Project Reality Forums

Well, I still love PR!

If you buy a game, there is always stuff that you don't like about the game.. If you play this mod, there has to be stuff you are not gonna like ofcourse..

Ive been playing PR since around 0.23 or whatever the version was called. And back then there was also stuff that people didnt like..

Life sucks....
PR is just epic, no better game then PR.. Just go with the flow, and stop saying bad things about the game you love to play..

Agreed

google wrote:In my opinion, the reason that fun has taken a hit is the extreme focus on teamwork as opposed to squadwork or tactics. In the older versions, as long as you had a good squad, you could still have a really good round. However, now, one is forced to rely on their team in order to have any large scale success. Take, for example, the ticket cost of vehicles. So much pressure is put on those who use assets as if they lose them, the team gets extremely pissed off due to the loss of tickets. If anything, most assets (especially small-scale support ones such as trans helis and APCs) have become liabilities on most maps.

Wise words, totally agree with this. I honestly think that asking the team to work together is too much, now that may sound selfish and against the core ethos of PR - but having multiple squads work together with infantry, air and armor, is simply too big of an ask for pub games.

I honestly think ticket losses need to be decreased in relation to vehicles to lower the importance of said vehicles. The loss of a Cobra or F16 shouldn't shift the side of a battle, after all, its the boots that do the work.

There are simply too many weaknesses to a team which forces the players act in a defensive and almost boring way. Sometimes I feel as if PR is a job as opposed to a game. If I wanted that kind of experience, I'd go play an MMORPG (lol). PR (for me and my friends at least) certainly exhibits more stalemates and rage-quits than it did in previous versions.

Agree with this too. Defence is an easy, accessible alternative to making a decent push which is such a downright shame. With the introduction of firebase assets defending a flag is just too popular.

Call me old fashioned, but its the cowards game. A squad leader shows their true colors in making a decent attack rather than sitting back and holding the fort.

I know I am unlikely to change any minds here but just a few responses from my own observations.

mat552 wrote:PR isn't dying by any stretch of the word, but the player base is significantly thinned out, and I don't think most of them left for other games, they left because they weren't enjoying themselves.

Well that's just not true, you should note when making statements such as this that you need to provide sources for your arguments. PR has drastically increased player numbers in 0.9 than it has in any previous version, in fact the opening weekend saw more than 2100 players online at one moment; which is a PR record.

Sauce.

Currently 539 people playing PR @ 17.00 BST on a Tuesday.

Sauce.


Playerbases change constantly (in business it's called churn or attrition), it's what happens when a game has been around for ~5 years and for a game to actually increase it's playerbase over such an extended and consistent period is nothing short of unheard of. Try naming any other game or mod that has managed this with such consistency (not even the biggest selling game of all time - MW2 - has been able to maintain it's playerbase at a constant size or increase it) so PR must be doing something right.

MadTommy wrote:Over the years I've seen many 'old timers' leave.. normally with the response that its just not fun any more.

Players will always get bored of a game no matter how much it is updated, I played GTA: San Andreas almost every day for two years after it was released and eventually stopped playing, not because it is a bad game but because it got boring.

Whilst it's sad to see them leave, they have been replaced (see churn link above).

MadTommy wrote:Removing the ability to use the gun seat without a driver in an APC. Sure soloing APCs is not good... but let the server admins deal with things like this.

We agree that it's not good, this change made it easier for server admins as they don't need to worry about kicking solo crews so what is the problem here?

MadTommy wrote:Removing maps because they are not 'good' enough, or are too small. Maps that players liked.. and could happily choose to play on or not. Ghost Train for example..

Well again, theres a reason for this. PR can only be so big (people complain about 3GB to download still :roll so there must be some changes and older maps that are quite obviously not as detailed must be removed for the new generation. Hopefully a retro map pack will get off the ground at some point so those who want to play these maps still, can.

MadTommy wrote:Removing the instant kill from knife kills & head shots.

