Project Reality Forums

'Xander[nl wrote:;1719290']Burning Sands, leading a Challanger squad. Our team had Arar Village, and some squads were moving south to the airport when they got pinned down. They requested tank support ASAP and I immediately went there on full speed.

Here's the video.
http://youtu.be/ds-7wG44nIY

Just imagine that the tank squads would be able to do this kind of stuff more often.
Gameplay would go through the roof.

'Xander[nl wrote:;1719487']Here's the video.
PR 0.973 - Combined Assault on airfield - YouTube

Just imagine that the tank squads would be able to do this kind of stuff more often.
Gameplay would go through the roof.

That is a brilliant video! I really wish i was part of that kind of gameplay!

back on topic, i have to agree with the OP, i'd love to see more combined arms gameplay, rather than having to apply as commander and try and organise it, rather than be the boots on the ground being a part of it, and i think that a reduction in ticket loss would be a viable option towards this. There would need to be some other sort of balance which would need to be included, such as the already suggested (and implemented) flag ticket bleed, which should only kick in once all the flags on the map have been captured by either side.

hmmmmm I like the idea, but it shouldn't be removed, it should be reduced, I'd say by 50%
However I think air assets are fine as they are.

however the ticketloss per vehicle will be, it still should hurt.
...jumping in apc/tank , running it wildly behind enemy lines, getting 5kills , being destroyed...this should not be supported.

-=TB=-Tobakfromcuba wrote:however the ticketloss per vehicle will be, it still should hurt.
...jumping in apc/tank , running it wildly behind enemy lines, getting 5kills , being destroyed...this should not be supported.

I agree, but with any system you put in, it's still going to be up to the players themselves to use their assets properly. People who disregard teamwork and go guerilla behind enemy lines would do it either way, with or without ticket loss.

It's just that the system as it stands currently makes the entire team suffer for these teamplay-less people's behaviour. And it severely limits the actual teamplaying tank commanders at the same time.

Reducing tickets loss will reduce shits given, we have the exact same freedom of choice you guys speak of but now we just have to be extra careful because that heavy asset has a price tag on it. You really want to give nubs free tanks?

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread based on the fact that it will encourage risky and probably stupid play on the part of asset crews. The entire team SHOULD suffer if the guys using an asset cannot play with any sense, this is called TEAMWORK. You think people who lose tanks trying to win the entire round alone would somehow play better if the asset they lost is free of charge? Those guys flying an Apache 50 meters off the ground would consider flying higher and doing safe runs because the asset will not cause their team to lose tickets?

I'm unsure how well this suggestion was thought through to be honest.

(PS that video isn't special, try assaulting village with 2 full apcs and 2 tanks while CAS clears ahead)

And what on earth makes you believe that those noobs are suddenly going to play like pros when there is a ticket penalty for losing the asset?

Leaving the team without heavy assets should be enough punishment for said team. Right now the majority of the rounds are lost by the team that had the worst asset squads. Not because they had more territory or were better teamwork wise.


And I never said the video was showing super high grade teamwork, I only showed it to let people see how combined assaults work out; as right now these occasions are very rare since most asset squads don't give close support to infantry and are simply off fighting their own vehicle war.

Right now, an assault on any flag that isn't the last one is not worth the trouble of losing more than one heavy asset to get it. This seems kind of silly. The enemy team loses only 30 tickets, and maybe some 10 more because of casualties. The attacking team lost maybe 40-80 in attacking (lets say two failed inf attacks and two tanks killed) while gaining nothing at all, except for a flag they basicly don't need.

Current system encourages camping, end of story. Defending your last or second last flag with all your infantry and assets dug in will annihialate a team ticket wise that tries to attack that position even though they held most of the territory for the entire round.
Fine examples include 3/4th of the rounds on Dragon Fly where the British simply camp at the Supply Depot (or whatever the train stuff is called) and win without any trouble even though they only controlled 1 out of 4 flags.

i don't think this will change how they are used. most players while playing really dont take into account ticket loss if they are the ones losing them. it only really matters to the other guy calling you the idiot, or you when you're calling the other guy a noob.

for the reasons you mentioned why there already is enough punishment, nothing will change if tickets were removed other than that it will take a bit longer to win or lose a round.

If this happens you must increase ticket loss somewhere else to keep rounds as short/long as they are now. I would like to increasing penalty for losing flag to 60 tickets.

I agree with Murphy.

Bringerof_D wrote: for the reasons you mentioned why there already is enough punishment, nothing will change if tickets were removed other than that it will take a bit longer to win or lose a round.

Which is why perhaps a ticket bleed system based on the amount of flags held could be introduced. This makes the couple of flags in the middle actually important instead of the meaningless weight they are now. Should a team that controlled most of the map not win the round?

The system IMO is flawed. Teams win based on who camps the best, and who loses the least amount of assets. What the infantry does, and how many middle flags they cap or lose rarely matters. A team can still easily win simply by defending their last flag. The fact that the other team might hold 5 out of 6 flags is irrelevant to the match outcome, which just isn't very fair.

