Project Reality Forums

TBH, i just see this as a change to fix players wich aint possible.
And which will result in nothing more than anoyance and make the mod less appealing for most people except for the hardcore milsim fans here.

i think that beta should be in more servers.now theres servers what are very good what comes to the teamplay,but how is gameplay then if the beta is some other server where teamwork is not so good as,t&t,tg?

edit:for me this beta change is now in very interesting position.
cos i just cant anymore play normal version cos its just lame to throw those sacks "just in case before we go attack"
so what happens then if rallys stay just normal?

maarit wrote:i think that beta should be in more servers.now theres servers what are very good what comes to the teamplay,but how is gameplay then if the beta is some other server where teamwork is not so good as,t&t,tg?

edit:for me this beta change is now in very interesting position.
cos i just cant anymore play normal version cos its just lame to throw those sacks "just in case before we go attack"
so what happens then if rallys stay just normal?

Having enemy rallies makes you have another mission, go find them. Thats whats gona happen

Hmmm no rallys, hmm. Ive been playing on chicago the past few days and havnt really played on the open beta test servers yet, i think 3 times wich were terrible because the squad leaders didnt have a clue wtf they were doing.

I :
-Join squads because of the competence of squad leaders.
When a squad leader has the experience and knowledge about what needs to be done, where we need to go and what the enemy is supposed to be doing the round is going to be 100% fun!
too bad 50% of the squads is led by kiddies who just only like to rush and kill.
No rant, its just how i experience it, i'm plain ol infantry and no sl material yet.

-Than have the feeling i'm actually helping the team without worrieng about wasting assets.

Rp's , i dont care a little remove 'm or keep 'm, as long as the opposing team has the same.

But FOB's.. well they are getting over run so easily the past weeks. I dont know if that is because i'm becoming more experienced with the game or a lot of noobs from the test server switched homes but man.. it just happens to much. Maybe a change in the looks and behaviours of FOB's? Harder to destroy/spot/enter? Because it doesnt matter how much i love the slow paced, stressed, tensed gameplay of PR, walking 800M over and over is just too far(with 5 other squad mates). I know the response, stop attacking that positions than, or be more carefull, or whatever. As i just noted a lot of squad leaders dont know what the f theyre doing.

I do not agree that this will destroy the mod or the community, Rally points were a good idea to keep people interested, but they would never last.

hell if it was up to me firebases would just be a structure not a spawn point, forcing you lazy gits to start up a convoy going from the base to frontline, also i dont know why you think that these maps are large? Theyve been created for head on conflict over semi long ranges, in a proper skirmish most of the time you cant see who your firing at, your just told theyre there.

the only problem i see here is that if squad leader spawning is brought back in the mod will have regressed a few notches, the way i see it you should always spawn in at base and have to walk back or get a lift back to the frontline.

If you cant handle the responsibility of leting your team down because you died then you should not be a SQL, maybe this will make you think twice before doing a particulary daring action or taking your sqd into a particulary nasty area such as a choke or cut off point.

also i asure you if you knew that when you died youd have to walk a few km before you got back to your position, then you would value the lifes and life of you and your men so much more, making for more intense firefights, more intense situations where your being fired on and your trying to figure out where from.

someone gets hit and you dont just run out into the open and revive him, but you throw smoke and prepare covering fire, and then move on the ground and revive him then you both move back into cover.

most of the time all i see is people rushing in and out not caring about the fact that they are playing a virtual simulation of war, im not saying take it to the ultimatum and learn military procedures and moves of a tactical nature, but do take into heed the fact that the guy on the ned of the gun opposite of you wants to kill you.

so youve gotta value your life and kill him instead, and sometimes that could be just waiting for him to fire all his clips out and then having to move back and rearm.

a good game isnt made good by its community, its made good by the restrcitions inplace which stop you from being unreal or too perfect, Grand Theft Auto is a case in point looking at urban combat, Arma in open land warefare, these games as you can see have made it as realistic as they can and so you have a big community who are a good community due to a game which restricts the unreal, and shows that the real concept is more fun

well thats my two cents on a move towards realism by removing the RP's and making you spawn at base when you die

Dont know about the rest, but i dont get intense firefights becouse i might die.

