Project Reality Forums

Some interesting discussion in here

I agree on several points

Ticket loss must be proportional to ingame performance and loss of actual life.

Its been stated publicly several times that it was planned for a revamp of hitzones etc on armour to make them more realistic. However this requires a specific skillset, and as a placeholder I'd be happy with a 15% approx HP increase on tanks, and a 5% on APCs to make them tougher.

I also agree with the HAT and sniper being request able only from main base (the vehicle depot and/or command post I guess)

between TOWs, LATs, your teams vehicles and the occasional AT mine, I think theres enough to destroy vehicles to warrant making HATs and snipers more 'special'

Try and keep the discussion up-beat guys, don't insult eachother or cast dispersions over people's motivations for suggesting things...

Rudd wrote:
Try and keep the discussion up-beat guys, don't insult eachother or cast dispersions over people's motivations for suggesting things...

Fine Ill go ahead and take this off then...

Sorry mantak, I meant that unlike how they are now, tanks should either be relatively cheap and neutered, or relatively expensive and powerful. The two worst case scenarios are expensive tanks that can't impact the battle or tanks that cost next to nothing and have no counter. It's my opinion that ticket for ticket, as of this version, armored and airborne assets are down among the worst investments in tickets a team can make.

Aside from adjusting the ticket or health values, this isn't much that can be done to change the equation. Odd ideas like charging the winner in a tank/tank fight can be most effective ones, even if they don't make sense or are counter intuitive, because it's very hard to predict how simple changes will affect the attitudes of players.

Tbh armor needs the bleed removed when on low health.

Rudd wrote:Some interesting discussion in here


I also agree with the HAT and sniper being request able only from main base (the vehicle depot and/or command post I guess)

Or this yeah, , my idea smells kinda hardcoded and harder to implement, this should be easier.

Mantak08 wrote:but here is the issue. those tanks.... they DONT stand up to AT hits. ive been in tons and tons of armor that's taking AT hits and i can tell you that theirs only a 10%-15% chance that your tank will make it away from a HAT hit. it has to be a perfect front hit, dead center low n the chassis. otherwise your tracked or dead. when your in a tank and you hear that TOW flying through the air, you know your already dead.

this is because of terrain damage. hat will not one shot in the front/side/turret if the tank is fully topped off, but if you hit one sand dune wrong you are done. i suggested removing terrain dmg but it would take too long and be unrealistic. drive slow and carefully, or bring a logi if you want to keep that survivability.

+1 for hat/ce/sniper to only req off of main, one crate and you are prepared for anything.

I'm personally against the HAT/Sniper at main only. If your teams all the way up at the last flag, across the map from your base being pounded by armor. By the time you got up there with a HAT after running back. You'd of lost that flag and maybe a couple more.

Or times where it's a do or die. Your pinned down by the opposing team, armors moving in or vice versa and then you have no AT, your in the middle of the map or at a make or break point in the game. That would not go over well.

IMO the ticket penality discourages a combined arms approach.

in my opinion it doesnt. with open eyes and ears, including as many people as possible into communication it works fine almost ever.

im quite happy that the assets have some kind of worth @PR. who wants vanilla back? who wants vehicle spam just because they are available but not used appropriately?

the spawn time is fine, the ticket cost is also fine. perfect solution already found!

as already mentioned, the insurgency mode would not be playable anymore with a dramatic or complete cut of the ticket cost.

Cassius wrote:So tactically it makes sense for armor to play it safe, seek out enemy armor and NOT support the infantery.

play it safe, always. not support the infantry, why?

its like with the CAS, first spot and destroy the enemy counterparts, then engage targets that the infantry provides. understand the role your asset has! one huge thing is different with the armors here, you dont have to hunt them, just wait and they will appear where you want them to.

tank and apc engaging into urbans without any kind of infantry recon or cover @ PR? hell... how can you not know that this will end up in a massive ticket loss.

worst thing at all is a team that permanently calls for armor support, but doesnt check if there are any AT threats and somehow forces the vehicle crew to get off their own priorities, which are a) keeping the asset alive and b) supporting in a way, that they think is the most effective at any given time.

so please, i dont want to see any changes back to vanilla! that would quite much ruin it for me.

ps: a lot of heavy assets @ PR would still be alive if there was an "engine off" button.

