Project Reality Forums

I still think flags are a crappy excuse to get killed. And i don't want to keep playing PR with it.

This may sound strange but for me the teamwork died when every weapon became a lazor.Before you needed a squad to take down another squad because you really couldnt kill a damn thing alone.
Now you can take down a squad solo with ease so you don't need teamwork and it shows frankly.

Th3Exiled wrote:Also I'll point out that weapons really were lasers before 0.7 and teamwork was good back then.. Although I only joined right on release of 0.7 so I don't have any first hand experience.

Exiled.

From someone who had lots of first hand experience with PR when the guns were *actually* lasers (0.4/0.5 M4A1 anyone?), the deviation made very little difference to actual overall team cohesion. Inter and intra squad teamwork are two different things, both essential for a great game, although the latter is easier to orchestrate than the former.

Psyrus wrote:Inter and intra squad teamwork are two different things, both essential for a great game, although the latter is easier to orchestrate than the former.

From someone who started playing at 0.917 and is playing almost every day for multiple hours:

Not sure if I can fully agree with that. Even though intersquad isn't easy at all at least
you are talking to someone who feels comfortable enough to lead a squad.
Therefore I assume he is thinking in a wider angle than a grunt who may just have
started playing PR at all and is just lucky to survive first enemy contact.

I do not often open my squad right away but when I do I usually end up with 3 out
of 4/5 guys that can't even handle the most simple stuff. I am talking about
"listening to clearly spoken commands", "spacing", "not looking into the medics F'ing
face while he is healing", "etc. etc."

Often enough it really is a big deal to "orchestrate" a squad so it doesn't sound like
a bunch of retards blowing in their violins and drumming their trumpets.

----------

In general I would say I saw more (inter- and intrasquad) teamplay at my beginning
of playing PR but I would say that depends mostly on the mix of guys playing.
There are still rounds that are just incredible but you have to search harder/play longer.

----------

Interesting thing...everyone is talking and whining about less teamplay, newbish to
noobish behavior, etc. etc. but when I posted this:

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-bf2-general-discussion/102718-sending-new-guys-good-servers.html

the reactions where pretty bad I would say even though I was just outlining the exact
same issues and a possible way to deal with it

- "keep some servers for the advanced public gameplay" -

where the experienced ones (yes I am talking about you guys that started 10.000 BC
and are now complaining) to get a good public game on a regular basis without having
to tell half of the team how to request a sniper, crewman or pilot kit

-----------

Once again to make myself a bit clearer:

If you have a grown community of 1000 players with the same "spirit" you are most
likely to end up on a server with a good game. Easy, because the ratio between
"good" and "bad" players is at a certain level. E.g. 50 experienced and 14 new players.
Probably the 14 don't weigh enough to "dumb down" gameplay
--> Everyone has a good game!

Population rises, new players start to play, you have 10000 players, most of the first
1000 play less and less due to real life reasons...E.g Out of the 64 are now 14
experienced and 50 newer players...what do you expect what happens?!?
Probably the 14 don't weigh enough to keep up that level everyone is looking for in PR
--> The new guys learn sheet, the older ones get bored, rage....

When you read my thread again with this in mind...
maybe it becomes clearer what I originally meant with it.

----------
----------
----------

Solution:

So! Let's start up Mumble and PR and keep on playing trying to do the best we can!

----------

If you are leading a squad and see me and Moe online, contact us over team chat or
mumble and I am 100% sure we will try to work sth. out. Be it a single "squad #X we
need a medic here and there if possible" or a "we take the logy...cover us with Jeep
and then while building the FOB" or whatever...

----------

Please always bare in mind that English is not my mother tongue (probably neither is
yours) and therefore a single thought has to be translated once or twice and might
loose or gain something that wasn't originally intended.

----------

Moe and I will start between 7 and 8 pm tonight, probably playing until 3 am. That is IF there are any populated servers with quality players. So I firmly invite you to.... repeat the above written in large letters!

Kind Regards!

Personally I'm getting more and more frustrated and dismayed with Squad Leading.. Possibly my own failings, but i've resorted to making 'FOB Squad' so that only a certain type of player joins.

Recently i've played on the NWA server, which is (at the moment) the busiest Euro server.

My main issue at the moment is that it seems that other SL's just aren't willing to be in a team. I had a bad round one game, and teamswitched in the next one because we'd got pwned and I wanted to see why. Turns out none of the other team were working together either!

On SL channel more often than not there are just occasional questions about enemy armour and frustrated people (me included) attempting to jump start the team into actually playing well.

