Remove ticket penalty for Vehicles

[Arnoldio]

i wrote a whole long paragraph on this, but then i boiled it down to this: ive been in plenty of game where the armor was doing there job supporting the inf, but we lost anyways because the inf couldn't hold it together. does this mean i can start a thread for removing the ticket penalty on wound?

I think we can agree that the most effective use of asset is transport helicopter. They do what they are supposed to, though some choose bad LZs. There is also noob pilots crashing but if you play on right servers, thats not happening.

[Murphy]

Surviving contact is something you do when the contact is surprising, defenders survive. Asset players don't survive, they seek and engage contact with the enemy at the cost of supporting the infantry.

I don't suppose you and I will come to an agreement though, I learned a long time ago that proponants of league play nearly never care about the public matches, and want the game balanced around their much less widespread way of doing things.

Perhaps tournament players and public matches need different data tables for everything

First paragraph is pure BS, quit being difficult for the sake of it. You must be new, or bad at this game and I am assuming you have never once played with me. Actually everything I quoted is off base.

I actually spend 90% of my time in PR on public servers, and quite often I am not with my clan-mates so I generally join a random squad then stfu and listen to SL. I have seen very little balance issues when it comes to heavier assets engaging infantry, except when they are forced into a bad situation with bad intel on enemy counter measures (which is the vast majority of times because the inf SL doesn't give a shit about his assets survival he only thinks of his own squad).

Perhaps you should stop assuming so much and do some digging. I mean how often can a clan organize matches? I don't think there is even "league play" for PR at present (Tart was a nice try but seemed to have failed), so what is this "perfect world" you speak of? I, like you guys, play public games the VAST MAJORITY OF TIME so I know all to well how things operate when it's complete strangers trying to work together.

That being said there has been little to no comments that merit this change other then the fact that you believe it will somehow change the way players play, which is not possibly. Idiots (like me) will remain idiots till we die, ty.

[ShockUnitBlack]

Seems like a good time to bring up what I've been pencil pushing for ages now - the commander having the ability to "purchase" vehicles in exchange for tickets, with no restrictions on respawn time.

This would solve this issue in its entirety and be a big, innovative step forward for PR.

[mat552]

Truth be told Shock, I'm really squeamish about putting one player in such a critical position. Teams can compensate for a CO who's issuing orders from fantasyland and refusing to support the team because they won't do whatever insane thing he dreamed up. I think it would be a pretty frequent occurrence on a lot of servers for a player to set his buddies up with as many helicopters or jets as they can crash and ignore the rest of the team, and do the absolute bare minimum to not get kicked. Did you have any ideas about how to curtail that?

Murphy, you're not an idiot, idiots answer in two word sentences with broad generalizations, and you have specific, well voiced concerns. I think we're both stubborn and colored by our game experiences, neither of us is more right than the other about this.

[Cassius]

Murphy, you're not an idiot, idiots answer in two word sentences with broad generalizations, and you have specific, well voiced concerns. I think we're both stubborn and colored by our game experiences, neither of us is more right than the other about this.

It boils down to 2 schools of though. One side focuses on punishing nubs, the other side wants to do away with the tickets cost for armor, so that staying away from infantery and game objectives and hunting down costly enemy assets is not the best approach teamplay oriented players must pick most of the time, to effectively help their team.

Its time to settle this devide the way mature responsible adults did before us and follow their example *straps on bomb belt* .

[Mantak08]

It boils down to 2 schools of though. One side focuses on punishing nubs, the other side wants to do away with the tickets cost for armor, so that staying away from infantery and game objectives and hunting down costly enemy assets is not the best approach teamplay oriented players must pick most of the time, to effectively help their team .

i firmly believe the increasing the survivability of armor would make them support inf more. have a HAT round to the front track the turret, to the side track the wheels, and to the back kill it. i firmly believe that armor is a very important part of the game and the ticket value of these assets needs to reflect there game changing potential.

[SGT.Ice]

Skipping through comments, people seem to be going Off topic and into a raging flame war. How about we get back to the OP's suggestion or improving/reforming it.

