Project Reality Forums

Arab wrote:There is that server-side mod I think when I played on the Kokan and the other map 24/7 server that allows 4 caches only.

You realize what thread you just posted in, right?

This thread is about specifically that mod/test.

Arab wrote:There is that server-side mod I think when I played on the Kokan and the other map 24/7 server that allows 4 caches only. I played on the map with Canadian Armed Forces VS Taliban. It went by quickly, though I couldn't really see the enemy.

Facepalm.

Arnoldio wrote:That apparently is hard. One objective, nope still 3/4 if the team doing something completely irrelevant. I understand 2 objectives split up the team, but anyone with any mental illness could figure out that if there is only one objective to attack, there is little to do anywhere not near it.

"Point at all the blue shapes on the map, Joe."
-"Emmm, there is only one, here, miss."
"Good, Joe, very good." <- How slow kid would solve the problem.

"Attack the only objective, team."
-"Nuuunununununu, aaaaaaaarrrrrr, aarrrrrr, yah yah yah, wooop wooop wooooooooop, mumumu nununununu..."
*Alt + F4* <- How pr players play the game.

Anyone with a brain would know there is more to a battle than just throwing bodies at an objective.

DDS wrote:When I play pr I just accept what team I'm on and try to adapt and think out of the box. Every since INS there have been negative attitudes of some players on the insurgency or (less equipped with goodies) side compared to the other. I see this all the time and it's frustrating to me.

When playing blufor they often plan well and have good strategy whereas on the insurgency sometimes but not all the time there are defeatist attitudes. Putting the blame solely on weapons, cache numbers/locations is a mistake. I like to see the experimentation with changes, thats what has kept this game going. However sometimes you just have to bring your game up?

That's what PR use to be about, now it's about easy street. Rarely do I see a team of insurgents that is communicating/cooperating as a whole. When they do, they stone wall BLUFOR. BLUFOR whines that insurgency is broken & favors insurgents.

BLUFOR wins because insurgents don't cooperate/communicate, Insurgents whine they are underarmed.

See how it works now?

SGT.Ice wrote:That's what PR use to be about, now it's about easy street. Rarely do I see a team of insurgents that is communicating/cooperating as a whole. When they do, they stone wall BLUFOR. BLUFOR whines that insurgency is broken & favors insurgents.

BLUFOR wins because insurgents don't cooperate/communicate, Insurgents whine they are underarmed.

See how it works now?

Well I could go on and on (well I have actually) but no ones interested. Anyway tsot I think the DEV's are working hard at keeping the intent of pr on track.

I don't like not being able to use enemy kits at all, or the rally point changes. I'm indifferent about the HAT change. I wasn't liking it too much at first but I'm starting to warm up to the idea. However, insurgency is much better with 1 cache. I always felt like it needed to be this way and it turns out it plays very well IMO. I think that all the other changes are fine. Extra light AT and TOW emplacements are a nice addition.

40mmrain wrote: I liked the idea of the unknown. It's cool, clearing room to room, finding that cache, it's kinda like real counter insurgency, but it really didnt work that well. Spawning on the unknowns caused problems sometimes, ghosting was an issue, there were lots of issues about the unknown cache ill just say that. REmoving it does make the game mode less unique, certainly, but I think it's necessary. It makes the exercise of the intelligence somewhat less pointful, and devalues civis, but it's necessary.

To fix the civi's devaluation, it would be good to make the cache marker to appear in an area of 200~ metres away from the cache, and when arresting some civis the marker would get closer to the real location of the cache or maybe about 50~ metres away.

I think somebody suggested an idea like this one, and I totally agreed with him.

BTW 40mm, excellent feedback I totally agree with you

ShockUnitBlack wrote:Two means that your team's infantry AT isn't entirely hijacked when somebody grabs a HAT and goes for a wander away from the Battlefield, for one.

I'm not saying a reduction from two HATs to one doesn't work or that it's a bad idea - it's a good one that solves one of PR's biggest issues - but I feel that it's best to pursue all the possibilities before settling on one.

I agree with you in this sense that people can screw you up by taking AT and not asking, however I do think that players adapt to this sort of thing. HAT kit squads, and having the HAT as a reservable asset may become common place.

SGT.Ice wrote:
That's what PR use to be about, now it's about easy street. Rarely do I see a team of insurgents that is communicating/cooperating as a whole. When they do, they stone wall BLUFOR. BLUFOR whines that insurgency is broken & favors insurgents.

BLUFOR wins because insurgents don't cooperate/communicate, Insurgents whine they are underarmed.

This is irrelevant. We're discussing theory here. What should happen when both teams are complete equal in all strengths, not what happens when one team is way better than the other.

If all teams should be super cereals and pro, very little would happen as such because everybody would not get shot and use cover... potshots etc. Mortars and support would make the difference, the asymmetry.