Right now, actually trying to achieve something and trying to attack makes your team lose most of the time. Camping wins. Removing asset ticket penalty and introcing flag-based bleed could mean attacking actually gets the meaning it should.

Murphy wrote:Reducing tickets loss will reduce shits given, we have the exact same freedom of choice you guys speak of but now we just have to be extra careful because that heavy asset has a price tag on it. You really want to give nubs free tanks?

I disagree with the entire premise of this thread based on the fact that it will encourage risky and probably stupid play on the part of asset crews. The entire team SHOULD suffer if the guys using an asset cannot play with any sense, this is called TEAMWORK. You think people who lose tanks trying to win the entire round alone would somehow play better if the asset they lost is free of charge? Those guys flying an Apache 50 meters off the ground would consider flying higher and doing safe runs because the asset will not cause their team to lose tickets?

I'm unsure how well this suggestion was thought through to be honest.

(PS that video isn't special, try assaulting village with 2 full apcs and 2 tanks while CAS clears ahead)

I think you didn't get the main reason: discourage vehicles squads from fighting their own wars and not supporting infantry. Infantry is the main focus of the game, as some devs pointed out.

TheComedian wrote:I think you didn't get the main reason: discourage vehicles squads from fighting their own wars and not supporting infantry. Infantry is the main focus of the game, as some devs pointed out.

I see more combined arms as the main focus. It isnt just about discouraging vehicles from fighting their own battles. Its even worse. Oftentimes with the current system a tank platoon leader oftentimes helps the team more by taking out armor and staying the hell away from any other dangerzone (Flags/Fobs/Infantery), than finding a balance between keeping the tank alive and using it to support the team directly torwards a goal (Taking/defending a flag, destroying a cache.

Some people mentioned the ticket count. You would have to tweak tickets a little oc, but you shouldnt play PR with the expectation of playing 4 maps in the hour to begin with.

While I do like the sounds of this suggestion, playing as infantry instead of armor is a more "costly" approach. A 6 man squad is worth 12 tickets, if they all die and have to give up. Possibly more if they stay alive and continue to revive > 6 times.

However, it's so easy to take out armor nowadays, with the TOW emplacements, 1 shot HAT kits, etc.


But I do like the thought of more armor supporting infantry, as, say in kashan, tanks won't try to kill inf because it's so easy for inf to hat a tank. Whereas if the tank acts like a hunter, trying to kill other tanks, then it's a whole nother ball game.

maarit wrote:i dont like it.
i really would like to ticket loss increased a little.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:You don't like what? The ticket penalty or the idea of removing it? Your statement isn't very clear...

i agree with murphy in this.
i dont like the idea of the free tanks at all.
and i doubt that if ticket penalty get removed,tanks are supporting infantry right way.
they still fight own wars.

TheComedian wrote:I think you didn't get the main reason: discourage vehicles squads from fighting their own wars and not supporting infantry. Infantry is the main focus of the game, as some devs pointed out.

I do get the main reason, but I don't get how this suggestion will do anything to progress us towards that goal. If instated the free of charge assets will no longer cause newer/less skilled players to consider the potential for mishap before jumping into the asset, as it stands now I know there are some people (myself included) who aren't so keen on soaking up the teams tickets because you want to herp derp around in a jet but aren't the best at landing.

Without the cost of tickets I might as well try and shoot down an enemy jet or two before I splash down on the edge of the runway, whatever at least I can respawn and rape as infantry with absolutely no repercussions. Without the cost of tickets you might see more players "supporting" their infantry even when the enemy has all the necessary tools to deal with your case double time, but they will die just the same way they fail now if they charge a FOB with a tank and the inf isn't supporting.

If you're really wanting to get into combined arms attacks take the initiative yourself. If you are an infantry squad clear the area of threats then call in a laser guided bomb, and then ask for an APC to drop you off near the flag once there is no AT. Don't be mad when the pilot asks if you dealt with the AA, don't think those armor guys don't want to stop the enemy squad and get loads of free kills while helping to cap them out, and don't think that every infantry squad wants/needs support from those loud-*** targets just begging for all the enemies attention.

The root of the issue you speak of is that these assets are always one missile/bomb/mine/RPG away from main and with the ticket cost weighing heavy in the mind of every crew they are prone to taking less risks. In my opinion this is what is keeping things from turning into a vanilla tard rush fiesta, which could very well end up having the opposite effect of what you're after.

You focus too much on penalizing noobs, or more precisely, a team which has nubs manning assets, because selfish people dont care how the ticket loss affects their team, but you did not adress the problem of assets costing tickets, how it affects the game of players who want to help the team. You only see the good bit, punishing nubs.

Many players fight their own battles with their assets against enemy assets, because from a strategic point of view it is the best way to help the team with the current system, if they estimate that the game might be decided by ticket loss rather than capout. You say "if you want combined arms take the initiative", thats the problem, with the current ticket system, from a strategic point of view, trying to support the team to reach the primary objective does not make much sense most of the time to a player who plays with a team mentality in mind. Its best to take out those costly assets with your costly asset to support the team as a whole, while staying away from enemy flags and infantery, where the team can engage your costly asset at a low cost of their own, with a hat or tank.