The BEST rounds as SL in PR are to be had when CO-ORDINATING with assets (as your men engage targets). This just hasn't been happening recently.

It seems every round as an experienced player I lead a squad as well as I can, but have to spend half my time !r ing a load of idiots taking an APC into a HAT because they aren't on mumble. And those guys who are on mumble tend not to talk.

There are exceptions, but I just don't see any co-ordination. Which imho makes most of the 'toys' irritating sideshows - What's the point in them if they will not talk to and support the infantryman?

Another thing to mention is FOB building. I am consistently the only one in a team making decent FOBs. By this, I mean ones useful to defend or assault a position. My good guys tend to build a FOB, then I tell them to leave it, withdraw, flank, and then buid another. I don't defend the first because A) We normally only have one - meaning another is needed to support it. B) I know all of the blue blob retards will [almost instantly] occupy the building above it and spam the enemy with inaccurate fire.

As well as that, the flag system encourages rushing. Which is the most frustrating thing to deal with.



TLDR:
# Other SL's generally don't give a ****.
# SO much co-ordination is needed to build a FOB that it's usually over-run by the time you get a crate.
# Too many players don't bother with a mic or teamwork. Or are very subversive (silently going AWOL).
# People seem to see the point of playing as being to just defend.
# Squad cohesion is like trying to knit cheese, Inter squad cohesion is usually impossible. Asset co-ordination is a total frustrating TEAMCHAT lottery.

(From the perspective of someone who plays less and less and finds it sometimes more fun just to lone-wolf for the kills because it's not worth SL'ing - Backed up by experiences whever I do SL, which is at least 66% of gaming time).

Arnoldio wrote:Wicca and Pfunk, you just have different views. And none of them are wrong. Flags are needed, but they are a stupid GM most of the time.

If there was a way for CO to set the flegs, or objectives it would be better. Like deploying a radio antenna in the area/building, you think its easy to defend, and it would show up on enemys map aswell, so both teams know where objectives are and go for them... You would still have to be in the objects area with sufficient amount of people, for os long, that it destroys, so you can place one more of your own... Or something.

Until then, with flags we play.

Well if Wicca gets his way then the way I play will die. His way is at least compatible with current PR. He can be one of those squads that goes off and kills stuff and acts all cool and shit and usually leaves me dying on the flag cause there's nobody in A8kp4, but there is someone in Central Village and he's kicking my ***.

But whats wrong with large objectives? I mean pretty often in real life soldiers have to secure areas, a village, a city block, a river crossing. They have to secure it and keep it open and safe to their side. They have to repel attackers and ensure that none are still lurking.

Here's how I see it. You have a large flag radius covering many blocks in a city. You know there are enemies in there. You recon it, you figure out where they're set up, how many are there. Basically try and figure out which avenue of approach gets you killed and which doesn't. You either attack directly, approach stealthily, or a combination of both and take the city. Its not as simple as just sitting on the radius and capping. You have to clear it out. You have to basically create small dynamic objectives based around the overall objective of capping the flag.

The flag is like your Commander saying "Take this village". You therefore as a Squad Leader have to use the information given you by your own eyes, the radio net, and your soldiers and their eyes, and turn it into a coherent plan for how to accomplish the overall objective that this map has laid out. Once you've taken the city you have to figure out how to hold it. Where can I set up? Where are the obvious routes in and out? Can I set up 2 guys with an MG in this building, cover most angles, and still leave them an escape route so they can rally if things get too hot?

Thats what being a Squad Leader is with flags. If a city or village had no meaning to the actual game why would I ever get myself stuck there in the non flag world? Its making myself a target. Built up areas are all hell to deal with. Stay out unless it has strategic value, which in any invasion it really does cause thats how you break the will to fight. Take the industry, take the infrastructure, basically hold the people hostage or free them (depending on how 'righteous' your war is). We're all about nation building remember?

But here's where I counter my own bias and say that even the abstract objectives Wicca wants can exist. Its usually poorly executed, and this is why I don't think it ought to be the main way we play, but its still there. This is the kind of objective that you usually see 5 locked squads of 2 or 3 trying to do on any given server. You take your HAT kit and Engineer kit and go hunting armor and try to sabotage his supply routes and even take down Firebases. You have a small recon element that just moves real sneaky and tries to get ahead of the main body, gets on the flag early, and sets up for when it becomes cappable. And of course when theres no intel in Insurgency mode you basically have to just patrol and get into contacts and kill stuff for teh hellz of it until an objective is revealed.