It is an instant kill still, they can simply be revived. We can talk all day about reviving being unrealistic but it serves a purpose and at the end of the day IRL if you get shot in the head it'll be the same result as if you got shot in the leg, you're gonna be combat ineffective.


As Gazz rightly said, fun is a very subjective thing. 0.5 was fun, but in a completely different way to 0.9 and whilst it's not for some the Devs have never said they are making a game for everyone, they make the game that they want to play. I still have just as much fun now as I ever did, but that's just me.

Emnyron wrote:Case in point, 1. 0.5`s bashra. Ive yet to see the same teamwork I saw on that map, on public servers, replicated anywhere but the PRT.

Image taken 16/07/2010 on the Tactical Gamer server, just a normal Friday evening. Vote with your feet and if you cannot find this level of teamwork then try to work with other squads, go commander or play on a different server.


Warning: This looks like a rant thread to me, i'm leaving it open as there is some constructive discussion but anything posted that contravenes that will result in infractions being handed out.

I can't disagree more with you google.

google wrote:In my opinion, the reason that fun has taken a hit is the extreme focus on teamwork as opposed to squadwork or tactics. In the older versions, as long as you had a good squad, you could still have a really good round. However, now, one is forced to rely on their team in order to have any large scale success.

And this is a problem how? Squads are squads, at most they comprise of less than 1/5th a team and 1/10th of the whole battle. This isn't a collection of 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 squad battles its a collection of 1v1 teams. If the team doesn't work well together then the team is a bad team.

Win or lose I can have fun in the right squad. Being a CAS spotter, a pilot, or a squad leader all has their rewards for me. Sure total victory would be sweeter and sure it sucks when your held back by what the rest of your team can do but that is the nature of a team game. No one six man squad should have a monopoly on the outcome of the round it should be a combined effort of 32 people.


And beyond that: (Not directed at you Google, just those certain players)

If you can't have fun working as a team then why are you playing an Army game? Not everyone in the army can have a H-AT or a Sniper Rifle or a Tank or a Helicopter. The Armed Forces of any nation needs teamwork to achieve a specific goal, and they also need diversity to overcome the shortcomings of any specific part.

We all can't be James Bond. Someone needs to be Q! And hell I'd love to be Q!

Tanks alone can't win a war, nor can Jets or infantry. What is needed is an Economy of Force. Every person must have a role that gets victory closer. A team can't opperate with six snipers, better off to have six infantry men.

Take, for example, the ticket cost of vehicles. So much pressure is put on those who use assets as if they lose them, the team gets extremely pissed off due to the loss of tickets. If anything, most assets (especially small-scale support ones such as trans helis and APCs) have become liabilities on most maps.

I think it is justified for a team to be upset that an unskilled pilot crashed a Jet on Kashan runway just because he got in the CAS squad before someone else more qualified was. Also beyond the ticket loss is the idea of "Well the other team has Air Superiority for the next 20 odd minutes. Great."

As PR is a team game I'd wish for the better pilot to be flying, the better tanker to be tanking, and the better spotter/sniper to be calling in hell fire and fury. Its the way you win.

Sure I love to fly Helos and Jets but I know I'm better serving the team as a SL, especially when better pilots are in the mix.

This brings me to my second point, which is that the game is soley about ticket count now.The game really doesn't give substantial incentive for capturing objectives and flags. Kill to Death ratios and the minimization of the loss of assets are the only important thing anymore. It is much easier to just sit on your firebase, with the extremely powerful TOWs and HMGs, than attack. That being said, the new focus on supply lines and Firebases has also limited assaulting options to a degree.

I agree that the game devolves into a ticket battle every 7 of 10 times and maybe thats not right. (On the converse an organized team should be allowed to pull back to another defensible location if they find it better suited to victory, this is what Wars of Attrition are)

HMGs are easily beat and are only powerful against Infantry, they serve their purpose well.

TOWs are over powered, though.