About realism, we have deviation wich makes us play more unrealistic

As an old player (gh days) i think SOF has a valid point.

All this nonsense could have been avoided with a larger RP overrun area and "wave respawn".
Wave respawn is a really old concept in FPS gaming and it works.
RP overrun forces SL to choose non-hot areas to set their RP.

Reminds me to The Onion's satiric video:

Ultra-Realistic Modern Warfare Game Features Awaiting Orders, Repairing Trucks | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

maarit wrote:i think that beta should be in more servers.now theres servers what are very good what comes to the teamplay,but how is gameplay then if the beta is some other server where teamwork is not so good as,t&t,tg?

edit:for me this beta change is now in very interesting position.
cos i just cant anymore play normal version cos its just lame to throw those sacks "just in case before we go attack"
so what happens then if rallys stay just normal?

Hehe, I hear ya... I cant imagine going back to rallies after the beta. That would be like driving a volvo after a ferrari. If the DEVS cant decide which way to go, maybe rallies should be a server setting and then we who love teamwork can continue to play with no rallies on the best servers.

TheLean wrote:Hehe, I hear ya... I cant imagine going back to rallies after the beta. That would be like driving a volvo after a ferrari. If the DEVS cant decide which way to go, maybe rallies should be a server setting and then we who love teamwork can continue to play with no rallies on the best servers.

So RPs don't encourage teamwork ingame now lol? That's completely false. The Beta is trying to make teamwide teamwork occur more at the expense of individual squads, it has no effect on squad teamwork (only negatives) really.

maarit wrote:i think that beta should be in more servers.now theres servers what are very good what comes to the teamplay,but how is gameplay then if the beta is some other server where teamwork is not so good as,t&t,tg?

Tacticts&Teamwork i.e T&T one of the best servers for tactical gaming in my opinion.

It's not that Rally points don't encourage teamwork, I think it's more along the lines of not encouraging teamwork in a certain manner. Take, for example, the squad leader spawn system that was used prior to v0.6. It accomplished the end goal of keeping players working together, but by a means that made the squad leader's only function to be a beacon for the entire team to spawn on. When Rally points were introduced, it was a great step forward, but still ended up resulting in a "find the backpacks" scavenger hunt.

The current system employed is, again, another step forward from the scavenger hunt gameplay of previous versions, but we still are seeing used in a parallel fashion. Now the goal seems to be to hide the rally in an obscure location far away on the edge of the maps or to leave it in low foot traffic areas of the maps. I don't think the goal of the rally point system is to create a secret base. I think the DEVs end goal for this new system is to make the squad leaders more intentional as to their use of rally points. They are meant to be used in a temporary safe place away from combat for the squad to literally "rally" and not as a spawn beacon for a trickle of soldiers to appear at and move to the front. Now infantry concentrations are found around FOBs and squad leaders must be more intenional as to how they move their squads and where they rally. The new system is another step forward in terms on intentionality, intensity, and tactics.

do anybody have knowledge about this?
4x4km area with 32 soldiers?
is it realismbased?

answer to that will help me to decide.
cos if the amount of soldiers in that size area is too small (32),i wanna rallys,limited,one time deployable.
6/6 squad get 6 spawns from rally
5/5 squad get 5 spawns from rally
4/4 squad get 4 spawns...
3/3 squad get 1 spawns
2/2 nothing.

if its hardcoded then

4 spawns from rally to every squad.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And with the Beta, you are either going to have squads just defend, defend, defend, or still attack, attack, attack. You will never be satisfied and I gurantee you that it will play out one of these two ways. There are already plenty of people who defend in PR, so what you said is false. Second, yes, it maybe more easy to attack in the non-RP version (you sound like you want the flag given to you IMO), but it also increases camping a certain spot, hence stalemates. What most likely will happen is that a majority of the team will stay back and defend the FOBs and set up defenses on them while 1 or 2 squads go off alone and go after seperate flags and get slaughtered since they are up against more enemies.