[Murphy]

Skipping through comments, people seem to be going Off topic and into a raging flame war. How about we get back to the OP's suggestion or improving/reforming it.

Not sure if you read the thread but we are actually moving forward with the discussion albeit at a slightly more aggressive tone then some other conversations on this forums, but the vast majority of posts bring valid points from both sides of this argument.

As it stands now I would be afraid to see the loss of tickets because the assets will essentialy become giant noob cannons, which I fear will be lost within 5-10 minutes of their spawn in a continuous cycle of spawn/lose.

Others seem to believe it will encourage supporting other units on the ground, thus bringing more cohesion between asset crews and infantry guys needing more firepower.

At present neither side has much merit to our arguments, as we are basing everything off of hypothetical scenarios and trying to drawn conclusions based on our own personal gaming experiences in PR (not easy, and surely not accurate).

[40mmrain]

Just so I can gauge opinions.

Does anyone else feel as if the armour in PR is actually done very well, and doesnt wish to see things changed? Or does everyone think its **** besides me.

[ShockUnitBlack]

There's a lot of improvements that could be made (FH2, for example, accounts for the angle a shell hits the vehicle's armor at and a large number of PR's vehicles, at least as far as I'm aware, no longer have destructible tracks, etc).

Truth be told Shock, I'm really squeamish about putting one player in such a critical position. Teams can compensate for a CO who's issuing orders from fantasyland and refusing to support the team because they won't do whatever insane thing he dreamed up. I think it would be a pretty frequent occurrence on a lot of servers for a player to set his buddies up with as many helicopters or jets as they can crash and ignore the rest of the team, and do the absolute bare minimum to not get kicked. Did you have any ideas about how to curtail that?

Well, for starters I would have my suggestion as a separate gamemode rather than having it replace the current system entirely.

I would also recommend imposing restrictions on the number of assets of a certain type that can be deployed at a certain time, in other words saying you can only have X number of tanks on the map at a given moment.

Also, I feel PR should allow for the highest level of teamwork possible rather than simply catering to the lowest common denominator - something I think has always been the game's objective - and I think this suggestion would be a progressive step towards furthering that aim. While it may not, as you pointed out, work at every level, it would compliment scrimmages and other high-level play quite nicely.

[Arnoldio]

I am really out of ideas. Its probably one of those things that at the end depends on players, wich are hardcoded.

But as the armour thing was brought up.
How about 1 hat to sides and front of the tanks = disabling, rear and top, kill. More survivability, but at the same time more vulnerability, and also less fear of hats.

[killonsight95]

I think what needs to be done is reduce the amount of anti tank weapons on the feild, I think two H-ATs are fine when there weren't any TOWs, however now when TOWs and H-ATs and other vehicles, it becomes almost meaningless to have any armor in the battle at all, I think the TOW reload time is still to short and H-AT availbility is to high.

If the numbers are kept I think H-ATs should only disable and not destroy and if they disable it should be turret only.

Also how about making it so that heavy weapons and kits can only be picked up at main or from apcs?
eg. H-AT, CE, AA, sniper etc. that would encourage apcs to stick with infantry or rather infantry to stick with apcs.

Also maybe a point system that gives points to armor with 50-100 meters of friendly inf? and if the tank dies maybe the inf could loose points?

[Mantak08]

Also how about making it so that heavy weapons and kits can only be picked up at main or from apcs?
eg. H-AT, CE, AA, sniper etc. that would encourage apcs to stick with infantry or rather infantry to stick with apcs.

i had a suggestion along these lines a while ago. where HATs could only be picked up of FOBs and not crates.

as for having to much AT on the field, i agree. if placed properly it is possible to have 50% of the map in threat range of AT.

[Arnoldio]

I posted a suggestion, wasnt approved. Is was just about the kit limiting.

In short, ive said that it would be better if you could only request one special kit per life. So everybody can request rifleman + one additional limited kit. That would result to squads being fixed kit-wise pretty much. Per life that is. Now you can just be a squad, next seconds when a tank appears, you request a HAT, kill the tanks, in the next 5 minutes, massive infatry rush, you request Rifleman AP, suddenly enemy helo, switch the hat for AA etc. One man army, provided that there is enough time inbetween.