I need to address a logical falsehood I keep seeing now. The way vehicles work with respect to ticket cost is not a binary option. There isn't a switch the devs flip from "Vanilla" to "Realistic", and it's wrong to present this situation as being either/or. It's polarizing and unhelpful to imply, or state, that the choice is between "vanilla" gameplay or the way it currently is, because that puts people lobbying for change into a defensive mindset, and they have to counter the accusation that they want to go all the way back to vanilla's pace.

Please don't turn this, or anything else, into a fight between the imaginary strawman with un-thought out stupid ideas and players who actually care how the game is played. PR is far enough along that the vast majority of players who don't care aren't playing anymore, at least as far as I can see from peak player counts versus forum activity.

Furst wrote: as already mentioned, the insurgency mode would not be playable anymore with a dramatic or complete cut of the ticket cost.



play it safe, always. not support the infantry, why?

its like with the CAS, first spot and destroy the enemy counterparts, then engage targets that the infantry provides. understand the role your asset has! one huge thing is different with the armors here, you dont have to hunt them, just wait and they will appear where you want them to.

tank and apc engaging into urbans without any kind of infantry recon or cover @ PR? hell... how can you not know that this will end up in a massive ticket loss.

worst thing at all is a team that permanently calls for armor support, but doesnt check if there are any AT threats and somehow forces the vehicle crew to get off their own priorities, which are a) keeping the asset alive and b) supporting in a way, that they think is the most effective at any given time.

so please, i dont want to see any changes back to vanilla! that would quite much ruin it for me.

ps: a lot of heavy assets @ PR would still be alive if there was an "engine off" button.

Why should the tank risk 10 plus tickets and engage infantery worth 2 tickets, which can take it out with a hat or tow? Does not make much sense, therefore most tankers try and keep their assets away from flags and soldiers and confront the armor away from the objectives if they can.

CAS engages armor a lot, so ticketwise it is a very good bet again.

Also there is the whole problem, that it is an exploit. By taking out the armor, not only do you neutralize enemy armor, you also knock off a lot of tickets off the enemy team without using your armor to engage enemy infantery or take a flag. So why do it? You are better off hiding your tank in an obscure location of the map with the engine off and snipe enemy tanks, to knock off another 12 tickets off the enemy team.

And as far insurgency goes, before the point system was revamped when no rally was tested, winning with blueforce against insurgency was tough as nails even with free armor. I have no problem with tweaking the avaiable ammount of tickets.

let me try answering first

Cassius wrote:Why should the tank risk 10 plus tickets and engage infantery worth 2 tickets which can take it out with a hat or tow?

in my opinion, here comes PR's aspect of teamwork into play. the infantry identifies the AT threats and interferes with them, so the heavy assets can provide long range support and not risk by getting hit by that certain AT threat. that is how me and most of the people i play with understand this game.

combined forces, isnt it? the map sizes in PR are often limited and not completely comparable with real existing conditions, of course, but all vehicles have the advantage of zooming. not relying on exactly this advantage almost always leads to immediate ticket / asset loss.

im not really a fan of referring to youtube and video platforms with live footage, but i think many of those videos give an interesting insight in intelligent approaches which also work in PR. the vehicles are always covered and stay behind the frontlines, so they can provide long range firesupport without absolutely risking the loss of their vehicle. this is effective and works.

the effort and teamwork required and involved to fight and counter situations like such as in my opinion are almost equally interesting in this mod.

therefore most tankers try and keep their assets away from flags and soldiers

hopefully! i really dont understand why heavy assets often cap flags in PR. there is no advantage and logical reason behind that in my opinion.

infantry is simply predestinated to do that first, not only because they have the huge advantage of less perceptibility, they also can identify the local threats in a much better way. if this happened, there isnt much that speaks against the involvement of heavy asset support, since the threats are known and interferred with by the infantry.

