying to be as ninja as possible and CONTROL your contact with the enemy. Deathmatch to me just strips those possibilities away.

PRTA does great with flags. But i think we are all abit tired of fighting over kashan bunkers 100 times.

On Kashan if you're infantry and you're anywhere but in those bunkers you're probably CAS fodder. In many ways Kashan is a map that wouldn't change much with no flags. Infantry would get raped outside or have to babysit a bunker EXCEPT there'd be no impetus to go outside until the jets owned the skies and then you'd just kill isolated pockets of infantry and... well pretty much everything else stays the same.

I think also the new AAS shakes things up a bit. Newer maps are now designed with the specific intention of having dozens of flag layouts, while before it was a set piece so they don't always play as well with random AAS.

To me PR has so much depth, you can go kill stuff, you can defend/attack objectives, you can gather intel, you can work together, and play it ninja behind the lines. I think removing objectives would really create a fascist and UNIMAGINATIVE gameplay system. Everybody would end up doing the same thing. There'd be no mission variety. I'd get bored cause it would be aimless and if the team STILL sucked there'd be nothing for me to do thats as fun as capping a flag if the rest of the team has no imagination.

Bear this in mind also Wicca. Not every round of PR has 6 competent Mumble SLs on either side. There are shitty *** rounds now that have nothing to do with the flags or anything else. They're awful rounds cause the players are just uncoordinated and you don't have enough 'good guys' on to make it work. You get rid of flags and you end up with like 1 or 2 good squads against a team of 4 or 5, without a hard objective those 2 squads are now way more outnumbered. In one post you said you didn't like flags because the better coordinated team won everytime usually (or something to that effect). Well... at least with a flag you can defend a flag with fewer people and make a fight of it. In an open game with no rules having no proper coordination with most of the team against one that does is like playing 32vs16.

No matter how you slice the game you're not gonna change bad players. You're not gonna make people more interesting. And if they still suck taking away my flag means I have no objective to play around if my team refuses to play with me (and that happens all the freaking time!). If there's no objective and the game relies on teamwork that doesn't always run 100% on teams in pubs then I'm just gonna disconnect and go find another server, probably the one still running a flag map.

[saXoni]

How are you supposed to trust players more when this community is filled with untalented, bad players?

[TheComedian]

@Pfunk

I find most of your posts too long to read. You should try to make your point as short and clear as possible.