Project Reality Forums

Mikemonster wrote:
Personally I think the game is about infantry, so i'm a bit skewed on this. But there aren't usually enough Inf squads to support each other, so why are we also simulating Cobras, Chinooks, AAVP's and Abrams.. Let alone a dedicated logistics system..

This.

It could be a way to make "everyone" happy. If it was possible to perhaps have the different layers to mimic infantry oriented combat, then another layer for asset oriented combat and a final one for both.

Teamwork works only if you are successfull on your own, it is hard when you fight humans in a virtual battlefield, someone always has to lose. But what PR makes great in my oppinion is the awesome ways to lose or die. But that has in my oppinion dropped. When you win you win big time, but the losing side suffers from rage quitters etc.

I remember playing some rounds where i got absolutely wasted, but because of how the game was, it was allright. I had loads of fun, firefights didnt end after 3 seconds, it was more tactically challenging to lose.

Sometimes i just get frustrated over the overly focus on map flags and map "centers" where you are forced to focus on a more CQB and objective based risks that doesnt really mimic what you would do if there wasnt a flag there.

Putting yourself in harms way to win, makes losing frustrating. And it promotes a retarded attack rush at times in the early beggining of rounds. Getting killed cause you focus more on the objective rather then the immediate tactical situation gets frustrating, people play the game wrong and ultimatly people get frustrated at the team cause they are not gathering around the objectives, IE trying to get kills.


// Wicca out

yeah,sometimes objectives(flags) are very minus side of mod.
squads try to go without fear to near the next flag with hueys and get killed by AA.
happens many times in muttrah and beirut.
also its very usual that in muttrah,mecs apc just rush to the capzone and really dont give dam about what is there.

i would really like to see command&control gamemode with new tweaks(more fobs examble)

Tit4Tat wrote:sorry to say PricelineNegotiator... but ive seen u on a NwA server camping MEC main with AAV..and only moving after being told couple of times to move or u would of got kiked.

i can see that this thread makes sense....as BT's quote " Its good to talk" but i just cant see anything changing....saying that i agree with somethings being said here...

You obviously didn't know the situation. We didn't lock them anywhere near their main. Since the admins on nWa didn't know what was going on, I will use a map to illustrate exactly what happened.



The red x is where our Avenger was stationed. The blue line is the path the Havok took. We locked onto the Havok at the green circle. We had view only of South Village, not their main. Our gun was still warming up when we were getting into position, that's why it took us so long to lock onto the Havok. We did not lock on to him at main. The guys that were flying the Havok were pussies and couldn't handle a lock so decided to ***** about it to the admins so they could keep their precious Havok. I have gotten locks there many times, but you don't see me whining.

Know your facts.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:You obviously didn't know the situation. We didn't lock them anywhere near their main. Since the admins on nWa didn't know what was going on, I will use a map to illustrate exactly what happened.



The red x is where our Avenger was stationed. The blue line is the path the Havok took. We locked onto the Havok at the green circle. We had view only of South Village, not their main. Our gun was still warming up when we were getting into position, that's why it took us so long to lock onto the Havok. We did not lock on to him at main. The guys that were flying the Havok were pussies and couldn't handle a lock so decided to ***** about it to the admins so they could keep their precious Havok. I have gotten locks there many times, but you don't see me whining.

Know your facts.

Thats still in range of the enemy main and you can see into it, and clearly your wrong.

Back on topic:

Yes PR needs more map with less assest, like instead of 3 apc and 1 tank, how about 2 apc and no tank. so on and so on. when people see assest on a map they tend to derp out and you end up seeing this hafe the time.



SQ 1 TANKS 3/6 LOCKED
SQ 2 TANKS/APC 6/6
SQ 3 TRANS 6/6
SQ 4 CAS 6/6
SQ 5 INF 3/6
SQ 6 INF 4/6

The rest just wait for an assest SQ to have space to join, and they join it. if we had less assest it would fix it. but i understand that on maps like kashan and burning sands assest are needed, but only the 128 player server can fill that need.

in the end its all about how many players are playing.

ledo1222 wrote: Yes PR needs more map with less assest, like instead of 3 apc and 1 tank, how about 2 apc and no tank. so on and so on.

