care more about your life

[CAS_117]

Do you seriously not get this? Let me break it down. A rifleman gets a scoped gun, and one field dressing. A medic gets a scoped gun, and the ability to heal himself whenever he pleases. Now where is the incentive in choosing rifleman?

Could just limit the Medic and Engie kit and let them use a scope if they want one... Don't see why its such a huge deal. Don't get why there are squad level engineers anyways.

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00 View Post
And you talk about RP's as arcadey but what do you call 10 minute respawn of tanks and vehicles than? That is pretty arcady compared to real life too. So is instantly attacking an enemy. Everything in this game can be construed as "arcadey." Isn't have a respawn "arcadey" too?

But having any respawn all together is just as arcadey. And vehicles have a 20 minute spawn, but it might be interesting if they add a few more vehicles and set it to no spawn.

[Rudd]

I agree that the medic kit can be very exiting, but it wouldn't happen the way you are talking about.

It is more like 2 guys get wounded, 1 gets headshot, than you run out to get the wounded, he gets revived, than a nade kills him again, you run back out, and once you finally get him back behind cover, the other wounded guy has already been killed.

Dude, its not Like I just conjured that scenario out of thin air, It happened on Jabal Al Burj in the mountains between bridge and dam, if your medic is good (i.e. like me- refer to my sig) this is the kind of thinking he has. Gettin ur lads out of the LOF and in to cover and healed in a logical manner WORKS. I even wrote a medic guide that I'll eventually put in to video form for everyone.

Headshots happen I agree, but if you keep the rest of the squad alive you can just set a new RP and he'll spawn on ur position no problem.

[xgayox]

Could just limit the Medic and Engie kit and let them use a scope if they want one... Don't see why its such a huge deal. Don't get why there are squad level engineers anyways.

You mean like add a medic w/optics in the request kit menu? How many would you suggest be allowed for the team? I dont know, i still think it would be the choice rambo kit. Furthermore i think it kind of makes the medic class too revolved around killing which i dont think it should be at all. The way i look at it, im just there for two reasons. Suppression since i cant see what the hell im shooting at anyway, and keeping my squadies alive. Any kills i get in that time period is just a bonus for my team.

But having any respawn all together is just as arcadey. And vehicles have a 20 minute spawn, but it might be interesting if they add a few more vehicles and set it to no spawn.

Would be interesting indeed. But there would need to be some kind of balance to be drawn maybe, since APC's are currently getting one shot by HAT, and not getting a tone beforehand. I also foresee problems with named squads thinking they have priority to assets and being absolutely terrible with them. Would be cool in a large organized match though.

[CAS_117]

Well just maybe having 3 or 4 is plenty enough. The problems with medics is there aren't too many of them, so at least there should be a few. And riflemen are the base kit, so people will have to use it whether they like it or not... or wait 5 minutes for whatever they were using. As far as how its used, well people just don't like using a kit that lowers their chances of survival, so if they don't have optics, which everybody and their farm animals have, people are going to keep having that icy cold feeling in their stomach and will opt for the much safer and realistic rifleman. I try to make up for not forcing anyone to be medic because at worst they'll leave and at best they're combat ineffective. And I remember someone saying that "I don't use medic because I can't aim." So how is having ironsights going to improve your aim genius? Some people...

I'm also thinking its time for:

A) Removing the be-zapping praise the lord hes alive and ready to shoot me in the face shock paddles. Also, healing should take about 30 seconds to fully heal up someone to "oh well I guess I wasn't actually shot 3 times in the femoral" status. The paddles are starting to raise as many eyebrows as they do people from the dead.

B) Engineers can deploy buildings, and build them. Isn't that what their main function is anwyways? Its like now one of their main purposes is chasing tanks and laying roadside bombs. The commander and squad leader who by all accounts have better things to do than building things, in fact are usually interested in the complete opposite. How about we make this kit more "constructive"? Pun completely intended.

1. If they could erect fortifications as well as dismantle them, then this kit will become more specialized and less "oh I say there an object! Let me get a single serve C4 and smother the enemy with my own putrid remains"

2. Limiting it will make this kit more unique and allow for more ahem... appropriate placement of structures. Seriously, I am so sick of my squad leader randomly pulling over to build a fire base or something in hopes of making up for our lack of defensive assignments or poor understanding of fields of fire.

And if spawning on bunkers is removed, and maybe weapons added, combined with more dedicated engineers, then we could have bunkers being placed with the purpose of stopping the enemy and being less of a "oh and in case we are wiped out" ritual. It just feels weird having engineer popping out of rally points and watching them run at the nearest mass of sandbags *shiver*.

[PFunk]

I'm also gonna add to the mix of 'isn't it so unrealistic' or 'it ought to be this way cause its realistic' with this observation that people haven't keyed into.

Squads in real life are generally at least 8 people and as many as 13 or more (if you take into account temporary attached units or weapons or whatever). So in BF2 its hardcoded at 6. 6 isn't enough people to fill all the roles of a squad as they are needed in either reality or PR. If you want a medic, a support gunner, an SL, some AT, and a grenadier you only still have 1 slot for a rifleman ammo and if he dies your suppressing fire is gone soon after as well as grenades and so on.

Also if one or two die then your squad is suddenly a fireteam and you are even less able. So basically when we talk about whats realistic for squads to have in battle 6 men is far below what it should be. As such it seems pointless to talk about what the realistic balance of weapons available is. In reality I thought that a corpsman wasn't supposed to have a gun (I just read Jarhead and he mentions his corpsman having a 9mm that he isn't supposed to shoot). Hell you're supposed to have 2 SAWs and 2 203s and at least 8 men plus your SL.

You can't deal with balancing the squad loadout by comparing it to reality literally. Medics have guns cause A you can't really afford to sacrifice that much of the squads firepower to a guy that heals cause 6 minus one for a medic is 5 guys with guns and one goes down and its only 4 and if the wounded dies your medic still can't shoot. Also nobody is gonna play a medic with no assault rifle.