CAS engages armor a lot, so ticketwise it is a very good bet again.

theres almost always a counterweapon available against every asset here it is the AA support and vehicle crews that take a look at the spawntimes and can rely on the information provided about enemy threats within the team.

the attempt of the CAS to take out that certain armor to kill 10 tickets can lead into fail if the enemy team is prepared and acting safe.

worth of assets! intelligent ways to use or fight that value.

Also there is the whole problem, that it is an exploit. By taking out the armor, not only do you neutralize enemy armor, you also knock off a lot of tickets off the enemy team without using your armor to engage enemy infantery or take a flag.

this is part of the game's concept, isnt it?! how else should that situation be simulated then? risking things to win or lose.

i can only repeat myself: first engage the local and relevant threats, then support the infantry which in return provides info about threats. thats what every vehicle crew should take to heart. there is the combined forces idea again!

You are better off hiding your tank in an obscure location of the map with the engine off and snipe enemy tanks, to knock off another 12 tickets off the enemy team.

ive got the feeling that your assumption is that one of the teams is always completely stupid and does not work together to counter attacks.

if a threat is known, the attempt should not be to repeat the same situation over and over again while having features like mortar unused, which can be a real pain to every asset crew.

i somehow feel like pointing out things that almost all people already know since its common sense and used on all servers i play on.

And as far insurgency goes, before the point system was revamped when no rally was tested, winning with blueforce against insurgency was tough as nails even with free armor. I have no problem with tweaking the avaiable ammount of tickets.

insurgency has changed a lot and is not very comparable anymore to the situation like 2 years ago.

i admit, if all vehicles would always act like i have written above it is almost impossible or at least really difficult for the INS at all to destroy the heavy assets. but since its a video game with real human beings involved there is always a way to succeed

however, im not sure if i understand the idea behind your posts completely. maybe its a nice new concept that you are thinking of, but i guess im not able to get the point, since like i already mentioned i appreciate the value of assets and the amount of teamwork involved to use em properly.

anyway, tweaking hitzones, damage percentages or AT weapons sounds somehow interesting.

in conclusion, you confuse me a bit, but i try to understand the ongoing discussion!

Well the game concept is supposed to be combined arms, as it is a lot of the times, assets play their own game.

The point system works well for Insurgency, where asset destruction does mean a lot more for insurgents.

For AAS, the ticket penalty on top of the timer penalty is too much. Instead of tickets, the timer should be the penalty and the number of assets or the spawn time can be changed to fit. This would reduce the armor vs armor game as a side to the infantry vs infantry because bringing a tank would be the equivalent of bringing a HAT to the fight.

If vehicle tickets remain, then specialist kits like the HAT should cost tickets when requested since they can so easily counter vehicles.

SGT.Ice wrote:I'm personally against the HAT/Sniper at main only. If your teams all the way up at the last flag, across the map from your base being pounded by armor. By the time you got up there with a HAT after running back. You'd of lost that flag and maybe a couple more.

Or times where it's a do or die. Your pinned down by the opposing team, armors moving in or vice versa and then you have no AT, your in the middle of the map or at a make or break point in the game. That would not go over well.

I would send an offensive remark your way, but for the sake of me not being banned, ill hold it back.

That is the whole point of this discussion. Players as infantry NEED to be afraid of the tanks and tanks NEED NOT to be afraid of infantry. Now its the other way around.

Use teamwork to palce TOWs and HATs strategicaly. Tactics, withrdawal, teamwork is what its needed, not handing you OP HATs ant any given second. I believe youre one of those player who constantly attack and dont give a damn about defending/pulling back.

I support the current ticket price or even raising the stakes. Their needs to be more emphisis in staying alive as inf, and keeping your vehicle alive as a crewman/pilot. A higher ticket price might make people think twice before flying the CAS huey like a tank, or dive bombing an AA with the COBRA...... When the vehicle hangs back and supports from range (as they would in real life) they allways do better, and the result is gererally a WIN. I always gauge my success in PR based on how many times I died, not on a K/D ratio....