Not when the first FOB being overrun is the only one on the map, which is a high probability on some assault maps like Barracuda or Muttrah where the enemy can get to you very fast. Where will they spawn then? O yea, back at main.....

what are you talking about, SOF? tons of people defend in PR? really? that is not my experience at all in most pub games. so i disagree strongly with you there. you can guarantee how things will play out all you want and make statements about how i will react, but that doesnt make you correct. secondly, i said it was HARDER to attack in the no-RP version. how exactly does that sound like i want flags given to me? i want more people defending, which makes attacking harder. i dont understand how you can say it might be easier to attack in the no-RP version and then state it'll be impossible to attack in the very same paragraph. that makes zero sense...

as far as being spawn killed at an FO...it's NEVER a problem, no matter what map you are on. there is ALWAYS an alternate spawnpoint to an FO, even if it's at the main base. this highlights the main problem...some players want to spawn into the action (or close to it) and will whine and complain if it's not possible. if the enemy makes life hard for you on the battlefield, deal with it like a man.

maarit wrote:do anybody have knowledge about this?
4x4km area with 32 soldiers?
is it realismbased?

answer to that will help me to decide.
cos if the amount of soldiers in that size area is too small (32),i wanna rallys,limited,one time deployable.
6/6 squad get 6 spawns from rally
5/5 squad get 5 spawns from rally
4/4 squad get 4 spawns...
3/3 squad get 1 spawns
2/2 nothing

That's actually not a bad idea in my opinion. I would love to see a test version of that...

Threedroogs wrote:what are you talking about, SOF? tons of people defend in PR? really? that is not my experience at all in most pub games. so i disagree strongly with you there. you can guarantee how things will play out all you want and make statements about how i will react, but that doesnt make you correct. secondly, i said it was HARDER to attack in the no-RP version. how exactly does that sound like i want flags given to me? i want more people defending, which makes attacking harder. i dont understand how you can say it might be easier to attack in the no-RP version and then state it'll be impossible to attack in the very same paragraph. that makes zero sense...

Do you see the flaw in your logic? If people aren't defending now, how are they suddenly, magically, out of nowhere defending control points now? And you contradict yourself when you say that I can predict how you will play all I want, but you believe that you can in that same sentence (i.e. defending more because of the Beta). But to answer your question, Yes, people are defending ingame and the only reason you are seeing more defense is because the servers you are playing on which are more admined and team oriented most likely, not the Beta itself.

And it makes it sound like you want control points given to you because you don't want to do the work of repling enemy squads. The RP represented reinforcements and more number of players than are possible ingame. With the Beta, you only have to take on 1 squad now in order to get somewhere. That's lazy IMO and makes the game less fun since firefights will merly be short skirmishes and not epic drawn out wars.

And if you didn't understand what I said in the sentence, go back and read it again. All the Beta does is take away heavily from offense and puts way too much emphasis on defense, which isn't even guranteed to be defense of the flag. It could just be defense of the FOBs which makes the most sense. You will get your "attacking is harder", but it will only be because one squad will be attacking a CP at a time while the rest stay back and defend. Realistic, if we are talking, there should always be more attackers than defenders since it is much harder to attack than to defend and real militaries put a lot of force into their offensives while the defenders don't need as many personal. Ever heard of D-Day or Khe Shan?

as far as being spawn killed at an FO...it's NEVER a problem, no matter what map you are on. there is ALWAYS an alternate spawnpoint to an FO, even if it's at the main base. this highlights the main problem...some players want to spawn into the action (or close to it) and will whine and complain if it's not possible. if the enemy makes life hard for you on the battlefield, deal with it like a man.

