Project Reality Forums

I dont think its worth it.

It doesnt change anything gameplay wise, and only gives the FOBs position away.

vistamaster01 wrote:I dont think its worth it.

It doesnt change anything gameplay wise, and only gives the FOBs position away.

Well it doesn't change anything gameplay wise other than may prevent the very odd occurrence of FO TKing and may make people aware quicker than they did before who's side a FO belongs too without having to look at the map etc, and as for giving the FO's position away, I would say hardly any more than it is already since the flag poll would be very short (only slightly higher than the net) and the flag would not draw very far, and is pretty small.

If anything like this was happening wouldnt it just make more sense to put whatever is in the commanders tent on the FOB

e.g. GB Football, American PlayBoy

maarit wrote:why you cant just check from map is that your teams FOB?

This.

DEVs should focus on real gameplay improvements.

/thread

No. Work on other, more pressing models and work.

Just more work for the developers which they don't need.

I don't mean to join the dtacs-bashing-trend I've seen arise lately but I do feel a need to respond to this:

one of the things that make a mod good is to uphold a critical view to the things that have been achieved, updating things that aren't on par compared to other elements of the mod (be it by optimizing) and adding variety to elements that seem (unnecessarily) bland or uniform. innovation add's to the mod, even if (or sometimes especially if) those things are more or less aesthetical.

the FOB we have now is identical for all conventional factions we have ingame now, adding variety to that is something I support wholeheartedly, even if this means we will have to hold on longer to certain placeholders.
I do disagree with adding a flagpole, I'd suggest adding variety by shape of the camouflage netting and the positioning of sandbags, perhaps add in some faction-specific objects as well.

after all though, it's up to the dev's if they are willing to spend time on this or not, and if they do how much time they're willing to spend. and it's also a question of what the devteam's priorities are at the moment. but simply putting it so that doing new, out of the box things should be avoided no matter what because it'll mean more work and might slow down progress in other directions is, I think, no argument.

thanks for your time.

To use that same logic, the foxholes, MG nests, mortar pits, AT and AA emplacements, and razor wire are all the same too. Surely each faction in PR would construct all of these things in a different manner, wouldn't they? Why not create unique models for each of these for each faction?

The answer is based upon a simple look at cost versus benefit. It will cost many hours (at a minimum) of Dev time in coding, modeling, testing, packaging, and deployment to make this happen. The benefit is that fire bases look a little different and/or better in game, but do not change game play in any noticeable or appreciable way. On the other hand, those same hours of Dev time can go towards projects that are already in the works to improve game play, which is of far greater value to Project Reality as a whole, and by extension the PR playing community. Aesthetics are nice, but it's not like there is anything wrong with the FOB model we have now. Save the minor cosmetic tweaking for another time. It's like scheduling an appointment for liposuction when you need a heart bypass.

Stoickk wrote:To use that same logic, the foxholes, MG nests, mortar pits, AT and AA emplacements, and razor wire are all the same too. Surely each faction in PR would construct all of these things in a different manner, wouldn't they? Why not create unique models for each of these for each faction?

..

I want the Chinese one to be a Pagoda style ornamental FOB, with some decorative dragons.

http://www.dreamstime.com/pagoda-thumb350722.jpg

Stoickk wrote:To use that same logic, MG nests, mortar pits, AT and AA emplacements should be all the same too.

That's simply not true.

My concern with a flagpole is that it's going to stick up over fences and the like.

That's not quite an exact quote, Shock. I said they "are" all the same, not "should be" all the same. The point that I was making is that by the logic presented in Wakain's post, those statics should be changed solely because each faction should have unique statics, even though the cosmetic appearance of those statics has no discernible effect on game play.

We should just add a little flag to the crate and the radio and call it a day.

Although the FOB's should be different and randomized and be fitted with cool tid-bits, time could be spent on bigger and better things.

Adding anything to a fob would just be gravy. Gravy I really want, but gravy nonetheless.

Stoickk wrote:That's not quite an exact quote, Shock. I said they "are" all the same, not "should be" all the same. The point that I was making is that by the logic presented in Wakain's post, those statics should be changed solely because each faction should have unique statics, even though the cosmetic appearance of those statics has no discernible effect on game play.

perhaps a failure in hermeneutics on your part, or more likely an inability on my part to translate my thoughts in written english, however it matters little as you only emphasized a different part of my comment than I had in mind myself.