Ambush wrote:I support the current ticket price or even raising the stakes. Their needs to be more emphisis in staying alive as inf, and keeping your vehicle alive as a crewman/pilot. A higher ticket price might make people think twice before flying the CAS huey like a tank, or dive bombing an AA with the COBRA...... When the vehicle hangs back and supports from range (as they would in real life) they allways do better, and the result is gererally a WIN. I always gauge my success in PR based on how many times I died, not on a K/D ratio....

It isn't nearly as simple as that. For starters, if you make vehicles too costly ticket-wise, they become an impractical option. And if a team does opt to take a tank out of main, they will invariably try and kill the enemy tank since that would be the best way to be ticket-efficient.
Supporting infantry is a pretty static job and it will put your vehicle within range of a crate which means a) the possibility to get a HAT kit and b)ammo for said HAT kit.
Also, the fact that you have infantry with you does NOT protect you from a semi-competent HAT guy. If the infantry genuinely managed to secure the area of AT threats, it's worth wondering what the hell do they even need armor support for.

jerkzilla wrote: Supporting infantry is a pretty static job and it will put your vehicle within range of a crate which means a) the possibility to get a HAT kit and b)ammo for said HAT kit.
Also, the fact that you have infantry with you does NOT protect you from a semi-competent HAT guy. If the infantry genuinely managed to secure the area of AT threats, it's worth wondering what the hell do they even need armor support for.

I have thought things over a bit more. Tickets do have a role in this, but its is physchological.

Tank facing an enemy tank or tank afcing an enemy HAT is the same, so to speak. While the other tank will need 2 shots to take you down, he loses on firepower as the HAT/TOW will 1 shot you, but is more vulnerable. It balances both engagements' threat level i think. Considering that the crew is quite skilled and can immediately spot threatening infantry or tank. If crew is worse, they will have even less awarness of infantry carried AT equipment, making HAT even more dangerous than enemy tank.

So, add tisckets to that equasion and you will see that attaking infantry should be avoided by all costs. Not only you inflict more ticket loss by destroying enemy armour, you also have greater chance of survivability wich can be even further increased by a logi truck repair drop.

This must be balanced by nerfing AT/improving armour, having special kits only requestable in main and reducing ticket cost.

Arnoldio wrote:Players as infantry NEED to be afraid of the tanks and tanks NEED NOT to be afraid of infantry. Now its the other way around.

Use teamwork to palce TOWs and HATs strategicaly. Tactics, withrdawal, teamwork is what its needed, not handing you OP HATs ant any given second. I believe youre one of those player who constantly attack and dont give a damn about defending/pulling back.

^This^

Also, what's with everyone talking about AT one-shotting tanks? Sure, it happens, but only when they hit weak spots in the models (that shouldn't be there and will probably never get fixed) but isn't that often, 4/5ths of the times it takes 2 HATs/TOWs to take out an MBT.

Stealthgato wrote: Also, what's with everyone talking about AT one-shotting tanks? Sure, it happens, but only when they hit weak spots in the models (that shouldn't be there and will probably never get fixed) but isn't that often, 4/5ths of the times it takes 2 HATs/TOWs to take out an MBT.

then you play with people who missed with the first shot.

Stealthgato wrote:^This^

Also, what's with everyone talking about AT one-shotting tanks? Sure, it happens, but only when they hit weak spots in the models (that shouldn't be there and will probably never get fixed) but isn't that often, 4/5ths of the times it takes 2 HATs/TOWs to take out an MBT.

It is rare for a tank to shrug off a frontal AT shot with anything less than being tracked or turreted. A tracked or turreted tank that was just hit by a HAT is going to be hit by a second hat or catch fire and burn long before repairs can arrive. It is impossible for a tank, much less an IFV, to survive a rear angle hit by a HAT, and side hits do far more killing than wounding.