I see nothing wrong with the overall basis for this game. I see it as having room for every style and it affords us a whole lot of decision making. Its not perfect, but honestly that just means its harder on the mappers. With more dynamic objectives systems, the ability to mix larger flags with more abstract targets or something, and being able to make them not just big circles, whatever. I'm sure there are ways to make it better. But I'm not interested in seeing this mod die cause we wanted to do some crazy experiment that won't work.

And honestly, what do I think of those Search and Destroy squads that roll off into oblivion 90 million miles from the objectives that count? Well I'm too polite to say what I really think.

EDIT.
@Mikemonster

I was of the same mind for a while. Then I had a round on NWA, opted out of SL chat cause it was annoying how MUCH they talked. Some guy on the ground said 'oh you just tell them to STFU, they will'. I say "Can we keep possible maybe technical contacts to SL Radio markers?". Bingo. Suddenly everything is running smoothly. We had a mortar squad. We had Kiowa on SL Mumble (We're playing Kokan as US). I moved to a compound, observed a technical hull down and firing at friendlies, call mortar squad, give grid, receive confirm, a minute later we take down the targets. Move on, call protective smoke to cross a danger zone. Next cache Kiowa called in on strafing run with correct CAS procedures (compass bearing for approach etc etc) and team is actually working nicely together. Not the BEST but still it happens and is possible.

Its a lottery of who's online, whether those guys who will work together get on SL mumble and end up on the same team. Keep faith!

people are whining about overall team cohesion- but never go commander. This is quite a paradox.

Punk, I like your theory/view on how the game works at the moment relating to flags, it's similar to mine.

Btw, even Sun Tsu mentioned that an army on the move is a dead army (when surprised by a waiting, prepared foe), this applies from clearing a room against a guy waiting for you, to your squad clearing a building waiting for you all, to a team clearing a flag.

As such, like you I avoid attacking enemy in built up areas. Personally, I get my guys set up in a building and wait for the enemy to come look for me (never underestimate the predictability of stupidity). Worst case scenario is we see nobody and simply move up to another building. But we always defend that building - an offensive move but not an exposed move (aside from running from one place to the next). I think PR simulates this all very well.


With regards to the 'keep the faith' regarding finding that good round, it does happen but lately only half of the Trans pilots have been on mumble, and you have to routinely ask who else on the SL channel with you is a SL and which Squad they command. And it's never the six man squad (that's always an obscure clan i've never seen before).

As you mention, the Search and Destroy four man squads lugging HATs and Sniper kits behind enemy lines are almost intolerable (Wicca you are not this, I understand your play style and it is not this, please don't think you're lumped in).

All too often now there are two full inf squads (one is mine) and then about 5 other squads (including trans and APC) that all have two, three or four guys in. And they ineffectually irritate the enemy's own 'Special Forces' squads that are their rivals. Which inevitably leads to only one or two squads on a flag with tangible flank cover, unable to communicate with each other (the +-NPK-+ or whatever squad are inevitable foreign and won't talk to me)..

At least the four-man HAT/Marksman/Medic/Combat Engineer squads are on mumble SL channel. Although it's usually to 'get targets'.

I just started to play PR yesterday, of course im' starting with some co-op bot bullcrap to at least, get the basics of a squad right...

I am tempted in always staying with people to be honest, in any game i play, teamwork is the best way to learn, of course, there will be failures and all, but that's part of the game... I don't know about the weapon system and such, but i know for sure that this mod is gold !!!

Hi liljiggy,

Don't worry about co-op, just get yourself in a game, join a squad and talk a lot to the Squad Leader, tell him you're new and want to learn. In the rare event that he's an asshat find another, as long as new players are good communicators and well intentioned the more experienced players will teach you (you can try lonewolfing but really it'll be a waste of time, the fun is being part of the team).

It's quiet, disobedient, unwilling to learn players that irk us.

And this thread is about the long term aspects of how PR is built, don't worry, we're rarely this grumpy or serious

Make sure you download and install PR Mumble, see the Sticky in this Forum. See you in game and have fun mate

Gotrol wrote:people are whining about overall team cohesion- but never go commander. This is quite a paradox.

It was rare to have a commander in the PRTA days and we managed to get on just fine with all of the SL's in Mumble as well as the Asset drivers/pilots.

Commander is largely irrelevant when you have good autonomous SL's. That's what I think is missing.

Mikemonster wrote:It was rare to have a commander in the PRTA days and we managed to get on just fine with all of the SL's in Mumble as well as the Asset drivers/pilots.

