Project Reality Forums

gazzthompson wrote:the new gameplay system is what was in the beta, i have played it. as for what people say in public servers? who cares?

gazzthompson, are you sure? You haven't played .9 yet. Remember? Well someone before was interested in arguing the representation of the PR gaming base. Hmmm...

hiberNative, securing a foot hold? Sure. Secure a foot hold for a few minutes, watch your squad die, and then start from 5,000 miles away. Sure that's fun. I love the exercise.

offmason wrote:gazzthompson, are you sure? You haven't played .9 yet. Remember? Well someone before was interested in arguing the representation of the PR gaming base. Hmmm....

Yes im sure, its exactly the same only the maps are different.

offmason wrote:hiberNative, securing a foot hold? Sure. Secure a foot hold for a few minutes, watch your squad die, and then start from 5,000 miles away. Sure that's fun. I love the exercise.

nono. i was referring to securing a foot hold with a firebase. so you can respawn on it so you don't have to walk across the map...

how many meters are you ok with to walk without engaging anything?

offmason wrote: hiberNative, securing a foot hold? Sure. Secure a foot hold for a few minutes, watch your squad die, and then start from 5,000 miles away. Sure that's fun. I love the exercise.

what a lame excuse, how would having a RP in 0.8 be different in any way? the enemy is still going to trounce your squad and over run your RP/FB, but now their might be another FB 200m away insteed of you walking 5000 miles

Get off the forums, come back later when you played 0.9 for a week.

Teek wrote:what a lame excuse, how would having a RP in 0.8 be different in any way? the enemy is still going to trounce your squad and over run your RP/FB, but now their might be another FB 200m away insteed of you walking 5000 miles

Get off the forums, come back later when you played 0.9 for a week.

Lame excuse? As SL, my rally point is my responsibility. I place it where I need it and usually I have enough awareness of the situation to keep it up for a substantial amount of time. As far as losing the rally, I simply gather a squad-mate or two and drop a new one in a different area - ordering the dead squad members to refrain from spawning until a live rally is up.

That is the difference. You go ahead and try to do the same when your fire base gets destroyed and your crates become smoke. In the latter event, you're going to be doing a lot of walking.

Teek, make sure to get new boots. You're going to need them.

offmason wrote: Teek, make sure to get new boots. You're going to need them.

your basing this on what?

hiberNative wrote:nono. i was referring to securing a foot hold with a firebase. so you can respawn on it so you don't have to walk across the map...

how many meters are you ok with to walk without engaging anything?

Gotcha. When do you really secure a fire-base? At no point have I found a fire-base to be really secure, even with relatively able squads defending it. I am not sure how many meters -- next time I go in game I'll let you know.

gazzthompson wrote:your basing this on what?

My beautiful imagination!

offmason wrote:Sure it does. It has everything to do with the rally point changes. This NEVER happened before the rally alteration. Hence, I believe I am justified in saying that it is the rally system that has caused the problems that we are speaking of.

No, people not adapting to the new system is the problem, just like it was when they removed the SL spawn point, and the APC spawn point, and so many other things that have been changed in this mod since its inception that's made the "common denominator" prophesice its death.

I do not find it credible that only in your squad, and only in the servers that you play in are the teams working flawlessly and without a hitch.

I suggest you choose your servers more carefully.

You tell everyone to adapt, but who exactly is adapting? The whole team, as one unit? You are trying to make the ideal game play a common occurrence. It is rare to say the least that a commander is able to bring a whole team together, and it is almost just as rare that a commander takes the reigns. Your suggestion that teams should have 3 to 4 fire bases alludes to the possibility that this may become common practice.

If you play on servers where people don't cooperate then that's your problem.

Even though I highly doubt it, perhaps you are a specialist at this game and only play with people of like capabilities, but I am speaking to the common denominator. At the current state of affairs, I do not find 3 or 4 FOB's plausible and hence your argument holds little weight with me. I am not new to this game, not in the least. The team and squad based game play has deteriorated, as I stated in my previous posts.

If the common denominator wanted vBF2 style gameplay, should the mod accommodate that? Because that is basically what you would have if the devs actually followed their lead. No, what you want is a certain set of rules for yourself to make it easier for you, but what you fail to grasp is that the things that you want changed are exactly what deliver the excellent gameplay that PR does.