So to do well, a team really needs to work fluidly together extremely well. I'm positive that the introduction of mumble has had a serious effect on these afore-mentioned gameplay changes. This new stress on having a perfect team, is to me, the root cause of team-stacking. People know that when they load in, if their team isn't doing that well, they're likely going to have a crappy game and maybe ultimately lose.

Team Stacking is good and bad. On one hand it shows what can be done with a good team, and should by that teach other players that they need to be more organized and smart. On the other hand people just like to complain and say its because of everyone else on the other team they are losing, rather than collectively fix the issue.

I do not stack. I stick on my team and I teach others what and when I can. Now if I start paying money to play on TG server, by hell I will stack because what other benefit is their than having an IHS and playing with them? I mean the BR is broken >_>.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that the game has become un-necessarily hard on players. There are simply too many weaknesses to a team which forces the players act in a defensive and almost boring way. Sometimes I feel as if PR is a job as opposed to a game. If I wanted that kind of experience, I'd go play an MMORPG (lol). PR (for me and my friends at least) certainly exhibits more stalemates and rage-quits than it did in previous versions.

Its hard to work as a team? Well in that case I agree. PR does not cater well to lone wolves or tunnel visioned squads. PR isn't COD or Vanilla where chaos is more powerful than organization.

PR is in a way a job. Its a fun job for me. But I can see it as a job.

More or less its a hobby, an escapist adventure where I can have the organization and cooperation of an Army without actually being in an Army or risking my life. And to top it off I find it fun.

I love it when I like my job.

And this is a problem how? Squads are squads, at most they comprise of less than 1/5th a team and 1/10th of the whole battle. This isn't a collection of 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 squad battles its a collection of 1v1 teams. If the team doesn't work well together then the team is a bad team.

In respect to the bold - why should the squad who has excellent chemistry and tactics be punished because the rest of the team can't work with them?

Honestly I see this day in day out on servers at home and abroad, a select few carrying the team while their cries for support fall on deaf ears. Single squads used to excel in the form of having their own rally points but now having to rely on the frequent idiot squad leaders that plague this game is getting tiresome.

Regarding Assets:

ytman wrote:I think it is justified for a team to be upset that an unskilled pilot crashed a Jet on Kashan runway just because he got in the CAS squad before someone else more qualified was. Also beyond the ticket loss is the idea of "Well the other team has Air Superiority for the next 20 odd minutes. Great."

If assets have their value of being important assets, then why is there a need for the extra ticket loss? I simply don’t understand that, as it seems players are punished for attempting to play the game. I also fail to see why APCs and Trans-helos have any ticket loss at all since their role is to support the infantry. With the incredible amount of Anti-Tank capabilities in PR, many of these vehicles are often killed, which isn’t directly a fault of the operator! Why are players being punished for trying to help their team? Not having an asset for x amount of time is enough punishment and gives enough value to the asset imo. The ticket loss seems just brutally un-necessary.

ytman wrote:As PR is a team game I'd wish for the better pilot to be flying, the better tanker to be tanking, and the better spotter/sniper to be calling in hell fire and fury. Its the way you win.

So, basically, the same people are always playing the same assets and other people can’t experiment with new things because it might be too damaging to the team. Also, let’s be realistic, Co-op is not a valid way to practice with assets. The only way people really get better is to play the role multiple times in a live match. The ticket cost only deters players from trying new things.

Regarding Teamplay:

ytman wrote:It’s hard to work as a team? Well in that case I agree. PR does not cater well to lone wolves or tunnel visioned squads. PR isn't COD or Vanilla where chaos is more powerful than organization.

Firstly, I’m pro teamwork and multiple squads working together, coordination, etc. I’ve been doing it since I first started playing. It’s not hard to work as a team, it’s simply too easy for a weakness in the team to have a serious negative impact on the entire round. Take, for example, the role of logistics trucks and supplies. If some in-experienced player wastes it immediately (using it for personal transport, driving it into enemy lines, etc.), the team is basically screwed for a good half hour because they can’t sustain a proper defense or attack. If, on insurgency (a game-mode which I absolutely abhor), that one guy loses the SAW to the enemy, some other squad is in for a world of hurt.