There is no point scouting and saying, no AT threaths in the area, because any second, a lone infantry man can just request hat from a crate and kill you and then continue being grenadier.

Would be more realistic and solve a part of the problem.

But ofcourse, no suggestions that make sense get approved anyway.

[Arc_Shielder]

And after 11 pages you finally saw the light and understood that tickets are not the issue (and never will be, no matter what DEVs do on this aspect), but rather armor survivability against ATs.

The solution is very simple, increase its resilience.

[ShockUnitBlack]

I agree the problem is the effectiveness of AT in the game at the moment, especially because when that effectiveness means infantry often do not need vehicle support to complete their objectives and vehicles do not feel as dangerous as they should - they should represent a huge threat on the battlefield, not just a mobile target.

I would say the following would be reasonable changes to AT damages, with a loss ~75% of the vehicles health being a vehicle-runs-away-rather-than-fights level.

Damage (as a percentage of vehicle health) from a HAT or TOW:

MBT
Front: ~50
Side: ~75
Back/Top: 100

IFV
Front: ~75
Side: 100
Back/Top: 100

APC:
Front: 100
Side: 100
Back/Top: 100

Damage (as a percentage of vehicle health) from a LAT:

MBT
Front: 0
Side: 0
Back/Top: 0

IFV
Front: ~50
Side: ~ 75
Back/Top: 100

APC:
Front: ~75
Side: ~75
Back/Top: 100

I would also recommend reducing the effectiveness of 12.7mm-14.5mm projectiles and the MK.19 against most vehicles - doing so should make APCs better at killing infantry than killing other APCs, which would be a good change.

[Cassius]

And after 11 pages you finally saw the light and understood that tickets are not the issue (and never will be, no matter what DEVs do on this aspect), but rather armor survivability against ATs.

The solution is very simple, increase its resilience.

Actually tickets is very much the issue. Wether taking out enemy armor with your armor means you eliminated a threat to your team and knocked off a lot of tickets of the enemy team, or wether it means you knocked out a threat to your team, but to furrher impact the game you have to directly support infantery is a huge difference.

[Arc_Shielder]

Actually tickets is very much the issue. Wether taking out enemy armor with your armor means you eliminated a threat to your team and knocked off a lot of tickets of the enemy team, or wether it means you knocked out a threat to your team, but to furrher impact the game you have to directly support infantery is a huge difference.

Like I previously stated, removing the ticket count (or decreasing) will alleviate the slight pressure in doing things right for the team. I think it's wrong to tweak this, but as you very well witnessed along this thread, there is no common ground. The psychological effect is not proven that it will work and it has no direct relation to infantry. Most likely we will witness further motivation to expose their assets vs enemy ones, or the very least, no changes at all (which is obviously not the result we're looking for). The response in-game will fluctuate depending of the player and the situation he's facing.

If you want armor to support infantry, keep the slight ticket count pressure as it is - at least for good minded players - and decrease the threat of handheld ATs. Not only is directly related to the psychology behind facing the enemy infantry, but it will, without a doubt, bring clear results on this matter.

[mat552]

I think there is a balance, but it's in the value of the asset. Assets that die easily shouldn't cost a lot, while assets that dramatically shift the balance of power (tanks that can hold up to multiple heavy at attacks) should be very pricy).

The suggestions in this thread are really about equalizing the value, as most of the people posting here can at least agree on a basic level that the values of most of the assets in the game are not where they should be, which leads to various problems, like assets hiding from infantry.

[Mantak08]

I think there is a balance, but it's in the value of the asset. Assets that die easily shouldn't cost a lot, while assets that dramatically shift the balance of power (tanks that can hold up to multiple heavy at attacks) should be very pricy).

but here is the issue. those tanks.... they DONT stand up to AT hits. ive been in tons and tons of armor that's taking AT hits and i can tell you that theirs only a 10%-15% chance that your tank will make it away from a HAT hit. it has to be a perfect front hit, dead center low n the chassis. otherwise your tracked or dead. when your in a tank and you hear that TOW flying through the air, you know your already dead.