This is a modification, it changes stuff, and people actually have to adapt to those changes. You can't apply the vBF2 game style to 0.8 and you can't just apply the 0.8 game style to 0.9.

offmason wrote:That is the difference. You go ahead and try to do the same when your fire base gets destroyed and your crates become smoke. In the latter event, you're going to be doing a lot of walking.

what are you doing leaving an exposed firebase behind you? the enemy knows where you are spawning from and they're probably flanking it while you are on your grumpy hikes.

defend it! this is the commander btw.

offmason wrote:That is the difference. You go ahead and try to do the same when your fire base gets destroyed and your crates become smoke. In the latter event, you're going to be doing a lot of walking.

Your firebase got destroyed because the opposing team was better than you. It's not as if they have magical fairy spawns and potions of invulnerability, they get killed just as easily as you do and have exactly the same firebase, that abides by the very same rules as yours, and if they can destroy your firebase then you should be able to destroy theirs. To which I ask, seeing as you constantly state that firebases are indefensible, why isn't theirs down?

Tartantyco wrote:No, people not adapting to the new system is the problem, just like it was when they removed the SL spawn point, and the APC spawn point, and so many other things that have been changed in this mod since its inception that's made the "common denominator" prophesice its death.
I do not speak for those that complained beforehand. This is my opinion. Whether or not there were similar arguments before is irrelevant to the merits of my opinion. This does not go to the heart of the argument anyway. I find that FOB-centric game play is immensely different, far more than a SL spawn point or APC spawn point.

I suggest you choose your servers more carefully.
No. I play amongst the general people. I do not play with imaginary people that do not die, the people in your servers.

If you play on servers where people don't cooperate then that's your problem.
Sorry. I was not aware that there are servers with 64 robots that do everything correctly and by the book. I am beginning to think that the reason why you do not die is because you stay at your home base and have tea and biscuits.

If the common denominator wanted vBF2 style gameplay, should the mod accommodate that? Because that is basically what you would have if the devs actually followed their lead. No, what you want is a certain set of rules for yourself to make it easier for you, but what you fail to grasp is that the things that you want changed are exactly what deliver the excellent gameplay that PR does.
This rally system change is far too recent to constitute 'project reality game play.' Up until a couple of days ago, the status quo was rally points. That was THE game play. You are arguing for something that has NOT been project reality game play for some time.

This is a modification, it changes stuff, and people actually have to adapt to those changes. You can't apply the vBF2 game style to 0.8 and you can't just apply the 0.8 game style to 0.9.
People can adapt or they can move on and kill a mod. Project reality would not go anywhere if it were not for the community's support and continued participation and play. Once you lose that support, the mod loses its status and becomes a thing of history. In the sense that the mod will fall into obscurity if too many people start to believe that the mod has gone the wrong way. Of course there is nothing written into the books yet, so we shall see how this plays out.

Response in Bold.

This is for the people who don't know it yet. The biggest difference between a fire base and a RP, is that a fire base can be seen from miles away and an Rp is so small it can be used to sneak into the enemy flag area without detection. You cannot sneak closely into an enemy flag using a fire base because of it's size, bit of a dead give away really and an obvious point.

I dont ever recall seeing that many fisebases behind an enemy flag on the other patch. I did see plenty of RP however.

Can I also suggest if we are going to stick with this new method, that we abandon the 6 man squads and make a 32 player squad instead,. This way we will know what everyone else is doing and work as one big squad.

Tartantyco wrote:Your firebase got destroyed because the opposing team was better than you. It's not as if they have magical fairy spawns and potions of invulnerability, they get killed just as easily as you do and have exactly the same firebase, that abides by the very same rules as yours, and if they can destroy your firebase then you should be able to destroy theirs. To which I ask, seeing as you constantly state that firebases are indefensible, why isn't theirs down?

You have disingenuous questions, so let me retort with more proper inquiries. Do insurgents initially build their fire-bases? Also, must the insurgents move a distance away from their fire-bases to complete their objectives?

Regan, also you do not need to drive crates over for a rally. You simply put it down whenever and wherever, so long as you are NOT next to the enemy. Only your squad mates can spawn on the rally.

offmason wrote:Gotcha. When do you really secure a fire-base?