That is typically the "Alternate" layer... but from what I'm hearing from BloodyDeed and some others is that people don't want to play those layers.

We've created the layers but we can't force people to play them. ??:

[R-DEV]AFsoccer wrote:That is typically the "Alternate" layer... but from what I'm hearing from BloodyDeed and some others is that people don't want to play those layers.

We've created the layers but we can't force people to play them. ??:

yeah i know thoses are there, but people are ignorent and want more.
As long as PR has map with loads of assets people will just flock to them.

The maps just need to be taken down a notch.

ledo1222 wrote:Thats still in range of the enemy main and you can see into it, and clearly your wrong.

How about some more hate in your post? I wasn't even gunning, just driving. And from our position, you could not see into their main. And we never fired a shot.

PricelineNegotiator wrote:How about some more hate in your post? I wasn't even gunning, just driving. And from our position, you could not see into their main. And we never fired a shot.

i never stated you were gunning nor shooting into enemy main. you dont need to hate.

I was stating that for were you were located you could see the base, and trust me i know iv been playing for 3 years now. the draw distance is like 1000m on kashan and you were about 900ish away.

ledo1222 wrote:Thats still in range of the enemy main and you can see into it, and clearly your wrong.

Another issue with the present situation. Tactics that are "too good" are considered cheap and cheat. If your are able to cut off reinforcements you are to good. It's the same thing when you rush Muttrah Docks and shoots helis with HAT as they land. You'll win the game or get kicked trying. Or blow up Garys in the enemy main before the nerf.
In the good old days you could have enemy squads camp your main and I wouldn't complain. They where of no use around a uncap as infantry groups really made a difference around the capable. The "too good" tactics are game balancing problems and give much headache to admins and is reducing teamwork. "Am I allowed to lie north of fortress as Britt on "Fools road" with out getting warning for "base rape"...Ok, Im not.".

ledo1222 wrote: Yes PR needs more map with less assest, like instead of 3 apc and 1 tank, how about 2 apc and no tank. so on and so on. when people see assest on a map they tend to derp out and you end up seeing this hafe the time.



SQ 1 TANKS 3/6 LOCKED
SQ 2 TANKS/APC 6/6
SQ 3 TRANS 6/6
SQ 4 CAS 6/6
SQ 5 INF 3/6
SQ 6 INF 4/6

The rest just wait for an assest SQ to have space to join, and they join it. if we had less assest it would fix it. but i understand that on maps like kashan and burning sands assest are needed, but only the 128 player server can fill that need.

in the end its all about how many players are playing.

I couldn't agree more.

manligheten wrote:Another issue with the present situation. Tactics that are "too good" are considered cheap and cheat. If your are able to cut off reinforcements you are to good. It's the same thing when you rush Muttrah Docks and shoots helis with HAT as they land. You'll win the game or get kicked trying. Or blow up Garys in the enemy main before the nerf.
In the good old days you could have enemy squads camp your main and I wouldn't complain. They where of no use around a uncap as infantry groups really made a difference around the capable. The "too good" tactics are game balancing problems and give much headache to admins and is reducing teamwork. "Am I allowed to lie north of fortress as Britt on "Fools road" with out getting warning for "base rape", Ok, Im not.".


I couldn't agree more.

Yes i understand that admins do set there own rule to what your allowed to do and not.

Like stated the best tatics are ussaly cheap and piss people off, but a way of fixing that is having less assest. the less the more people wont give to dames about.

i just wish pub games were more teamwork and each SQLeader dident have his own personal agenda.

The 'Best tactics' are generally to use the map to hide a HAT/Tank/30MM APC and then just roflpwn unprotected or unassuming assets leaving main.

But we all know that's not cricket.. To use a British term. A few times i've purposefully avoided doing that (and letting my squad get kills) and the reason is that it's exploiting the game mechanics and generally manipulating them to suit yourself at the expense of other players (on the opposing team).