There is also a noticeable lack of leadership in PR and most veteran players tend to flock to the side with the most leadership. This leaves the other side with one or two leaders that are coordinating. It's too easy to have a so-called bad team.

To illustrate the increased amount of rage/reliance on other team members, I will use last night’s round of Ramiel (on TG). I was on the US side, and 20 minutes after the start of the game, some members started getting extremely pissed at other squads for having a negative kill to death ratio. This shows the unhealthy obsession with kill to death ratios and ticket counts. Midway through the round, a certain group of players had started crashing the Blackhawk, creating even more tension. Then, that same group of players lost a combat engineer to the insurgents. This basically meant that bikes with c4 went around and completely totaled all of the assets. Upon learning this, people got extremely pissed off and started bashing the group of players immensely. Now, losing the combat engi to insurgent forces is an extremely stupid mistake, but why should one imperfection cause everyone to be so pissed off?

PR punishes the lack of teamwork more than it rewards for teamwork.

'[R-MOD wrote:Jigsaw;1411312']Well that's just not true, you should note when making statements such as this that you need to provide sources for your arguments. PR has drastically increased player numbers in 0.9 than it has in any previous version, in fact the opening weekend saw more than 2100 players online at one moment; which is a PR record.

Sauce.

Currently 539 people playing PR @ 17.00 BST on a Tuesday.

Sauce.


Playerbases change constantly (in business it's called churn or attrition), it's what happens when a game has been around for ~5 years and for a game to actually increase it's playerbase over such an extended and consistent period is nothing short of unheard of. Try naming any other game or mod that has managed this with such consistency (not even the biggest selling game of all time - MW2 - has been able to maintain it's playerbase at a constant size or increase it) so PR must be doing something right.

My apologies, let me clarify, the player base has both thinned out in quality and increased in quantity. In addition, there are a fair number of servers that merely sit empty or have less than 12 players in them at peak hours. When I play on servers other than the big 2 (TG, =]H[=), I feel there is simply nothing of substance, frequently there isn't even enough interest in playing as intended for me to run a full LEARNPR or ENGVOIP squad, to say nothing of the fruitless act of commanding where it's not enforced.

Unfortunately, I am nearly always unable to make arguments on facts, because I leave the arguments dealing with hard data to other people, sticking instead to the less concrete ideas. (What is fun? Why did that guy over there attempt to take off without taxing to the runway?) This does place me at a disadvantage. Also, google's got the right idea.

Also, I'm trying really hard not to just ***** and moan. That doesn't help anyone, but at the same time, it's important to understand the origins of sentiments like these to see if there's anything we can do to improve.

'[R-MOD wrote:Jigsaw;1411312']


Image taken 16/07/2010 on the Tactical Gamer server, just a normal Friday evening. Vote with your feet and if you cannot find this level of teamwork then try to work with other squads, go commander or play on a different server.

More a sign of how unbalance insurgency is. BLUFOR have all time in the world to do fancy maneuvers and the ins can do very little about it but get pounded by BLUFOR's superior firepower.
Actually overall there are many balance issues. Espacially those autosnipers (lmgs) and HATs pwning everything. Not since 0.87 have I played a round with good squad teamwork as it used to be but in the very beginning when people really tried to work together. Now you'll need like a clan or IRL friends to get good still worse tm than you got all the time before.

manligheten wrote:More a sign of how unbalance insurgency is. BLUFOR have all time in the world to do fancy maneuvers and the ins can do very little about it but get pounded by BLUFOR's superior firepower.
Actually overall there are many balance issues. Espacially those autosnipers (lmgs) and HATs pwning everything. Not since 0.87 have I played a round with good squad teamwork as it used to be but in the very beginning when people really tried to work together. Now you'll need like a clan or IRL friends to get good still worse tm than you got all the time before.