Personally I feel mortars have made insurgency too easy for BLUFOR & a bit boring, but that's just me. I disagree and think it is relevant. Due to the fact of what "Should" happen & what does. Rallys & enemy kits, not big on. AT, haven't messed with it a lot sounds interesting. To even thing's out the IED's strength & radius should be adjusted toward the older values, currently they aren't a threat at all, people are hardly worried about them. Before it pressured BLUFOR into using patrols a lot or not bringing their vehicles into town. With the addition of thermal & mortars, that's 2 more strengths for BLUFOR while the insurgents main weapon is being nerfed.

To even thing's out the IED's strength & radius should be adjusted toward the older values, currently they aren't a threat at all,

Deadlier IED's would make it more interesting, I would love to see this play out in a match.

the arty is already stupefyingly powerful. Pipebombs are already VERY effective on infantry, theyre just worthless on vehicles.

I'm proposing a redesign of maps eventually, that would make them more difficult for armour pieces. Allowing someone to spawn with an IED that can wreck them, would just make them practically worthless in urban setting, which is what all iraqi maps are, or will be.

40mmrain wrote:the arty is already stupefyingly powerful. Pipebombs are already VERY effective on infantry, theyre just worthless on vehicles.

I'm proposing a redesign of maps eventually, that would make them more difficult for armour pieces. Allowing someone to spawn with an IED that can wreck them, would just make them practically worthless in urban setting, which is what all iraqi maps are, or will be.

Shouldn't be able to 1 shot them, but neither should it take me 10 pipe bomb IED's to destroy a HMMWV. one pipe should come close to if not outright demolish a HMMWV, on armor it should scare the **** out of the crew.

not really, ill try and find a video. especially with uparmoured humvees debuting.. eventually. Regardless, it would be fathoms of unrealism if every iraqi could get IEDs that could take out humvees, giving them all mines is already enough.

Plus, if you want to talk realism the arty IED is way OP. It's a single 105mm shell, my readings tell me that abrams have survived three 155mm shells at once, directly under it, the crew was injured, but it made it back to base. A single 105 10 feet away will completely wreck a tank in PR.

Oh yeah, make the pipe bomb better, but make the arty way worse in the process, that could work.

here's one, that looked bigger than a pipebomb, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOLGb8 ... re=related

40mmrain wrote:not really, ill try and find a video. especially with uparmoured humvees debuting.. eventually. Regardless, it would be fathoms of unrealism if every iraqi could get IEDs that could take out humvees, giving them all mines is already enough.

Plus, if you want to talk realism the arty IED is way OP. It's a single 105mm shell, my readings tell me that abrams have survived three 155mm shells at once, directly under it, the crew was injured, but it made it back to base. A single 105 10 feet away will completely wreck a tank in PR.

Oh yeah, make the pipe bomb better, but make the arty way worse in the process, that could work.

here's one, that looked bigger than a pipebomb, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmOLGb8 ... re=related

IED's near destroy buffalos which are built to be anti IED. A HMMWV was not designed to with stand an IED. In reality you'd have EOD clear the route for you or go around.

Did I say make the arty IED worse at all?

While I don't agree with the 105 shell killing a tank, since it's nearly impossible it's an engine limitation which over the years i've been here. Has been discussed to great length in & out.

The idea of having one cache at a time is not that good on some maps. On Korengal and Lashkar, if the cache spawns in some cave, there is practically no way for the BLUFOR to destroy it. Those caves are so inaccessbile anyway that I think no caches should ever spawn there.

Really liking the fact that rally points last longer, though.

On this talk about IED's, small tweeks to the power could be made but why not (if possible) make IED's removable by the wrench the same as mines, that would make route clearing more important, could meen the invent of a new EOD kit that has all the kit of a rifelman but also has a spanner to get rid? just a thought

RedAlertSF wrote:The idea of having one cache at a time is not that good on some maps. On Korengal and Lashkar, if the cache spawns in some cave, there is practically no way for the BLUFOR to destroy it. Those caves are so inaccessbile anyway that I think no caches should ever spawn there.

Really liking the fact that rally points last longer, though.

If anything they should probably really redesign the caves in themselves to be bigger.

UKrealplayER666 wrote:On this talk about IED's, small tweeks to the power could be made but why not (if possible) make IED's removable by the wrench the same as mines, that would make route clearing more important, could meen the invent of a new EOD kit that has all the kit of a rifelman but also has a spanner to get rid? just a thought

That would probably go over about as well as the radio operator kit. Adding the ability for the engi to disable C4/IED's though would be nice if possible.

Enjoying the new INS mechanics.

really really cool

well yesterday the canadians won on kokan...suprised me to be honest...we only got 1 that was unknown and it was the last one...and the LAV got it i think (h6k9 is the grid that the lav destroyed the cache)....only had about 90 tickets left after destroying the 3rd cache. and we had mortars. and we also used the jdam on the third one as well....but the jdam didnt destroy it, infantry had to go in and finish the job. it was a fun and challenging round