Priceline Negotiator, i'm afraid, is a prime example of this by the sounds of it. It indeed suits your team to take a tank into a position overlooking the route out of the enemy main, or have an Avenger AA system overlooking one of two exits on Kashan (why involve yourself in a firefight covering friendly Inf when you can have a 50/50 chance of killing an enemy asset?).

If everyone played honourably and with the intention of playing the game 'as it was intended' and in good faith this wouldn't happen (and by and large it only seems to happen on the large desert asset maps). The trouble is that not all people think the same and this allows some exploiting of the well intentioned players around the flag. One example; When you're bored on Muttrah it is easy to go behind the enemies front lines and find unprotected FOB's. You aren't helping cap, you're lonewolfing. But in Priceline Negotiator's words, you are 'Denying the enemy the opportunity to make war' or something similar. Another example is using the attack choppers to rush enemy transport trucks as they leave main on some maps.

Personally I think that it's all bull***t and I play the game for the experience of intense firefights and teamwork with squads next to me, but as mentioned it can be more worthwhile to do the above (in terms of simply winning).

Like Wicca some of my best rounds have been with an Inf squad just running away from a more powerful enemy/surviving the round. Because that's the experience I am after. Losing isn't so bad as long as you don't feel cheated.





Edit: In Insurgency mode, whilst teamwork is usually lacking, assets are generally not a problem. I think this is because you could have the most Strikers in the world but there is always at least two Inf squads assaulting the caches. And the assets either support them or they quickly get killed doing something irrelevant (like 'going to get kills').

I think Insurgency is an anomaly in many ways, including that 'dirty playing' such as camping the enemy main is basically accepted, and most people feel that it accurately represents real life, meaning they have the 'Project Reality' experience they actually play for.

The fact that it is very assymetrical undoubtedly helps that. Instead of fighting fire with fire the 'dirty play' ideas are regularly used and expected by both sides (i.e APC can close one or two exits of Ins main off, but the flip side is an Arty IED outside the US main).


Perhaps it would be fun to experiment with assymetrical layouts of assets in AAS? It would certainly be interesting on the right map. Imagine one side only having light vehicles, and the other having heavy assets. I wonder how it would play out (as long as it was fairly balanced in terms of the right map).

ledo1222 wrote:Yes i understand that admins do set there own rule to what your allowed to do and not.

Yes of course but game play is suffering. There should be no rules between you and the enemy in a wargame, except obvious glitching. Eg Big Red pwning mains could be fixed by decreased "out of map time", and so on. The increase of view distance on maps don't made for them gives baserape problems on eg. Kashan (over main) and Qui River (last flags are visible from main).

ledo1222 wrote: Like stated the best tatics are ussaly cheap and piss people off, but a way of fixing that is having less assest. the less the more people wont give to dames about.

And most importantly they require no skill but some patience or just know-how to do it. There is no skill in HATing helpless helis in Muttrah Docks.

ledo1222 wrote: i just wish pub games were more teamwork and each SQLeader dident have his own personal agenda.

One way of fixing that is to make the flags more important ie ticket bleed. Then there will be less roleplaying SLs doing nothing for the sake of the game as the simple but yet complex setup of "FOB + flag" is obvious to all. Squadwork must be promoted in better pwning efficiency and ego boost for the players, otherwise they'll LMG-camp instead for the kills or go heli-HATing.

Mikemonster wrote:The 'Best tactics' are generally to use the map to hide a HAT/Tank/30MM APC and then just roflpwn unprotected or unassuming assets leaving main.
...

Ye, and in a bloody war that what you'll do. The thing is that teamwork nowadays is so hard that such game tactics really destroys the whole enemy team's coordination. It's too hard to get it together. No logies and you are screwed. The champion of the game is trololol_14. You can notice the difference between INS game mode and AAS. In ins the teams are so unbalanced that you can get good coordination as BLUFOR and you are allowed to make team manoeuvres etc. In AAS there are so many way to screw it up for the enemies.

Mikemonster wrote: Personally I think that it's all bull***t and I play the game for the experience of intense firefights and teamwork with squads next to me, but as mentioned it can be more worthwhile to do the above (in terms of simply winning).