Rather than focusing on how we can penalize a team for having nubs on their side who just want to roam and do their own thing, we should focus on making the game better for players who want to play this tactical teamorented shooter using tactics and teamplay.

If there are players on the servers catastrophizing the teams assets because they dont want to play with themselves rather than be a teamplayer, then thats something the admins can take care of within the boundaries of their own server policy, assuming they have one.

i have to agree with Murphy. i think the ticket loss should stay as it is. its been stated several times that the tanks are off doing there own thing and not fighting or covering the infantry. but that's not true at all. they are in fact keeping the infinity very much alive. see how long your squad lasts after the tanks on your team are all down and the other armor goes 'no hostile armor to keep me in check? time to kill a whole squad with one heat shell!'. you may not see your armor squads taking an aggressive approach to capping flags or killing inf, but they are defensively taking part. there keeping you alive by keeping part of the enemy team in check. if the ticket cost were removed or even reduced, you'd see massive kamikaze tank ruses on flags. they are a heavy asset, they do massive damage, they cost the military alot to deploy, they are game changers. this should be reflected in ticket count.

heres what i see as the new strategy if armor is free, massive armor rush every time you want to take a flag, roll out all 3 of your tanks and 2 APCs, come rolling over the hill and focus fire anything that is a threat. one TOW and one HAT defending? no problem, i have 5 heavy assets here, and it doesn't cost a dime to louse 2 of them. you have a tank there too? well that's fine and dandy, i have 3 of them, we one shot you, reload and kill the TOW and hat kit before they can rearm. done deal, HE Frag every corner of the flag to kill all INF, flag is ours. total cost in tickets ... -4 form the 2 crewmen you lost, +30 from the flag you took = +26.

and if that's not the case, heres scenario number 2. armor still focuses an armor, because no driver likes to be oneshot by hat kits fighting inf, and the main threat on the field is still enemy armor. even if the cost is removed ill still spend the majority of my time hunting enemy armor because it makes the biggest difference to the game. every tank or APC i kill is one that is not killing my INF. i'm a team playing, i like to find a good inf squad and attack myself to them, if they need a hand i'm on call to cover them, if they don't directly need support of something, then i'm covering them by stopping the enemy APC from rolling onto the ridge and lighting them up.

2 more issues that need to be addressed, this game is all about team work, if you have good teamwork and coordination with your armor then you wont be lousing it anyways. you wnt the armor to cover you, but its also your job to cover the armor. its your job to make sure theres not a TOW around the corner just sitting there waiting. the other thing i sort of mentioned above, these are heavy assets were taking about here, these things are gamer changers (when used properly). they are not cheep, thay are net easy to make or deploy. this is Project Reality, and while im not pushing for total reality (cough deviation), in real light dedicating armor to a mission has a cost. if you have a Bradly in a town and you receive intel that theirs an enemy BMP in the town somewhere you not going to go bowling around corners wildly looking for it, on the off chance that you get off more AP rounds then he does.

i see it degrading in to kamikaze runs against other armor hoping that you got the first shot off because.... who cares, this 300 ton behemoths that shoots 120mm shells and that can destroy whole squads cost a total of 2 tickets.

one of the things that really makes Project Reality stand out for me is that there IS a penalty for lousing heavy assets. its one of the things i'm most proud about. in its current form PR understands the value and cost of a heavy asset. and as for changing the cost, i don't think that's necessary, the previous patch that doubled the cost for infantry death effectively cue the cost of vehicles in half. the cost has always been 10 for a tank, but it use to be 10 inf dead = one tank, now its only 5 (-1 wounded, -1 dead). if its reduced any further it would be like valuing a tank at 2 inf. i think the current system of penalty for armor a good one, and in the long run, a bad infantry squad can end up costing your team alot more then a bad armor squad, after all
, it takes 20 minuets for there armor to respawn.... you can kill your entire squad 8 to 12 times in that 20 minuets.
//end rant

i think i got carried away there, i encourage someone else to boil down this post to something more.... clear.
if any Devs have questions or want clarification PM me and ill explain it on mumble, i tried not to go into to much detail here (failed)

I think it's a bit odd that everyone is focusing on tanks here. Trans helos and IFV/APC are more abundant than tanks, and have a high cost too. People have commented in the past about the lack of APC support for infantry, so I would be in favour of decreasing the ticket penalty for APC and trans helo (if they're doing their job then the odds are good that you're wiping out a squad with them, so you'll get a big enoug ticket loss there).

Keep it for trucks, Logi trucks, Hummvw's and the equivalent. Those who take these types of vehicles for their own personal taxi or those who take them with no means of returning them or letting others use them deserve to be punished in the form of tickets.

As a SL or as a squad member or the scarce times I do armor I love to ask my SL or I will tell my squad members to destroy abandoned vehicles left on the battlefield. Especially Logi or ammo trucks.