[irony]Okay Teamplay in .9. We have 9 squads. Squad 1 defending FB1, Squad 2 defending FB2 and S3 FB3. [/irony]
Then there is an nooby-squad, which crashes helis and other kind of vehicles.
Now we have 5 Squads left. S5 will "transport" the other 3 Squads with the non existent vehicles. In a word: they are waiting in the base till the crashed vehicles are spawning. S6 is anywhere on the map, but not where they must be. And the last 2 squads will attack the caches which [for example] all the talibans are defending...

This is the "reality" on the project reality public servers.

I´m against these new rally-system. In a community-match, maybe it would be great because every player in the complete! Team knows what to do. But the daily routine on a public server, where just ~6 people in a team knows together and wanna play together (and do not want to split the squad cause they need a transport) is another.

Regan wrote:This is for the people who don't know it yet. The biggest difference between a fire base and a RP, is that a fire base can be seen from miles away and an Rp is so small it can be used to sneak into the enemy flag area without detection. You cannot sneak closely into an enemy flag using a fire base because of it's size, bit of a dead give away really and an obvious point really.

offmason wrote:Regan, also you do not need to drive crates over for a rally. You simply put it down whenever and wherever, so long as you are NOT next to the enemy. Only your squad mates can spawn on the rally.

This isnt Delta Seal Force 1337 here, in conventional warfare you dont pop out of a tunnel inside the enemy's base, you set up a FB near it using you established supply route and logistical support, then attack it. this is one of the reasons why it was removed in the first place, so 5 guys cant pop out of the ground like gophers and be as hard to get rid of as possums

offmason wrote:You have disingenuous questions, so let me retort with more proper inquiries. Do insurgents initially build their fire-bases? Also, must the insurgents move a distance away from their fire-bases to complete their objectives?

woah woah woah, since when were you talking about Insurgency? that is totally different! In insurgency you dont need a RP or a FB, you can get a ride in a APC to the target area and kill it and pull back, so dont even change the subject here. And I have seen it happen many many times on Fallujah so dont pull that card on me.

offmason wrote:Do insurgents initially build their fire-bases? Also, must the insurgents move a distance away from their fire-bases to complete their objectives?

yes, but they are called hideouts.
and yes, the hideout is generally placed a good bit away from a cache so it's not too obvious.

...have you even played this mod before? ;P

I love the new system!

Teek wrote:This isnt Delta Seal Force 1337 here, in conventional warfare you dont pop out of a tunnel inside the enemy's base, you set up a FB near it using you established supply route and logistical support, then attack it. this is one of the reasons why it was removed in the first place, so 5 guys cant pop out of the ground like gophers and be as hard to get rid of as possums
I never said that we should remove fire-bases. I said that a new balance must be created. As the only real spawn points now rely on the cooperation of every squad, you can essentially say that there is no reliable spawn point aside from the main base. I agree. In that case, disallow rallies from being placed in tunnels. You are limiting your argument to tunnel warfare? So remove rallies from tunnels if that irks you. Problem solved.


woah woah woah, since when were you talking about Insurgency? that is totally different! In insurgency you dont need a RP or a FB, you can get a ride in a APC to the target area and kill it and pull back, so dont even change the subject here.
Changing the topic? I have been talking about insurgent maps for the whole thread, take a look back. Of course this might work, so long you can remain alive for most of the map as you try to assault a cache. But this is unlikely to be the case. And since you say there is no need for RP of FB, I guess the next step is to just respawn at main and pray that the APCs have not been destroyed by the time you die. Yeah, fun game play. Relying on 32 players that you have very little to no communication with is solid.

Response in bold.

V-Nessa, I agree with you.

hiberNative wrote:yes, but they are called hideouts.
and yes, the hideout is generally placed a good bit away from a cache so it's not too obvious.

...have you even played this mod before? ;P

Hideouts? Fire-bases? Same shit. I have played enough to recognize that the hideouts are substantially closer to the caches and they are already built - this is a lot of work that the insurgents do not have to do. This is an immense advantage.

Regan, I actually like Regan's idea. Maybe two 16 player squads?