'Many' players play for the ego boost (I'll call it that as I don't know better words). In like 0.856 good teamplay was required for a good ego boost pwning the enemies and thus people ganged up and talked on voip on a completely different level. You was literally useless alone. Now it isn't the same ting really. 128 players somehow fixed that balancing issue as squadsizes grew so it got more firepower. Just increasing playercount to 90 players would fix so many balancing issues.

manligheten wrote:

Mikemonster;1695976 wrote: The 'Best tactics' are generally to use the map to hide a HAT/Tank/30MM APC and then just roflpwn unprotected or unassuming assets leaving main.

Ye, and in a bloody war that what you'll do. The thing is that teamwork nowadays is so hard that such game tactics really destroys the whole enemy team's coordination. It's too hard to get it together. No logies and you are screwed. The champion of the game is trololol_14. You can notice the difference between INS game mode and AAS. In ins the teams are so unbalanced that you can get good coordination as BLUFOR and you are allowed to make team manoeuvres etc. In AAS there are so many way to screw it up for the enemies.

I agree on all but the red line. You can't compare a real war to PR, in real wars men don't simply start on an aircraft carrier or in a HESCO base, with the Inf flying in before the Snipers and with a big rush to a central Objective ending in a car-crash firefight.

This is a game, and as such you must play by the rules in order for everyone to have fun (not aimed at you manligheten, it's just for everyone). Rules are moral, not written, i.e. if it isn't cricket then don't be a knob and go ahead and do it (people realise this instinctively with most things, i.e. Exploits).

I'm not naiive, this is the internet and people will be manipulative, as people are. But I cannot tolerate people suggesting all of the hard man thousand yard stare 'war is hell' 'no rules in war' cliches as excuses to basically be dickheads and cheat online in a community based game like PR (again not you mate, just in general).

Mikemonster wrote:I agree on all but the red line. You can't compare a real war to PR, in real wars men don't simply start on an aircraft carrier or in a HESCO base, with the Inf flying in before the Snipers and with a big rush to a central Objective ending in a car-crash firefight.

This is a game, and as such you must play by the rules in order for everyone to have fun (not aimed at you manligheten, it's just for everyone). Rules are moral, not written, i.e. if it isn't cricket then don't be a knob and go ahead and do it (people realise this instinctively with most things, i.e. Exploits).

I'm not naiive, this is the internet and people will be manipulative, as people are. But I cannot tolerate people suggesting all of the hard man thousand yard stare 'war is hell' 'no rules in war' cliches as excuses to basically be dickheads and cheat online in a community based game like PR (again not you mate, just in general).

Exactly my point. I hope you didn't misunderstand me. Base mortaring enemy assets etc is game braking and should be disallowed. That said, it's a little bit too easy to destroy the enemies effort if you got the assets and know what you are doing. One extremely good thing on Kashan for example is to rush the mountain south of bunkers with a HAT and logi and shoot first the helis landing and then all the assets that come roaming. You'll be the game winner. All it requires is the HAT kit. The unfunny thing is when a enemy does the same thing. Than there will be a 3h game of boring stalemate.

Concerning "In a real war I would..."...We are essentially playing war in no other way than what we were doing as kids. There should be some fantasy in to it otherwise it's just a set of 1s and 0s. I didn't mean it as a technical argument for game balancing but as an argument for the spirit. EDIT: And not a argument for roleplaying.

Hahaha I know, we're on the same page mate, I understand loud and clear. Well explained.

manligheten wrote:That said, it's a little bit too easy to destroy the enemies effort if you got the assets and know what you are doing. One extremely good thing on Kashan for example is to rush the mountain south of bunkers with a HAT and logi and shoot first the helis landing and then all the assets that come roaming. You'll be the game winner. All it requires is the HAT kit. The unfunny thing is when a enemy does the same thing. Than there will be a 3h game of boring stalemate.

yep, rush tactics are horribly effective. i really don't remember them happening back in .8x.

too lazy to quote to all the armchair generals in this thread. Putting a mine just outside the enemy team's main doesn't make you a genius tactician, its a game and that is just poor sportsmanship.

GOOD NEWS COMMUNITY!!!

Calling in the end of the recession;
Teamwork is coming back to PR...if it ever was away before...