Balancing playability with reality is essential and the conventions of the game are not malleable enough to allow for us to do as many things as the many posters here are asking for. Limiting kits so much and making it even more complex will make it hard to even know when you're supposed to have a kit.

(sorry for long post above)

As for the combat engineers being altered to be builders I like it. Maybe it would allow for a dedicated CO squad that helps build stuff. But at the same time doesn't it make sense that a few marines could easily fill a few sandbags themselves and put up some IR netting? Seems pointless to limit it to engies but maybe just make them uber effective at building compared to the rest and keep their existing abilities largely intact.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

You are acting like everyone who as much as whispers the word 'arma' is a complete fanboy and we are just here to turn PR into arma. As far as the analogy.... haha, what a football player will tackle everyone on the court? Right. Its not like a player has to be familiar with the rules and be drafted to a team or anything, if you really wanna make PRO the keyword there. Do you remember when Michael Jordan went to baseball? Yes he sucked but i fail to see what point that makes, and further how in the world that relates to what we are talking about at all.

No, I am not saying they are fanboys, I am saying they are mislead. They think that just because something is possible or works good in ArmsA means that it will work in PR.

And the point of the PRO switching sports was like trying to move an idea from 1 game to another. It usually doesn't work because they are different game engines.

It seems like you dont even read what i type at all. The devs are not catering to anyone. They are making the game they want to play. I'm not sure how far that is and you are not sure how far that is, but if either of us leaves, im sure it will hardly affect the devs in what direction the game goes. You should probably keep ignoring the fact that there is a mil-sim audience out there though.

I read exactly what you said, but you just don't want to acknowledge how bad it sounds. If the DEVs didn't care what the community thought, they wouldn't have these forums up right now. If they DEVs are only making the game THEY WANT TO PLAY, than there should be no need for these forums.

And yes, I know there is a mil-sim audience out there, but even they do not want the level of "realism" or rules you are talking about. In fact, everything in this game can be viewed as arcadey. The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on the flak of the Marines? That is not realistic and pretty arcadey if you ask me. Building magical bunkers or firebases in 30 seconds is pretty arcadey to me. So is building an AAA right next to them.

If the DEVs just start forgetting about the people playing the game and the game becomes out of touch, than who will end up playing the game?


Do you seriously not get this? Let me break it down. A rifleman gets a scoped gun, and one field dressing. A medic gets a scoped gun, and the ability to heal himself whenever he pleases. Now where is the incentive in choosing rifleman?

First off, the medic has IRONSIGHTS, not a "SCOPED GUN." Second, like CAS said, everyone and their mother is running around with a scope in this game which puts the medic at a sever disadvantage because he cannot rely on himself for protection unless he is within 30 feet of an enemy. I don't know many players who just want to rely on their teammates for protection, I am sure many of them want to rely on themselves.

Wow. How exactly is realism objective? Do you somehow possess the ability to altar the real world?

People in this topic want to limit respawning to 1 life or make it so that you have to respawn at your main base or firebase. How are those not as arcadey as RPs? Magically building a firebase or bunker in a short amount of time is realistic? Is magically respawning at the main more realistic than respawning at a RP? I would say that the RP serves as a forward operating position, so it is more realistic spawning there than back at main. Realism depends on how you look at it.

And you vote to spread the squad of 6 thinner and send out some men to find a squads rally point, of which could be anywhere? RPs CAN promote teamwork if used properly, but currently just represent a wall of zombie rushers.

No, 2 men can be plenty to take out a RP if used properly and the other 4 can be defending or assaulting a flag.

And no, RPs are not walls of zombie rushers. If they are, than that RP must be 100M right in front of your face and you aren't doing anything about it.

If you honestly believe that about RPs, than you should hate Firebases and Bunkers with a passion. They can spawn in ANYONE, not just a squad and take a lot of firepower to destory.


Would you rather have 6 men spawn individually at the main and than really get split up because they respawn and move out at different times?

some of the stuff you are saying is seriously blowing my mind. How can you possibly compare soldiers spawning at ANY CHOSEN POINT ON THE MAP, to an asset on a lengthy timer, and only in one spot all the time? Hell, if you want no respawn on a potentially 3 hour long match, go ahead and write to the devs about that.

You missed the point of it. They are both arcadey, so saying spawning here or there is more "realistic" is a terrible argument. Balance? Ok, but realistic? No, anything can be viewed as unrealistic in this game.

After hearing that football/basketball player analogy i think its fair game to make any argument. You are constantly contradicting yourself and some simple quoting proves that. Im sorry, but you're blaming not having a medic in your squad on the game, and that makes any credibility you have ever had disappear.

uhhhhh, no? If the medic class is already underplayed, how is it my fault that I cannot find a good medic? Yea, you could be a ********* and kick everyone in the squad who doesn't want to play medic, but you cannot physically reach through the screen and force them to play medic.

I find your argument lacking the most credibility because you are saying that by changing game mechanics, it will force players to rely on each other much more? You can't change a player's mentality. It's just like trying to force your son to play piano when his heart is with the guitar. Get that?

Another contradiction. Didnt you just say if this went through a ton of people would leave the mod? The people who support less arcadey gameplay would stay and make the mod better than it ever was. I have also NEVER said i thought it would for sure solve the problem. If you'll notice a few pages back i said this is all just speculation, and would like to see a beta of some sort.

It's not a contradicition. Just because people leave (hardcore players or smacktards), doesn't mean you will get rid of the idiots. Look how far the mod has come from 0.3. It has come a long way, and a lot of idiots have come and go, but they will always be here in some form or another. The problem is that too many players think up grand ideas to solve this problem when it is impossible to solve. Civilians are still tked. That's not a problem you can solve. Maybe lesson it so that good players don't accidently kill them, but if someone is going to do it, they are going to do it no matter what.

Dude, its not Like I just conjured that scenario out of thin air, It happened on Jabal Al Burj in the mountains between bridge and dam, if your medic is good (i.e. like me- refer to my sig) this is the kind of thinking he has. Gettin ur lads out of the LOF and in to cover and healed in a logical manner WORKS. I even wrote a medic guide that I'll eventually put in to video form for everyone.