Please speak for yourself.

That picture doesn't show anything that you said, it just shows that the BLUEFOR are "setting up" to attack. It doesn't even say that they are winning or losing. For all you know that could be the last cache, or the first one. Please don't read more into the image.

LMG's are easy to take down, HATs do pwn, but please instead of complaining tell us how we could fix it.

I stopped playing PR in .87, I didn't much like it. However, I love PR now, with a good squad. When ever I tried to pub, without my clan mates I often rage after about 10 minutes. However, this is more to do with me being an ******* who liked being in charge than anything else. One thing that I have noticed is that going back to basics often works.

"So, jigg what are we doing?"

"Well you see we're going to flank around them here, and then move here, and then two of you will set up here, and then the other two will flank around the flank, and then if we don't die, we win!"

"Um, ok I'm going to charge. Brb".

Won´t go into other matters as its been done before and people know but the player count card is not a great argument imo. There are many more players now no doubt, can´t argue that and thats great however bring back 0.6 numbers tbh, back then you could join a server annd find great teamwork easily, now it would take much longer to get a similar results.

So yeah, player count is up, but teamwork is down (in general, yes I know TG can be epic some nights when the bad ones are kicked, I mean majority of servers at majority of hours) and getting a game is no where near as easy or satisfying.

Like has been said PR is a great mod, was better, content has never been better now etc so this is no personal assault, but unfortunately the communities attitude and gameplay has changed too much imo...

manligheten wrote:More a sign of how unbalance insurgency is. BLUFOR have all time in the world to do fancy maneuvers and the ins can do very little about it but get pounded by BLUFOR's superior firepower.

Lol, that's actually quite funny seeing as we were setting up to assault the island and a cache there but we never managed it. The insurgents destroyed two of our Warriors there and eventually wiped out most the infantry, with a particularly well timed mortar strike.

Strong teamwork =/= over-powered faction

In regards to the "keep it on the chans": /v/ got worse because they did that to troll. The use here is not for trolling. I did that in satire of his post, to show that his statement was, put bluntly, shallow, brash and unexplained.

mat552 wrote:We have spoken up Celestial. What happened was exactly what happened during the rallypoint beta. Those of you who said encouraging things about it were congratulated and agreed with, those of us who were worried what the end result would be were very nearly shouted down to "give it more time" and "play more realistically".

Speaking up and articulating a detailed argument are two different things. Many during the rallypoint beta were very vague and simply ranted in the feedback thread that "this is the worst change ever" etc etc. Those who did articulate their thoughts should have been well-recepted. If they weren't, blame it on jerks being jerks.
In this case, though, the wants of the majority outweighed the wants of others-it means more people were "satisfied."

Really, the devs are often pushed into the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

As far as backing down as a minority, why? I don't need to give up my beliefs just because they differ from yours, and that of most of the community. Why does what I consider fun mean less than what you do?

I never said that you need to give up your beliefs. Not "back down" as in assimilate and enjoy, but rather stop fighting about it.

For instance, if I, for whatever reason, wanted grenades to have a 50m wounding radius to account for shrapnel, but everyone else though grenades were good as they are and that this new wounding radius would make them overpowered, I would accept the fact that not everyone believes the same that I do, and while I may continue to believe that my idea is better, I don't have to try make a new suggestion thread about it every month, or make reference to it in any thread regarding grenades.
[Exaggerated for obviousness.]




As for the player-base's quality having been "thinned out":
I blame this one on the servers, and those particular server's players. If more of these servers had proper rules and admins, but more importantly a supportive set of founding players that encouraged the team to work together, they could really have the same quality of teamwork, no doubt. Though, I am certainly not implying that the admins/owners/players of said server are not trying, or that this is not easier said than done.

dtacs wrote:In respect to the bold - why should the squad who has excellent chemistry and tactics be punished because the rest of the team can't work with them?

I used to play PR everyday. IMO this is the biggest issue with PR right now.