The new Mumble makes it all possible. Playing a lot on NEW these days and we are having quite some fun over there. Wildly guessed, about 80-90 % are on mumble, SLs talking to each other, coordination in small and bigger scale! Just finished the evening with 3 good rounds:

Lashkar, (Kokan skirm after crash), Barracuda (curry thanks for commanding!) and Kozelsk

All of them were quite fun...at least for our team. That is all I know.

Oc you still get the occasional/usual/permanent Unknown-spawners...but I try to blend those out, when thinking about a round I just played.

Thanks again for this great development, everyone who loads it up and wants to play the game "as it is meant to be played"...whatever that is supposed to mean

KiloJules wrote:GOOD NEWS COMMUNITY!!!

Calling in the end of the recession;
Teamwork is coming back to PR...if it ever was away before...

The new Mumble makes it all possible. Playing a lot on NEW these days and we are having quite some fun over there. Wildly guessed, about 80-90 % are on mumble, SLs talking to each other, coordination in small and bigger scale! Just finished the evening with 3 good rounds:

Lashkar, (Kokan skirm after crash), Barracuda (curry thanks for commanding!) and Kozelsk

All of them were quite fun...at least for our team. That is all I know.

Oc you still get the occasional/usual/permanent Unknown-spawners...but I try to blend those out, when thinking about a round I just played.

Thanks again for this great development, everyone who loads it up and wants to play the game "as it is meant to be played"...whatever that is supposed to mean

Played 1 round with the new mumble, a day after release. I must say it looks very promising, even though there was only 3 squads with mumble (beta), including the one I lead, the communication was flowing when needed. I can imagine 2 squads cooperating next to each other 100 m away, walking to there objective, setting an ambush and so on. The possibilities go on and on, but most of all it's simple - only problem now is the shy guys, be kind SQ Leaders!

Yhup Teamwork is good

Mikemonster wrote: Perhaps it would be fun to experiment with assymetrical layouts of assets in AAS? It would certainly be interesting on the right map. Imagine one side only having light vehicles, and the other having heavy assets. I wonder how it would play out (as long as it was fairly balanced in terms of the right map).

They tried this. The last iteration of EJOD Desert was an example of this and it was a friggin joke. Here's how it broke down:

US Army Assets -
2 Strykers
1 TOW Humvee

MEC Assets -
3 BTR-60s
1 T-72 (or 90 I forget)

Result:
MEC had the advantage of being able to enter the city and be at its centre at the same time US reached the outer edge of their side of the city. Strykers were totally incapable of damaging the BTRs, even when ganging up 2 on 1. LATs were ineffective at 1 hit killing BTRs, and so that worked out that there were only 3 Heavy AT weapons to destroy 4 armor pieces.

It was dumb.

Now the map wasn't great for that, but still I don't think there's really going to be an asymmetrical armour match up that actually makes sense in this game. There are already asymmetrical matchups that don't work. Take Beirut with the Russian Havok layer in play. IDF has 2 Namers and 1 Merkava versus some Russian APCs and the Havok. Having experienced this layer first hand in the PRT I can tell you that the only way IDF stand a chance is to hide the Merkava, desperately hope to shoot the Havok down, and blitz the enemy with your bare 20 minutes til that ***** gets back online and destroys your momentum.

I think that the only way to fix the unrealistic Inf AT situation is to eliminate the pop up feature and make it generate high deviation just like when you pan it left and right.

manligheten wrote:Yes of course but game play is suffering. There should be no rules between you and the enemy in a wargame, except obvious glitching.

The goal should be to make it so that that playing it 'the way its meant to be played' is the only way to actually consistently win. Thats why there are generally accepted doctrines of war fighting, fire and manoeuvre, etc. These are essential to actually winning. Every protracted conflict has shown the growth of correct tactics to fight better smarter and ultimately win.

The game is limited in many ways so there will always be ways for uber-pwn guys to geek it and win by ignoring the principle of what we're supposed to be trying to do. Games like Arma are better at enforcing the 'play it right' style than PR since its an imperfect game engine, not designed at all for what we're trying to do.-