Headshots happen I agree, but if you keep the rest of the squad alive you can just set a new RP and he'll spawn on ur position no problem.

You maybe a good medic, but there are not very many medics at all and if there are, most of them do not know what to do or like CAS said, "are intimidated by not having a scope." I have also heard the argument of hating ironsights and it makes sense because the scoped rifles are that much better. The field of vision is better, gives them an advantage on huge maps like Kashan, and makes it so they don't have to rely on other squadmembers as much. It is more of a balance issue than reality issue.

[xgayox]

I read exactly what you said, but you just don't want to acknowledge how bad it sounds. If the DEVs didn't care what the community thought, they wouldn't have these forums up right now. If they DEVs are only making the game THEY WANT TO PLAY, than there should be no need for these forums.

And yes, I know there is a mil-sim audience out there, but even they do not want the level of "realism" or rules you are talking about. In fact, everything in this game can be viewed as arcadey. The Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on the flak of the Marines? That is not realistic and pretty arcadey if you ask me. Building magical bunkers or firebases in 30 seconds is pretty arcadey to me. So is building an AAA right next to them.

If the DEVs just start forgetting about the people playing the game and the game becomes out of touch, than who will end up playing the game?

How long did it take you to track down and interview all of the members of the "mil-sim audience?" Did you also get their permission to be their mascot? What would you call the audience who plays arma? There are communities there who play matches with no respawn at all.

Or maybe the forums are here for announcements, to bring the community closer together, and to discuss the game and the games mods. Im sure if there is a suggestion here they think is good they will consider it, but when i hear the devs themself say they are making the game they want to play, thats what i take it as.

The logos? How does that affect the outcome of the game at all? You dont seem understand the meaning of balance. As someone said earlier this thread, noone is calling for 100% realism, and modifying this aspect of the game is nowhere even close to crossing the line of game and reality. You are pulling the age old card of saying why dont we just make the game not have respawn

First off, the medic has IRONSIGHTS, not a "SCOPED GUN." Second, like CAS said, everyone and their mother is running around with a scope in this game which puts the medic at a sever disadvantage because he cannot rely on himself for protection unless he is within 30 feet of an enemy. I don't know many players who just want to rely on their teammates for protection, I am sure many of them want to rely on themselves.

What the hell?

The medic needs a scope plain and simple.

You're confusing me pretty bad here. Were you not just arguing to give the medic a scoped rifle? I was saying if you give the medic a scoped rifle, he becomes an invincible rifleman....

So i suppose the insecurities of the player is the mod's fault too? If for some reason you love the idea of teamwork, but never actually participate in it, its pointless.

People in this topic want to limit respawning to 1 life or make it so that you have to respawn at your main base or firebase. How are those not as arcadey as RPs? Magically building a firebase or bunker in a short amount of time is realistic? Is magically respawning at the main more realistic than respawning at a RP? I would say that the RP serves as a forward operating position, so it is more realistic spawning there than back at main. Realism depends on how you look at it.

Uhhh what? Show me where one person said "NO RESPAWN WHATSOEVER." Please. Spawning on your main simulates realism better than on an RP. I dont get what is so hard to get about this. Reinforcements take time to arrive, just like the time it would take for someone to travel from the main base to the front lines. Realism depends on how you look at it if you have a very skewed perception of it i suppose.

I would say that the RP serves as a forward operating position,

Well you are wrong, that is not what rally points signify at all. If it was a forward operating position, it would be called a forward operating position, its not like the devs just made up the term rally points and coined it to them. From the wiki:

A rally point, or RP is a drop-off point for soldiers to leave their excess gear behind before moving into a firefight, as well as a rendezvous point for reinforcements.

No, 2 men can be plenty to take out a RP if used properly and the other 4 can be defending or assaulting a flag.

And no, RPs are not walls of zombie rushers. If they are, than that RP must be 100M right in front of your face and you aren't doing anything about it.

Really? What do you call spawning 100m from a flag and rushing it? I doubt the devs meant for rally points to be used as they are, they should have been if an assault goes bad, the remainder of the squad falls back, meets up with the fallen, heals/ammos up, and devises a new plan of attack. Currently players rarely fall back, they just stay till they're dead, killing as many people as they can.

If you honestly believe that about RPs, than you should hate Firebases and Bunkers with a passion. They can spawn in ANYONE, not just a squad and take a lot of firepower to destory.

Or it could also be the fact firebases are easier to see, require a commander, and in general more teamwork to put up? And not just a guy named bob and two guys in his squad with him.

Would you rather have 6 men spawn individually at the main and than really get split up because they respawn and move out at different times?

Nope, thats why i wouldn't advance...

You missed the point of it. They are both arcadey, so saying spawning here or there is more "realistic" is a terrible argument. Balance? Ok, but realistic? No, anything can be viewed as unrealistic in this game.

Its not that i missed the point, but its that your points are terrible. Yes, soldiers spawning at main is more realistic than soldiers spawning on a rally point. Simulates reinforcements being brought in, which takes time, not 40 seconds. Soldiers are also normally brought in to a point a good distance away from the frontlines, not a 30 second sprint away.

uhhhhh, no? If the medic class is already underplayed, how is it my fault that I cannot find a good medic? Yea, you could be a ********* and kick everyone in the squad who doesn't want to play medic, but you cannot physically reach through the screen and force them to play medic.

I find your argument lacking the most credibility because you are saying that by changing game mechanics, it will force players to rely on each other much more? You can't change a player's mentality. It's just like trying to force your son to play piano when his heart is with the guitar. Get that?

The medic class doesn't require a prodigy to play it man. You take out your little shock paddles when someone goes down and zap them with it. If for someone reason you have some ridiculous high standard about medics, then thats still not the mods fault. Yeah, the squad leader is the ********* when someone willingly joins his squad, and doesn't follow his orders. You have to MAKE someone be the medic, otherwise kick them.

If someones heart is not with realistic gaming, then they are playing the wrong mod. This mod isn't done yet, but by the end i am confident it will be a "piano." You, and the people you are mentioning in this thread want to play the "guitar." Players who feel they are being forced to play a certain way would have left sooner or later anyway.