If your team suck, the game will be ****, no matter how good your squad is, you will not have fun.

Even worse when BOTH teams suck, so you cant even change teams to the one that has better players.

While on some servers(minority i must add) you can still manage to find good teams, on most servers you will have **** teams duking it out, and it will suck (no firebases, people grabing logistic vehicles to drive where they want instead of making fb's, etc...


Sadly, PR now sux on the majority of public servers due to the need of having the WHOLE team playing proper, one squad messing with the logistic vehicles can fuck a whole team. Dont get me wrong, i love PR, but on public servers it is becoming harder and harder to have a enjoyable experience.

Unless your team knows how to play and make proper user of the assets, you will have a bad experience.

Sadly, PR now sux on the majority of public servers due to the need of having the WHOLE team playing proper, one squad messing with the logistic vehicles can fuck a whole team. Dont get me wrong, i love PR, but on public servers it is becoming harder and harder to have a enjoyable experience.

what is the fix then? only officers can drive trucks or something?

"no one does logistics" "no one blah blah"

if no one does it, why don't you?

if the answer is its too boring, how can we make it interesting?

alot of whining and "when I was young" posts here, lets get some positive discussion chaps, clear and doable changes to improve gameplay

the only gameplay that I hate atm is insurgency since Blufor have too many tickets atm imo, which makes it hard for a good insurgent team to win.

imo there are certain things we can do to improve gameplay, such as making AAVs that don't have ground attack functions 1 manned, to get players in to more useful positions.

However people go on saying "if your team isn't 100% you lose" thats going to be true no matter what if you are facing a team that is 100%



if your facing a team that is 100% and your team isn't 100% you lose, you lose because their team is better, this is a multiplayer game, you are not playing a single player campaign where the only eventuality is for you to win in the end as the hero. You will lose to superior players or superior teams, You are not supposed to win against a superior team, you are supposed to lose, you are supposed to take the lose graciously and try harder on the next round. I agree that on some maps the fate of teh team can lie with a small number of players, such as Jet pilots and that is an indication that AA needs a buff, nothing more imo.

Celestial1 wrote:In regards to the "keep it on the chans": /v/ got worse because they did that to troll. The use here is not for trolling. I did that in satire of his post, to show that his statement was, put bluntly, shallow, brash and unexplained.

It's not about how it starts. It's about where it leads. I get it that you needed to poke fun at the post..but please..don't start down that path. Don't look at it. Don't acknowledge it. Don't use it as satire or for any other reason. Keep it confined to that disgusting cesspit and let it stay there.

Celestial1 wrote: Speaking up and articulating a detailed argument are two different things. Many during the rallypoint beta were very vague and simply ranted in the feedback thread that "this is the worst change ever" etc etc. Those who did articulate their thoughts should have been well-recepted. If they weren't, blame it on jerks being jerks.
In this case, though, the wants of the majority outweighed the wants of others-it means more people were "satisfied."

Really, the devs are often pushed into the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

I'm not talking about people who didn't have any specific counter arguments. Those of us who did have specific lists of concerns that were real and viable, including how much it would slow down gameplay and punish mistakes rather than reward success, were either ignored or painted as chicken little types, or otherwise mocked. I had a PM argument with one particularly ornery player who was convinced I was trying to get the devs to reimplement APC spawns. In direct contrast to that, people who had vague, unarticulated arguments FOR the system were frequently given support and assistance to shape up their argument than those of us opposed to it. It was, in the end, a case of a select set of people, devs and players, wanted a change. They didn't ask the community because they cared if the change was implemented, but merely wanted to know which of their set options we were going to use. This of course is the right of the devs, without who's code we would have no playground, but at the same time, I gathered that this change could just as easily have been patched into the next major release as poll the players.

Celestial1 wrote: I never said that you need to give up your beliefs. Not "back down" as in assimilate and enjoy, but rather stop fighting about it.