Its funny that you say that and then basically say you are against having to hunt down enemy RPs and repeling waves of enemy assaults. And no, there is not ALWAYS an alternate spawnpoint in the Beta. With an RP, at least you had a gurantee or chance or fallback and regroup. Now, your are only guranteed ONE spawnpoint, or the main. There is no gurantee that your team, which could be dumb as a box of rocks, is going to build another FOB to spawn on.

I think the rally changes attempts to fix problem that was created by other changes. I think everything went out the window when the Commander role was neutered. I suppose the complaint was having a commander that was inept, abusive or both. At least there was some order to the game, another thought process was involved in FOB placement (do you REALLY want to put that FOB there?).
We have tools (thanks to After Dune's scripts) to resign commanders/Squad leaders now (@resign). There were a lot of good commanders that did an excellent job. Now your dependent on scrolling vague text from other like minded players or a commander begging squads to work together. I command a lot and 99% of the squads completely ignore requests for enemy updates/info. The addition of the UAV was good, however the commander should be the commander not a suggestion box.

I think the biggest and best change to PR right now is to take out the individual scores/who's dead/alive during gameplay. Only after end of round show scores with emphasis on Team Play/Team Score. It's the only thing that will save PR from the current run n' gun nilla bunny epidemic.

maarit wrote:do anybody have knowledge about this?
4x4km area with 32 soldiers?
is it realismbased?

No. Asad Khal would need a battalion sized assault force.
A single "t-shaped" building takes at least two platoons to clear.

DDS wrote: I think the biggest and best change to PR right now is to take out the individual scores/who's dead/alive during gameplay. Only after end of round show scores with emphasis on Team Play/Team Score. It's the only thing that will save PR from the current run n' gun nilla bunny epidemic.

I would say if the kill death ratio was removed people would be more reckless, since it doesn't really matter how many times you die, since no one will notice.

manligheten wrote:I would say if the kill death ratio was removed people would be more reckless, since it doesn't really matter how many times you die, since no one will notice.

One death = one ticket.

If your playing this game for a score go play cod or something. I usally only care about my score if i'm top squad. Usally i play this game because its almost the only game i actually get decent teamwork on.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Its funny that you say that and then basically say you are against having to hunt down enemy RPs and repeling waves of enemy assaults. And no, there is not ALWAYS an alternate spawnpoint in the Beta. With an RP, at least you had a gurantee or chance or fallback and regroup. Now, your are only guranteed ONE spawnpoint, or the main. There is no gurantee that your team, which could be dumb as a box of rocks, is going to build another FOB to spawn on.

There is always a alternitive spawn point unless you have lost all your flags. Its called your main base. RP were also just reasons to not care about your life. Now, if you get killed suddenly you have to find a way to regroup with your squad. This means players will be more scared to die, they don't want to A: loose a position and B: find a way to get back to there squad. Also if this is implimented players will adapt. Sooner or later people will go "hey my teams always getting its *** kicked. Wait? I'm always spawning at the main, maybe thats why! I should build some firebases to support my team!"

Listien your not getting this. No the devs arnt try to ruin PR for everybody. There changing something that needed to be changed for awhile. Scince players are hardcoded the only way to make the game better was to change the way they had to play. I'm willing to walk a 4 km map, as long as i get better gameplay (Even though its extremely unlikley for me to be walking that far). I want to see more care in actual life in PR.

In older versions people would get wounded and just give up because there RP was just a couple hundred meters away, a short walk. Now if you wounded people are waiting to be revived. Why do you think people always used to take a couple medics before it was limited? It ment they didn't have to walk as far. People want to skip getting there. The getting there and planning part is much more important then the actual fire fight. People used to rush into battle in wave after wave just wasting tickets because it was easy just to get to the front again.

Players need to learn how to adapt to there current situation. Theres going to be alot of radical changes like this. Get used to em. I find it hard to play on normal servers just because i'm so used to playing on servers with the new beta.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:there was no open beta for wolfs deviation

Yes but anyone that was around for it when it was put in the full game can remember how hard it was to kill the enemy even if they where right in front of you.

all they needed to do was clean up the close range and it was perfect xD