Besides that, thats not even my argument! My argument is by changing game mechanics it will make it less spammy and arcadey. The guy earlier brought up the point of teamwork degrading, and i responded.

Perhaps you find it lacking credibility because you dont like to read posts thorougly and dont know what is going on.

It's not a contradicition. Just because people leave (hardcore players or smacktards), doesn't mean you will get rid of the idiots. Look how far the mod has come from 0.3. It has come a long way, and a lot of idiots have come and go, but they will always be here in some form or another. The problem is that too many players think up grand ideas to solve this problem when it is impossible to solve. Civilians are still tked. That's not a problem you can solve. Maybe lesson it so that good players don't accidently kill them, but if someone is going to do it, they are going to do it no matter what.

Yes i agree there will always be idiots, but you can cut down on them. Why would a smacktard grief in a game with a long spawn time, or a long distance to be walked everytime he dies, rather than a game like vBF2, where he can do it every 15 seconds? The system would not only root out the majority of the lonewolves/non teamplayers, but griefers as well. If the idiot is so incredibly dedicated on staying, then he will be able to grief far less often.

I foresee this as being one of my last replies to you, as if you wanna keep talking about "zomg if u want realism have no respawn whatsoever and have firebases take days to build, make the logos right!!!" Then im just going to stop replying because you will either never get it, or are just trying to save face for your argument. there is clearly support for death punishment in this thread, why dont you go and make a post about firebases being built too fast and see how it goes.

[CAS_117]

The rifleman kit should be the only kit spawnable. The advantages of being a rifleman should not be exaggerated, and those are in fact that rifleman are always available when no other kit is; they're quite literally well the more expendable option in a tight situation.

So trying to say that "well this kit is pretty unpopular so I'll just make everything suck in comparison". Rifleman are just the bare bones of what any other kit is, so why would you want to make a limited kit inferior to it? Its not a matter of having a bunch of Rambos running around (Ok I actually saw rambo last week for the first time. The original Rambo? He shot one guy, so going Rambo is somewhat misleading.) its just that using other specialties mean a lack of capability against infantry. Just lame is all.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

The rp and firebase system represents the advancing frontline of an army with reinforcements and ammo supply, much more reasonable then the old SL spawning system

Going on what Cas says, another alternative to make people value more would be to restrict the spawn class to medic, officer or rifle iron sights, but everything is requestable with the usual time limitation on it.
You'd be keen not to die every couple of minutes if you had to forsake your scope for a few minutes as a penalty and that would be fair in relating to basic training of reinforcements that your respawn represents in the game.

That'd be a great compromise, spawn in 30 secs but you'd not be upto full speed for a few more mins

[[T]Terranova7]

They are just as good for defense as offensive. I use them for defense until we get a commander or bunker up on the flag. Without a RP, the defenders would just lose the flag to a bunch of nade spammers and than it would be a tug of war between 1 flag.

And I disagree. Rallys and SL spawns are what made BF2/PR. I have plenty of games that involve teamwork in CSS or TF2, but those are very small maps. Think what it would be like if everyone spawned at main, and someone was killed on their way to the objective. They would have to look at their minimap every second to make it to the SL and if the rest of the squad is wiped out before he gets there, what does he do? Do you want to wait 2 minutes before you regroup? Does that sound like FUN to you? IT doesn't to me.

Often times yes, a defending squad will set up a rally point nearby their objective to reinforce it should they become killed in the process. If anything, the combination of one team setting up a rally point in offense, and the other in defense causes a "tug-of-war" effect. Until one side gains what I describe as "spawn presence superiority" within the immediate area, this struggle will continue back and forth.

Now ideally, without rally points what happens is if one squad is victorious in the initial battle, they won't be dealing with the same opposing squad 30-60 seconds later. The squad they just defeated will most likely spawn on their nearest firebase or back at main base should they have failed to establish one. Meaning there's going to be a much longer down time, and probably won't see another enemy squad for another 2 minutes or so.

As far as fun goes, that's really something that can be very subjective. Many people think that being in the thick of the action for every waking second is the only definition of fun. It's this general FPS syndrome (As some people on the forums call it) that I feel detracts from what this game is about. You described it yourself, it's all about moving fast and killing as many people as possible, which is generally how most standard FPS games play out. There should be a far greater level of strategy involved, as in reality you don't go storming every building in blazing speed.

No, firebases would just become someplace to camp. Remember why the flag spawns were taken out in the first place? Because everyone knew them and camped them. Guess what? Firebases have a big sign on them that say "CAMP HERE" because they are so big. They can be hid, but not as well as a rally point and as a SL, I cannot ensure that the firebase would be in a good spot everytime.

Play BFV and it has exactly the system you are talking about. That is called the reinforcement or WAVE system. Everyone dies, than everyone spawns back in at a firebase and than moves in, in a huge wave. And both RPs and firebases have to be 100M away anyway, so its not like they are spawning right on the flag.


Most of you guys need to remember the whole reason why RPs were put in in the first place. They are there to stop spawn camping and give your squad an element of surprise and a way to operate behind the enemy. I don't want to have to rely on a CO to build a firebase or a CO who may never come.

True that camping could become a potential problem. Though I find this unlikely to happen. Without rally points, the majority of a team will be operating out of a firebase, and often times I can see only one or two being highly active. An opposing squad is going to have to bring a lot of firepower to even come close to camping, as the sheer amount of players spawning in and moving around that firebase would serve as a major deterrent. Especially considering that the squad looking to camp doesn't have a nearby rally point to spawn on and continue their same tactic.

As for the wave effect, I think if anything wouldn't this make battles just 10 times more intense? With rally points, squads tend to operate independently, usually securing objectives by themselves. With a firebase only serving as a source of spawn, you might see assaults of two to three squads on control points on average. So as opposed to the usual 6 vs 6 engagement, you could be looking at 12 v.s 12 engagement much more often.