For instance, if I, for whatever reason, wanted grenades to have a 50m wounding radius to account for shrapnel, but everyone else though grenades were good as they are and that this new wounding radius would make them overpowered, I would accept the fact that not everyone believes the same that I do, and while I may continue to believe that my idea is better, I don't have to try make a new suggestion thread about it every month, or make reference to it in any thread regarding grenades.
[Exaggerated for obviousness.]

Why? Don't stop fighting for that. Why would you let people forget that you think grenades are unrealistic? Just so you stop causing problems? You can be respectful, and bring up your points frequently without being annoying. I'm recalling Hunter, advocate of CA, brought up his ideas on how to make airpower more realistic in every thread it was relevant in. This may have been a bit much, but the point stands, continue to share your opinions on the game with the community. Don't go out of the way to make an *** of yourself, but don't bend over just because people don't like an idea right off the bat.

The problem is not about losing, on a team that play proper, you can still lose but at least you are having fun.
I rather lose on an organized team then to win on a **** team

The major issue is that now you need a team that is 100% to have fun, while on other versions you could have half of your team doing retarded things and you could enjoy playing even if you lose, cause those retardeds could not fuck the whole team.

Imo, removing the need of having a suply crate for SL's to build firebases would be a nice idea.

But keep the crate to build all other stuff (foxwhole, tow, etc...)

That way i could go with my squad to the objective, place a FB on a defensive position, and attack the objective without worrying about who the fuck have wasted all our suply trucks.


Right now i found myself most of the time in the "search" of a logistic truck instead of playing.

[R-CON]Rudd wrote: "no one does logistics" "no one blah blah"

if no one does it, why don't you?

I usualy do when there are logistic vehicles avaliable, on most servers, there arent because some smacktard left it parked 4km away from the mainbase and no one is giving you a ride there...
Like i said, on public servers right know is hard to play.

Logistic requires a vehicle.
Other players can screw your team by making bad use of that vehicle.

By removing the "need" of having a vehicle to do logistic (foward respawns) you fix the issue of needing 100% of the team playing proper for you to have fun.


Of course you could add other rules to make it up for it (like you need 4 SM's arround you to be able to build a FOB, and no enemies on 200m radius) (Imo more realistic than the SOLO dude doing fob's with one sniper on his squad on the other side of the map)

I can't play on other servers then TG, because most of the time they don't even use VOIP, and typing just doesn't work. And when you tell order them to move up they just ignore you and go 1337 N1nj4$ Qu1ck-Sc0p3. But when I play on TG I just entered heaven, maybe sometime you don't alot of firefights, but just the fact that jets respond to your requests and drop their bombs at the right place statisfies me.

But I would love it to go back to 0.87 with the 0.92 Features 9 (Fixes!) , when almost every squad member had a microphone and knew how to handle a rifle, and when to shoot. Back in the old days, you had alot of squads that where at least communicating, even if they were lone-wolfing.


So I will continue my story later on, but I am tired.

mat552 wrote:It's not about how it starts. It's about where it leads. I get it that you needed to poke fun at the post..but please..don't start down that path. Don't look at it. Don't acknowledge it. Don't use it as satire or for any other reason. Keep it confined to that disgusting cesspit and let it stay there.

I didn't "need to poke fun" at the post. I used it for satire, and will do so as I please.
The manner in which the satire was presented holds cultural relevance today, and therefore an extra impact.
Don't hold your breath on this forum turning into a "disgusting cesspit" because of that sort of thing.

I'm not talking about people who didn't have any specific counter arguments. Those of us who did have specific lists of concerns that were real and viable, including how much it would slow down gameplay and punish mistakes rather than reward success, were either ignored or painted as chicken little types, or otherwise mocked. I had a PM argument with one particularly ornery player who was convinced I was trying to get the devs to reimplement APC spawns. In direct contrast to that, people who had vague, unarticulated arguments FOR the system were frequently given support and assistance to shape up their argument than those of us opposed to it. It was, in the end, a case of a select set of people, devs and players, wanted a change. They didn't ask the community because they cared if the change was implemented, but merely wanted to know which of their set options we were going to use. This of course is the right of the devs, without who's code we would have no playground, but at the same time, I gathered that this change could just as easily have been patched into the next major release as poll the players.