Commander is largely irrelevant when you have good autonomous SL's. That's what I think is missing.

+1 the post 0.7 world, the commander became largely superfluous (until the UAV was added back in) because for the most part, the players that would listen and communicate with the commander are the same ones who can/could listen and communicate with each other through teamchat/mumble/XYZ-voice-proggie.

Gotrol wrote:people are whining about overall team cohesion- but never go commander. This is quite a paradox.

I actually learned this as a PRT commander. I remember literally 1 battle into a new campaign I had one of my good SLs bitching that we sucked. He wanted us to kick all the noobish players, and just bring in nothing but known pro guys. Basically he didn't want to put the time in to make a functional team. There were guys who would say critical things but never really have any solutions. And of course there were always shortages of people who were willing to put the time in to make the team run while there were always people ready to tear it down by saying the people in charge weren't doing enough.

How do you work with those people? You don't. You work with the ones who will work with you. Sadly you can't force people to be compliant. You can't make people put into the system even though all expect lots out of it.

Its a lot of work to be a Commander. There are days I think about just sitting at my desk for 2 hours staring at a map and then say 'nah'. I would do it if I thought anybody out there would listen. But I spent so little time cause of my PRT days actually playing as a grunt that I don't want to. I put in my time. Gimme a rifle and point me at them.

Mikemonster wrote:Punk, I like your theory/view on how the game works at the moment relating to flags, it's similar to mine.

Why does everybody always call me "Punk"?

Cheers on the shared epic Sun Tsu confirmed POV on PR.

Commander is largely irrelevant when you have good autonomous SL's. That's what I think is missing.

I disagree. Commander isn't required, but he definitely helps. The thing is its easier for a CO to bug people to work together than for a random SL. COs usually have admin support and they also have absolutely NOTHING to do if their SLs aren't talking to them. Also, the SLs don't have to think that much to work together if the CO is helping out. Guys who would be bad at working in a group think SL Mumble channel could be far more useful with a good CO directing traffic.

Not to mention it would really keep SL mumble clear since rather than constantly spamming it with every possible contact report they could just tell the CO, who relays it to the guys who are nearest and overall makes smart decisions absent the spammy mindest of someone in combat about relaying intel.

COs are a good thing. You can easily get by without, but I think their presence would make teamplay 100% better overall. I mean.. if every SL had to do what the CO said or get kicked, how many of those **** rounds would be suddenly better? Never lose a flag cause nobody would stay to protect it? Insta-supplies for building those critical FOBs?

Add me on xfire liljiggy. its "wiccasick"

Without the qoutation marks

I think PR is a game of chance when it comes to that. We all know we can get it togheter, we can hope the other SLs can get it togheter, and we can hope the enemy team doesnt get it togheter enough, so we can beat them.

In my oppinion playing PR with flags makes more coordinated teams the winner over team objectives. Because the team that doesnt cooperate, they have less ability to react to flags that are being capped.

That is one of the main reasons i am pushing for no flags, cause i want to be free. No more flag humping. I know it makes you all mad, and i remember dayes on CnC where i could punch myself in the face because of the frustration.

But if you gave it a chance, and you put the effort in, PR is good without flags too. You just have to find your tempo.

Wicca wrote: I think PR is a game of chance when it comes to that. We all know we can get it togheter, we can hope the other SLs can get it togheter, and we can hope the enemy team doesnt get it togheter enough, so we can beat them.

In my oppinion playing PR with flags makes more coordinated teams the winner over team objectives. Because the team that doesnt cooperate, they have less ability to react to flags that are being capped.

That is one of the main reasons i am pushing for no flags, cause i want to be free.

So what you're saying is that you, the leader of the Project Reality Teamwork Alliance doesn't like the fact that Project Reality rewards the best Teamwork and punishes people who can't be bothered to work together?

You want to be free of the burden of teamwork, you want there to be no competition, no reliance on skill or intelligence, just pure fun as you romp around looking for kills and laughing at bad jokes in the interminable middle period between minuscule firefights?

I think perhaps this vision for PR is in many ways a reversal of everything this mod has tried to create, to the point of regressing beyond even vBF2!

Stop trolling funk

I think you misunderstand me, and i dont want to spend the better parts of the nights explaining shit to you.

If you dont get it that sucks.

I am merely trying to play PR more realisticly, and real life have no flags to capture. Yes i know, mimicin objectives.

For those with a more creative mind, those objectives are just flags. Nothing more. Do you think patton stopped to cap flags on his way to berlin?