Also remember in BFV one man was basically an army. You could drive any tank, helicopter, jeep, jet etc. at will, cap a CP all by yourself, kill a tank with a few grenades etc (There were also many ammo and medical cabnits all around, which definitely helped the lone wolves continue their methods). . To an extent, BFV made it so that one was usually much more effective on their own than in a group. PR makes it so that one is much more effective in a group than on their own. Regardless of RPs or not, good squad leaders are going to take the time to regroup, I also think there are ways to provide more incentive to stay together too (Biggest one being the removal of live HUD indicators). But that's another topic for discussion.

[snow]

The rp and firebase system represents the advancing frontline of an army with reinforcements and ammo supply, much more reasonable then the old SL spawning system

Going on what Cas says, another alternative to make people value more would be to restrict the spawn class to medic, officer or rifle iron sights, but everything is requestable with the usual time limitation on it.
You'd be keen not to die every couple of minutes if you had to forsake your scope for a few minutes as a penalty and that would be fair in relating to basic training of reinforcements that your respawn represents in the game.

That'd be a great compromise, spawn in 30 secs but you'd not be upto full speed for a few more mins

I endorse this product.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Terranova7;664751']Often times yes, a defending squad will set up a rally point nearby their objective to reinforce it should they become killed in the process. If anything, the combination of one team setting up a rally point in offense, and the other in defense causes a "tug-of-war" effect. Until one side gains what I describe as "spawn presence superiority" within the immediate area, this struggle will continue back and forth.

How would spawning at firebases stop the "tug-of-war" effect? The whole point of this game is the tug-of-war effect. 1 side attacks, moves in, other side counterattacks, etc. Firebases are placed 100M away just like RPs and are harder to destroy. They wouldn't do anything about that.

Now ideally, without rally points what happens is if one squad is victorious in the initial battle, they won't be dealing with the same opposing squad 30-60 seconds later. The squad they just defeated will most likely spawn on their nearest firebase or back at main base should they have failed to establish one. Meaning there's going to be a much longer down time, and probably won't see another enemy squad for another 2 minutes or so.

Both RPs and Firebases are placed 100M away from the flag. How would it stop the 30-60 second later attacks? And spawning at the main is totally unrealistic because if a force has moved into an area, they have already set up a forward operating base, hence Firebases/Bunkers. RPs are for individual squads to use to patrol, flannk, not get spawn camped.

As far as fun goes, that's really something that can be very subjective. Many people think that being in the thick of the action for every waking second is the only definition of fun. It's this general FPS syndrome (As some people on the forums call it) that I feel detracts from what this game is about. You described it yourself, it's all about moving fast and killing as many people as possible, which is generally how most standard FPS games play out. There should be a far greater level of strategy involved, as in reality you don't go storming every building in blazing speed.

PR is not like that now though. Firebases allow your team a forward operating position. Bunkers allow your team to set up a defense. Rally Points allow your squads to operate independently if they want to and don't require a CO to set up and are not easy to find, hence harder to spawn camp.

True that camping could become a potential problem. Though I find this unlikely to happen. Without rally points, the majority of a team will be operating out of a firebase, and often times I can see only one or two being highly active. An opposing squad is going to have to bring a lot of firepower to even come close to camping, as the sheer amount of players spawning in and moving around that firebase would serve as a major deterrent. Especially considering that the squad looking to camp doesn't have a nearby rally point to spawn on and continue their same tactic.

You don't have to be right next to it to camp it. I was playing in the PR Tournament and camped the other teams firebase from a rooftop and got somewhere around 15 kills and most didn't even notice or were taken out before they had a chance to look for me. Eventually, someone caught on, but the damage had been done and that was just with me. Think what a squad of people with scopes, a marksmen, a sniper, or a camping squad could do.

As for the wave effect, I think if anything wouldn't this make battles just 10 times more intense? With rally points, squads tend to operate independently, usually securing objectives by themselves. With a firebase only serving as a source of spawn, you might see assaults of two to three squads on control points on average. So as opposed to the usual 6 vs 6 engagement, you could be looking at 12 v.s 12 engagement much more often.

Remember the reason why the RP was created. It was to take the flag camping/hiding aspect out of the SL spawning, and still allow for a couple different places to spawn so that you couldn't get spawn camped.

Take away RPs, and than we would just have huge amounts of men charging towards 1 objective all the time which takes less teamwork and coordination than 1 squad working on its own. Is that not a tug of war? I personally don't care if it is a tug or war or not, but others seem to hate the idea of contesting a flag.


The best part of having both firebases and RPs is that you can use either or. If an assault needs to be launched on an area, spawn the firebase. If the firebase is getting hammered, spawn your rally instead of another firebase or main flag far away from the action.

Also remember in BFV one man was basically an army. You could drive any tank, helicopter, jeep, jet etc. at will, cap a CP all by yourself, kill a tank with a few grenades etc (There were also many ammo and medical cabnits all around, which definitely helped the lone wolves continue their methods). . To an extent, BFV made it so that one was usually much more effective on their own than in a group. PR makes it so that one is much more effective in a group than on their own. Regardless of RPs or not, good squad leaders are going to take the time to regroup, I also think there are ways to provide more incentive to stay together too (Biggest one being the removal of live HUD indicators). But that's another topic for discussion.

You missed the point. BFV had the spawn wave system from either flags or buildable shovel things. It was a fragfest. Having a noticable spawn right next to the flag or on it (firebases or bunkers) would end up turning into charging and fragging fests over holding the firebases and less about taking the flag.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

How long did it take you to track down and interview all of the members of the "mil-sim audience?" Did you also get their permission to be their mascot? What would you call the audience who plays arma? There are communities there who play matches with no respawn at all.

Ok? ArmA is not PR and the people who play each are different. There was a lot of buzz about ArmA back when it was released and a lot of PR players thought it would be good. What happened? Turned out to be not so great. People who play PR want gameplay/quick fun/realism/tactics, short games/teamwork. ArmA want long games/fun that is rewarded after a long string of planning and gameplay/strict tactics/realism.