Again, blame it on jerks being jerks. Those in the majority can get a mob mentality because "everyone's on my side." Ignore them if you must.

The minority has to fight hard to make themselves known. It's nothing unique to these forums. In the end, neither group truly mattered. The purpose of the beta was not primarily feedback, but to observe the effect it had on both gameplay and players. The devs considered even the minority in this case, but they were overshadowed by the mass of players in support.

Why? Don't stop fighting for that. Why would you let people forget that you think grenades are unrealistic? Just so you stop causing problems? You can be respectful, and bring up your points frequently without being annoying. I'm recalling Hunter, advocate of CA, brought up his ideas on how to make airpower more realistic in every thread it was relevant in. This may have been a bit much, but the point stands, continue to share your opinions on the game with the community. Don't go out of the way to make an *** of yourself, but don't bend over just because people don't like an idea right off the bat.

Take a step back here, Mat. Everything I've said is being interpreted in an extreme sense.

Hunter gave input where it made sense; where it really applied to the topic at hand. Neither was he part of a significant minority-sides were pretty well close to balanced in regards to the "balance/realism" of aircraft. If he had jumped into any thread that mentioned air assets and gave irrelevant information, and/or was part of a grossly minor group where he were the only voice against 100 others supporting the "current" implementations, he would have been ignored very easily.

To win any fight you need to have a few factors on your side. In the case of these sorts of opinion topics on the forums, these factors range from cit-able facts and figures to simply having a popular idea that will gain a backing.

If you've got a strong backing, and a reasonable claim that can be articulated and presented in a manner to present your side, do so in a thought out manner, and if things get hairy, ask for help from mods to get the thread back on topic. I've not yet seen a thread devoted to simply discussing the rally change since that feedback thread way-back-when, and would be delighted to see the other side really bringing their points to light; all I have really heard is that it makes the game "less fun" and "slower", with a lack of backing to explain or support those points.

Celestial1 wrote: To win any fight you need to have a few factors on your side. In the case of these sorts of opinion topics on the forums, these factors range from cit-able facts and figures to simply having a popular idea that will gain a backing.

most of the time i'm glad the devs (at least i hope they do) make their decisions on their own instead of following what the majority of the forums wants them to do. There's a reason the philosophers even from the nation which started democracy, were strongly against it. The best ideas are never the popular ones.

remember that the bell curve model is false, people either get things or they dont, there's no mass in the middle ground. Problem arises because only a very few populate the upper portion of the graph and the average person is near the bottom. And of course everyone thinks they are at the top of the graph. this is why all nations that were great in any point in time had at those times rulers, dictators, or emperors. It's simply because a single ruler can make a decision, whereas in a democracy there will always be conflicting groups and thus either a hastily made compromise is created or no decision made at all. the same goes for senates and parliaments. the most efficient governing body is one single body. A king sees his nation as a whole and fights for it as a whole, representatives from a region sees it as separated pockets where he fights for the benifit of that pocket, the individual sees the nation as many groups of like minded people sharing one border and fight then for their group.

By removing the "need" of having a vehicle to do logistic (foward respawns) you fix the issue of needing 100% of the team playing proper for you to have fun.

perhaps time to live on logi trucks should be decreased in this case? that way abandoned logi trucks will self destruct and return to main, however this method does result in annoyances sometimes, e.g. you spent 10mins working to recover a truck only for it to self destruct

The major issue is that now you need a team that is 100% to have fun, while on other versions you could have half of your team doing retarded things and you could enjoy playing even if you lose, cause those retardeds could not fuck the whole team.

why? as long as you have good squad members you can have fun, when I pub on none TG servers where the Teamwork is a bit less, I just get a squad and do my best to help out a friendly squad in its tasks.