I think i remember something about the napoleonic wars having banners, flags and colours, and having them taken was the greatest offense. But that was just offensive, yet another way for humans to put value into something that nature percives as nothing but a mere cloth or piece of metal. And thus, in a virtual battlefield, let it not be the gods who put value and meaning to us, let us give ourselfs meaning!

Wicca wrote: I am merely trying to play PR more realisticly, and real life have no flags to capture. Yes i know, mimicin objectives.

For those with a more creative mind, those objectives are just flags. Nothing more. Do you think patton stopped to cap flags on his way to berlin?

I think i remember something about the napoleonic wars having banners, flags and colours, and having them taken was the greatest offense. But that was just offensive, yet another way for humans to put value into something that nature percives as nothing but a mere cloth or piece of metal. And thus, in a virtual battlefield, let it not be the gods who put value and meaning to us, let us give ourselfs meaning!

What a bunch of poetic nonsense! Nicely written but I have no clue what your last paragraph means!

How can you say you want to play more realistically if you want to remove flags because...

with flags makes more coordinated teams the winner over team objectives. Because the team that doesnt cooperate, they have less ability to react to flags that are being capped.

That is one of the main reasons i am pushing for no flags, cause i want to be free.

When I read that I interpret it as you saying you don't like it when you lose because another team outplays you by being better coordinated as a whole 32 player unit.

I don't see anything realistic about that.

And as for Patton, he always had an objective in mind. It was relative to these objectives, cities, roads, bridges, or other strategic assets, which the enemy deployed relative to, enemies whom he then crushed as he marched on. They defended these objectives against his advance not because it would be fun to fight there, but because if they didn't it set their nation back in its war.

Remember Bastogne? Remember the 101st cut off until Patton allegedly 'saved' them? Why would those men willingly allow themselves to be encircled? In a game with no flags no squad would sit there and let that happen if they knew it was coming. However the value of that crossroad town with something like 5 roads in and out was so important to that front that it was worth an entire Division of men basically getting chewed into ribbons to hold onto. Why did Patton come to save the 101st? Was it cause he liked them so much? Probably actually, but the real reason was that they needed that town, and they needed it to not be in German hands. Put that town in a PR map, place no flag marker on it, and watch how nobody goes there cause they won't let themselves get encircled for something that'll just get them killed.

In a silly little map in a game where we have nothing invested we cannot fight over objectives with the same value attached to them without there being an incentive to be there. Soldiers and Armies fight for bridges and cities because they are important to the war effort, in one way or another. This is in no way possibly represented in a computer game fighting one battle. So basically without objectives like these being required there is no anchor for battle that in any way resembles reality.

Wars are fought relative to something, and its not just the other army. The armies are positioned to defend things, to attack things, and inevitably they fight each other for an extra, an OBJECTIVE. In a game with no flags, with diminished terrain assets to keep them from 'screwing up' the fun of just fighting each other, there is no battle, just skirmish over nothing.

What would happen to PR if this was the standard game mode? Huge swaths of players would leave as it would begin to resemble a pointless deathmatch.

We are 32 players in a team, not 20 000. There is no meta game. Get over it. A flag is a flag. Its a game. Jeez.

Wicca wrote:We are 32 players in a team, not 20 000. There is no meta game. Get over it. A flag is a flag. Its a game. Jeez.

How is it like reality if none of the things informing the gameplay are in any way based on what influences real world combat dynamics?

It is a game, but its a game through which we choose to give us that sense of a meta game. We love the idea of the structure of the military, the units of men working together, using the real tactics, operating in conjunction with one another across multiple platforms of operation ie. Air, Land, Sea etc. None of that stuff matters or functions without the 'meta world' influencing it.

The structures we seek to emulate for fun are as reliant on these 'meta' factors which you disdain as they are on the specific tactics that help them win battles.

We look to games like PR to be more than just hollow projections of the shallowest of interpretations of the military. Its not a chess board that is so small that have no choice but to try and eliminate each other. How much fun would Monopoly be if we didn't have all of these rules that represent the meta-world of money and finance and economy? What if I could just go past Go! as many times as I wanted, accumulate money without risk or rules, and just buy whatever?

PR without directed objectives is a hollow experience. Individuals need things to bring them together, they need a purpose. Playing PR without a proper objective is like playing paintball in a field with no rules. Like 5 year olds sliding around the ice rink enjoying skating. Its hell of a lot of fun, and everyone enjoys it, for a while. But without a purpose it just gets boring and we wanna get off the ice and get some hot chocolate from the concession.