And you don't need to interview all the "mil-sim audience" to know that if they are playing this game (PR), they don't just want a super mil sim. If they did, they would of went to ArmA. Simple as that.

Or maybe the forums are here for announcements, to bring the community closer together, and to discuss the game and the games mods. Im sure if there is a suggestion here they think is good they will consider it, but when i hear the devs themself say they are making the game they want to play, thats what i take it as.

There is a suggestion section. If the DEVs already knew what they wanted, they wouldn't have that section. If the DEVs already knew what game they were making, than why have things been altered at the suggestion of the people that make the game less fun but may still be realistic?

The logos? How does that affect the outcome of the game at all? You dont seem understand the meaning of balance. As someone said earlier this thread, noone is calling for 100% realism, and modifying this aspect of the game is nowhere even close to crossing the line of game and reality. You are pulling the age old card of saying why dont we just make the game not have respawn

No, other people are calling for no respawn. If they are going to use realism as an excuse for that, than why shouldn't everything else be realistic? Point is, don't use "realism" as an excuse for every suggestion. Sometimes, gameplay is more important than "realism."

What the hell?

Do you seriously not get this? Let me break it down. A rifleman gets a scoped gun, and one field dressing. A medic gets a scoped gun, and the ability to heal himself whenever he pleases. Now where is the incentive in choosing rifleman?

Since when do medics have "scoped guns." He has ironsights, not a "scoped gun."

You're confusing me pretty bad here. Were you not just arguing to give the medic a scoped rifle? I was saying if you give the medic a scoped rifle, he becomes an invincible rifleman....

So i suppose the insecurities of the player is the mod's fault too? If for some reason you love the idea of teamwork, but never actually participate in it, its pointless.

What's there to be confused about? I said medic needs a scope on his rifle. You were saying that he would become "invincible", but that is bs because if he stops to heal himself mid battle, someone is going to frag him or move up on him. This isn't VBF2, you can't heal yourself in an instant, it takes a while and you have to look at the ground to do it. And unless he has auto aim, he is not "invincible."

I always play as a SL and always have teamwork going in my squads, but most people don't like the medic class anymore plain and simple. He is at a sever disadvantage when everyone else is running around with a scope and he isn't, simple as that. Its something of balance.

Uhhh what? Show me where one person said "NO RESPAWN WHATSOEVER." Please. Spawning on your main simulates realism better than on an RP. I dont get what is so hard to get about this. Reinforcements take time to arrive, just like the time it would take for someone to travel from the main base to the front lines. Realism depends on how you look at it if you have a very skewed perception of it i suppose.

It may not be in this thread (though I think it is), but people have called for the respawn to be taken out before because of "realism."

As for the main respawn causing more realism, read this...

The rp and firebase system represents the advancing frontline of an army with reinforcements and ammo supply, much more reasonable then the old SL spawning system

How is respawning at the main more realistic when most military forces would have forward operating positions set up? Would they just pack up and go back to the main base instead of calling in reinforcements? Reinfocements=spawning at the front line.

Well you are wrong, that is not what rally points signify at all. If it was a forward operating position, it would be called a forward operating position, its not like the devs just made up the term rally points and coined it to them. From the wiki:

A rally point, or RP is a drop-off point for soldiers to leave their excess gear behind before moving into a firefight, as well as a rendezvous point for reinforcements.

Thankyou for proving my point.

I know what a RP point is in real life lol, I am in the Marine Corps, but they serve as a forward operating position ingame because that is where THOSE individual squads operate from. The Firebases represent where they set out from or where they would fall back to if they were wiped out(hence reinforcements). The rallypoints are also a place for a squad to start out on a patrol from basically and resume what they were doing on their own.


You haven't addressed the issue of not having a CO all the time either or a CO that knows what he is doing. If there is no CO (and there is not a lot of times), than how are the firebases going to get built? SLs maybe, but than that would be biased because every SL would have to have one or else some dumb SL might put it in the open or something. If every SL got them, then it would just be like having RPs then?

Really? What do you call spawning 100m from a flag and rushing it? I doubt the devs meant for rally points to be used as they are, they should have been if an assault goes bad, the remainder of the squad falls back, meets up with the fallen, heals/ammos up, and devises a new plan of attack. Currently players rarely fall back, they just stay till they're dead, killing as many people as they can.

Really? What do you call spawning 100M from a flag and the WHOLE team rushing it? O yea, FIREBASES!

Or it could also be the fact firebases are easier to see, require a commander, and in general more teamwork to put up? And not just a guy named bob and two guys in his squad with him.

You forgot to point out that they are also unable to be built with a CO, if the CO post is down, there is no CO truck near, and without a build order. Unless all of these conditions are met, especially having a CO, you are not going to have a place to spawn after you are killed in the first 5 minutes of the game.

Nope, thats why i wouldn't advance...

If people randomly "charge like zombies" from their rallypoints, why wouldn't they do the same from their main? After all, there would be no incentive to stay with the SL if you spawn at the main because there would not be any RPs to setup.

Its not that i missed the point, but its that your points are terrible. Yes, soldiers spawning at main is more realistic than soldiers spawning on a rally point. Simulates reinforcements being brought in, which takes time, not 40 seconds. Soldiers are also normally brought in to a point a good distance away from the frontlines, not a 30 second sprint away.

And firebases aren't 30 seconds away? Don't pick and choose. Everything you are saying about RPs is just as true about Firebases.

The medic class doesn't require a prodigy to play it man. You take out your little shock paddles when someone goes down and zap them with it. If for someone reason you have some ridiculous high standard about medics, then thats still not the mods fault. Yeah, the squad leader is the ********* when someone willingly joins his squad, and doesn't follow his orders. You have to MAKE someone be the medic, otherwise kick them.

So you are physically going to put your hand through the PC monitor and force someone to be medic? If they don't want to be medic, than they will leave your squad. Than, you might get someone that does play medic but runs into enemy fire to revive. I am not blaming this part of the game on the DEVs at all. You just talk like everyone is jumping at the oportunity to play medic 100% of the time and that is not true. Look ingame and see how many medics you find. It won't be very many.