My point was to go against the concept of straight and unbending linear improvement that is (in my view) prevalent in most of dtacs (and frankly your last two) notions. It seems some people seem to concentrate most on getting the dev's to make as much new (gamechanging) stuff as is possible, this shoots down some if not most more ambitious or aesthetically focused (and yes a bit na?ve sometimes) ideas that deserve better or at least be given a chance to be developed, if only intellectually.

is there a set time limit to when so much things need to be done? an idea lives on, even if a dev doesn't tackle it immediately or thinks of something else in the meantime.
That this suggestion get's through the tight filter of today means the dev's, perhaps only Rhino, have interest in this and after all it's their decision what needs to be done and what's worth to be done, leave alone what they want to do.

putting it so that creating diversity on one field means creating diversity on all fields just unnecessarily complicates matters and polarises the dialogue.

AFAIK, all conventional factions use the same FOB right now. Same model, same texture. If this were to be done, wouldn't it require a unique model (or at least texture) for each team?

While it would not be much, the game would have to load in more textures than it does currently, which just complicates things.

Wakain wrote:perhaps a failure in hermeneutics on your part, or more likely an inability on my part to translate my thoughts in written english, however it matters little as you only emphasized a different part of my comment than I had in mind myself.

My point was to go against the concept of straight and unbending linear improvement that is (in my view) prevalent in most of dtacs (and frankly your last two) notions. It seems some people seem to concentrate most on getting the dev's to make as much new (gamechanging) stuff as is possible, this shoots down some if not most more ambitious or aesthetically focused (and yes a bit na?ve sometimes) ideas that deserve better or at least be given a chance to be developed, if only intellectually.

is there a set time limit to when so much things need to be done? an idea lives on, even if a dev doesn't tackle it immediately or thinks of something else in the meantime.
That this suggestion get's through the tight filter of today means the dev's, perhaps only Rhino, have interest in this and after all it's their decision what needs to be done and what's worth to be done, leave alone what they want to do.

putting it so that creating diversity on one field means creating diversity on all fields just unnecessarily complicates matters and polarises the dialogue.

As a native english speaker myself, you dun speak english good.

Shovel wrote:AFAIK, all conventional factions use the same FOB right now. Same model, same texture. If this were to be done, wouldn't it require a unique model (or at least texture) for each team?

While it would not be much, the game would have to load in more textures than it does currently, which just complicates things.

It depends how you went about doing it. If we where going to go down the flag poll route for example, all conventional forces would still use the same exact model and textures as they did before, just that a flag would also be attached via code onto the flag poll and as such, different versions of the object would have to be coded but they would all use the same FO mesh and textures, and the flag texture and mesh is already loaded ingame via the normal vbf2 flag polls, unless we where to make a smaller flag, which in that case would need a new mesh but could still use the same textures. It would mean one more draw call for the FO model however but since the flag itself would only draw for a short distance, you would only have that extra draw call up close and one extra draw call every FO isn't a lot

could we not add a piece of geometry over one of the sand bags to simulate a small flag draped over it and texture that? that way we dont need to fudge with the collision mesh and what not, and could just create a single texture sheet with all the flags on it. Although i like the idea of having unique FOB models per faction it doesnt seem worth the additional resources.

This probably will only be needed for people going up close anyways as firing on a FOB from a distance ususally entailes having already checked the map. there's more time to check too unlike being upclose where you'd probably want to get the job done fast.

I think it would involve more work than it's worth unless it was a simple cosmetic, such as a flag.

As it's sometimes said: You want it in? You make it.

Put a small flag icon on the radio like the supply crates.

Now the idiots who can't press caps lock wont have a problem when taking it down.

ShockUnitBlack wrote:new players and those who blunder into a mysterious FOB deep in jungles of Tad Sae and feel they need to knife it immediately, .

I didn't even know that you could knife fobs until about 2 months ago.

I don't think that it is worth the effort to develop a flag for each fob, as there are a lot more important things to do. Just look on your map.

dtacs wrote:Put a small flag icon on the radio like the supply crates.

Now the idiots who can't press caps lock wont have a problem when taking it down.

Ye that one crossed my mind too but would require a unique mesh for each factions FO (not too bad tbh) and the flag might be a little bit too small for a player to notice if they are tossing an incendiary nade on as fast as possible for example. Also no indication from a distance which faction the FO belongs too, other than the minimap of course

Can you just copy the flagpole model from the Objective Marker Object and convert it to a static?

I honestly don't think it's worth the time.