If someones heart is not with realistic gaming, then they are playing the wrong mod. This mod isn't done yet, but by the end i am confident it will be a "piano." You, and the people you are mentioning in this thread want to play the "guitar." Players who feel they are being forced to play a certain way would have left sooner or later anyway.

There goes that "realistic" term again. You want realism, join the military. This game doesn't come anywhere close to real life. It has done very well, but nowhere near real life. The game will always be a mix of realism/gameplay and if realism starts to take over, people will leave just like several people have already said back at the beginning of this thread.

Besides that, thats not even my argument! My argument is by changing game mechanics it will make it less spammy and arcadey. The guy earlier brought up the point of teamwork degrading, and i responded.

I am fine with that and making it less spammy and arcadey, but you are also talking about taking out fundimentals of the game that make it easier, more squad friendly, and fun. You may make it less spammy in one area by taking out rally's, but than it could become spammy in another area by people spawn camping firebases.

Perhaps you find it lacking credibility because you dont like to read posts thorougly and dont know what is going on.

Ok? Did I not just read through and respond to all this stuff you posted? Come up with a better argument than that.



Yes i agree there will always be idiots, but you can cut down on them. Why would a smacktard grief in a game with a long spawn time, or a long distance to be walked everytime he dies, rather than a game like vBF2, where he can do it every 15 seconds? The system would not only root out the majority of the lonewolves/non teamplayers, but griefers as well. If the idiot is so incredibly dedicated on staying, then he will be able to grief far less often.[/Quote]

Yea, and it would also root out a majority of the players who don't have time on their hands to walk 10 minutes from their main, get in a firefight, die, respawn, walk from their main another 10 minutes, repeat. Not everyone has 2-3 hours on their hands to play a game. Most battles last for an hour, but you can get a lot out of that hour.

ArmA may have long battles, but that doesn't make it any more fun than PR. PR stuffs a lot in that hour of gameplay and you get much more furfillment than if you were to play a 3 hour game that involved more stratigizing than actual fighting.

I foresee this as being one of my last replies to you, as if you wanna keep talking about "zomg if u want realism have no respawn whatsoever and have firebases take days to build, make the logos right!!!" Then im just going to stop replying because you will either never get it, or are just trying to save face for your argument. there is clearly support for death punishment in this thread, why dont you go and make a post about firebases being built too fast and see how it goes.

You don't get it. I like the firebases ingame. I like RPs ingame. I like the Bunkers ingame. The people who are saying "take out RPs!!!!" or "make everyone respawn at main!!!!" or "have only 1 life!!!" are out of touch. They are too busy looking at how other games emplement it instead of seeing how PR is not those games.




And you are trying to say I am trying to save face, but you haven't acknowledged what would happen when..


-NO CO to build a firebase

-Stupid CO

-Smaller maps making it harder to build Firebases

-Firebases are still 100M away like RPs

-Firebases are huge targets for campers, and especially on flag maps like Kashan

-What would happen if everyone dies at the start of the game and there is no CO to build a firebase (the other team would take all the flags in a a few minutes)

-How spawning at a main and there being no RPs would create more teamwork even though there is no incentive to stay with a squad at that time because a RP cannot even be made.

etc.

-

[Alex6714]

This sentence says it all.

People who play PR want gameplay/quick fun/realism/tactics, short games/teamwork.

Players are hardcoded, forcing anal realism is just going to make those good players looking for a fun realistic game leave and the elitist group/smacktards will be left.

[Razick]

Soldier of Fortune you manage to take pretty much everything out of context and seem to like to represent the whole of the community through yourself. People play PR for different reasons and the only opinion you can present is your own. "Fun" is completely objective and only relates to the single individual. To me PR is very cartoonish and has some of the most whack logic towards realism and gameplay Ive seen but I play it because of the (potential) fluid use of combined arms where most games usually fail horribly.

You also feel like a boost of realism will drive away players but forget that in place of them the simulator folks will be interested. Personally I would love a trade of 400 arcade-style and childish players to leave and get 50 mature strategic minded players in return. At least those 50 players will ensure that you will have a good experience when you play instead of trying to get a good round now which is like throwing three dice and trying to roll a combined 3. I dont think we need a drastic tweak to game mechanics and spawn systems but could use some work around. Currently this game doesnt reward the tactical and coordination minded enough because the guy you just killed is always 200 meters away.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Soldier of Fortune you manage to take pretty much everything out of context and seem to like to represent the whole of the community through yourself. People play PR for different reasons and the only opinion you can present is your own. "Fun" is completely objective and only relates to the single individual. To me PR is very cartoonish and has some of the most whack logic towards realism and gameplay Ive seen but I play it because of the (potential) fluid use of combined arms where most games usually fail horribly.

Now you know what I hate about the people coming on here and preaching for ultra-realism. From their point of view, the game should be more realistic, from others, it is fine having elements of both. People play the game for different reasons. The majority of people here want quick fun, elements of realism condensed for time constraints, gameplay, tactics, and combined arms. If they didn't, they would be playing ArmA, OFP, or SWAT 4 right now.


The players with the "realistic" mindset think the game should be the way they want it because it has reality in the title and use that as an excuse. They can have their realistic fun ingame, but if they get their way too much, it will damage the other players who want both.

They didn't write "realism" on the box of BF2, so that should tell you that not every player here is looking for super realistic gameplay. I don't think either player should have their way, it should be a balance.

You also feel like a boost of realism will drive away players but forget that in place of them the simulator folks will be interested. Personally I would love a trade of 400 arcade-style and childish players to leave and get 50 mature strategic minded players in return. At least those 50 players will ensure that you will have a good experience when you play instead of trying to get a good round now which is like throwing three dice and trying to roll a combined 3. I dont think we need a drastic tweak to game mechanics and spawn systems but could use some work around. Currently this game doesnt reward the tactical and coordination minded enough because the guy you just killed is always 200 meters away.

Play 0.3 PR if you still have it. Now play this version 0.75. The game has gotten much, much better and much more "realistic." Has it driven away all the smacktards and idiots? No. They are still here and if they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversion right now. The changes have just made it easier for squads and teams to be more coordinated and teambased than before by those willing to do so.


VBF2 is a dying game. Still popualar, but it is losing people. Simulator folks are not going to come out of the woodwork to play this game, just other people from other mods of VBF2. (some smacktards, others teamplayers)


Like Alex said, players are hardcoded. The only way to change them is to educate them and teach them the ropes ingame. Unless you are a good SL or teamplayer from the start, you are not going to know what to do, so you have to learn from other SLs and players. Upping restrictions will not teach them how to play this game any faster, it is up to the community to teach them. If the level of restrictions aren't stopping them now, it won't stop them in the future.

[Alex6714]

The point is, if you want simulator, why not play Arma? PR in my opinion is suposed to be a more fun, not as strict realistc game.

I would really like some DEV imput on this and where PR is heading.

[Darkpowder]

<cut>
Like Alex said, players are hardcoded. The only way to change them is to educate them and teach them the ropes ingame. Unless you are a good SL or teamplayer from the start, you are not going to know what to do, so you have to learn from other SLs and players. Upping restrictions will not teach them how to play this game any faster, it is up to the community to teach them. If the level of restrictions aren't stopping them now, it won't stop them in the future.

Good post soldier, some wise words in the whole post. And to the one who he replied to, listen to his advice.

Its about the education and setting the example, upping the bar and others will learn how to play the game properly; tactical, hard, but fair and honourably.

[xgayox]

Ok? ArmA is not PR and the people who play each are different. There was a lot of buzz about ArmA back when it was released and a lot of PR players thought it would be good. What happened? Turned out to be not so great. People who play PR want gameplay/quick fun/realism/tactics, short games/teamwork. ArmA want long games/fun that is rewarded after a long string of planning and gameplay/strict tactics/realism.

And you don't need to interview all the "mil-sim audience" to know that if they are playing this game (PR), they don't just want a super mil sim. If they did, they would of went to ArmA. Simple as that.

Go read the Arma 1.12 on TG is awesome thread in the off topic section please.

Nope because there is a big difference. This mod isnt done yet. Its not that simple at all.

There is a suggestion section. If the DEVs already knew what they wanted, they wouldn't have that section. If the DEVs already knew what game they were making, than why have things been altered at the suggestion of the people that make the game less fun but may still be realistic?

Obviously more heads conjuring up ideas are always better, but thats all they are-- suggestions. Things like the general idea of how far this mod is going to be taken by realism im sure is not affected at all by the suggestions in the forums. Hell, maybe im wrong, maybe the devs arent going to take it far at all, but the devs word > everything else.

No, other people are calling for no respawn. If they are going to use realism as an excuse for that, than why shouldn't everything else be realistic? Point is, don't use "realism" as an excuse for every suggestion. Sometimes, gameplay is more important than "realism."

Again, BALANCE.

Since when do medics have "scoped guns." He has ironsights, not a "scoped gun."

What's there to be confused about? I said medic needs a scope on his rifle. You were saying that he would become "invincible", but that is bs because if he stops to heal himself mid battle, someone is going to frag him or move up on him. This isn't VBF2, you can't heal yourself in an instant, it takes a while and you have to look at the ground to do it. And unless he has auto aim, he is not "invincible."

I always play as a SL and always have teamwork going in my squads, but most people don't like the medic class anymore plain and simple. He is at a sever disadvantage when everyone else is running around with a scope and he isn't, simple as that. Its something of balance.

Yeah, you said a medic needs a scoped gun, i said IF HE GETS ONE he will become the #1 lonewolf kit....

Im not even going to waste my breath on that one, ill let your new thread get torn apart.

Thankyou for proving my point.

I know what a RP point is in real life lol, I am in the Marine Corps, but they serve as a forward operating position ingame because that is where THOSE individual squads operate from. The Firebases represent where they set out from or where they would fall back to if they were wiped out(hence reinforcements). The rallypoints are also a place for a squad to start out on a patrol from basically and resume what they were doing on their own.

It doesn't prove your point at all. If the rally point had an expire time, or limited number of spawns, I could get behind that. If you know what it is then you shouldn't be trying to twist this out of context.

You haven't addressed the issue of not having a CO all the time either or a CO that knows what he is doing. If there is no CO (and there is not a lot of times), than how are the firebases going to get built? SLs maybe, but than that would be biased because every SL would have to have one or else some dumb SL might put it in the open or something. If every SL got them, then it would just be like having RPs then?

Theres nothing there to address man, thats the idea of the whole mod. The team that utilizes teamwork is rewarded.

Really? What do you call spawning 100M from a flag and the WHOLE team rushing it? O yea, FIREBASES!

How often does this happen? Especially with the lack of commanders right?

If people randomly "charge like zombies" from their rallypoints, why wouldn't they do the same from their main? After all, there would be no incentive to stay with the SL if you spawn at the main because there would not be any RPs to setup.

They can charge from anywhere they want. But if they are doing it from main at least i wont have to worry about that same squad coming back in 30 seconds. People shouldnt need incentive to stay with the SL man. Thats the whole goal of the game. I enjoy working with my squad/team because its a rewarding experience and much more fun. I think i can safely say that for alot of other people in this community, as that was one of the biggest points being advertised with this mod.

And firebases aren't 30 seconds away? Don't pick and choose. Everything you are saying about RPs is just as true about Firebases.

Oh my god....

So you are physically going to put your hand through the PC monitor and force someone to be medic? If they don't want to be medic, than they will leave your squad. Than, you might get someone that does play medic but runs into enemy fire to revive. I am not blaming this part of the game on the DEVs at all. You just talk like everyone is jumping at the oportunity to play medic 100% of the time and that is not true. Look ingame and see how many medics you find. It won't be very many.

MAKE THEM BE MEDIC OR KICK THEM. PRETTY SIMPLE.

There goes that "realistic" term again. You want realism, join the military.

Ok, im done here.

[snow]

These back and forth, sentence-for-sentence reprisal quotefests are making me motion sick.