Project Reality Forums

2 good players can have more impact than 12 crappy ones. One round Superhornet and I managed to kill 3 caches, nix the Taliban mortars and heavily interdicted supply lines, just by being smart about how we played.

Well, okay, then let's agree on "there is a chance a single player or two turn the course of a battle", never mind how big we estimate the chance.

But still, I don't think there shouldn't be any gamemode where a certain part of the players is simply made unable to participate and is doomed to watch dots move and finally disappear on a map. This is not playing a game or fun, it doesn't even serve a higher purpose like the boring grind in World of Warcraft (which I don't consider playing either, it's working for fun), it's just a bad game design solution.

Joker86 wrote:Well, okay, then let's agree on "there is a chance a single player or two turn the course of a battle", never mind how big we estimate the chance.

But still, I don't think there shouldn't be any gamemode where a certain part of the players is simply made unable to participate and is doomed to watch dots move and finally disappear on a map. This is not playing a game or fun, it doesn't even serve a higher purpose like the boring grind in World of Warcraft (which I don't consider playing either, it's working for fun), it's just a bad game design solution.

Well, no one is stopping you from alt-tabbing out of the game to browse some internets.

Just tell your squaddies to inform you when you can spawn via mumble.

Is the feedback forum only there to hear how you can get along with some issues you have with the game? Is it not more about hearing what other players think, what they like and what they dislike (e.g. not being able to spawn), so that the developers can improve the game accordingly?

You guys keep trying to convince me how I can deal with the issue I have, or even how I probably deserved it, instead of saying "Oh! This is something you don't like? Well, I didn't care about it before, but if it upsets you, let's find out if it upsets more people! And if it does, let's get it changed!".

Until now all answers I got had the message of "stop whining" between the lines. Now if this is your attitude towards a feedback forum, you can close it as well.

Joker86 wrote:Is the feedback forum only there to hear how you can get along with some issues you have with the game? Is it not more about hearing what other players think, what they like and what they dislike (e.g. not being able to spawn), so that the developers can improve the game accordingly?

You guys keep trying to convince me how I can deal with the issue I have, or even how I probably deserved it, instead of saying "Oh! This is something you don't like? Well, I didn't care about it before, but if it upsets you, let's find out if it upsets more people! And if it does, let's get it changed!".

Until now all answers I got had the message of "stop whining" between the lines. Now if this is your attitude towards a feedback forum, you can close it as well.

Well, surely if it was an issue that bothered the general population, don't you think your topic would be gaining a lot more support? I decided after my previous post to stop contributing because clearly you're not going to be 'convinced', and thus I can't see much point in myself or anyone else continuing to argue with you about it. I'm posting this as the topic has changed somewhat to your feedback on the feedback section.

Much like your Deviation thread (and first thread on the forums), your arguments seem to stem from your lack of experience with the game. It's not a bad thing, people don't dislike you, they just find your arguments lacking given what we/they've experienced.

Sometimes we see an issue where no one else does... and unless we have direct control of the problem, we have to sit back, shake our heads in dismay, and deal with it

Joker86 wrote:I don't remember the name. I just checked all topics in this forum with map overviews, and I found the map overviews on realitymodfiles.com, but the map was not listed.

- It was US Army/USMC against Russians.
- Amercians started in the SW, Russians in the NE
- It was a city in the desert, and I think I remember there was a harbour and water on the northern edge of the map, or at least in the north east, where the Russians came from
- the borders of the city didn't reach the edge of the map, it was sorrounded be open, sandy desert with small dunes
- In the south east there are those red brickstone buildings with many floors and those windows which reach to the floor. You know, with those "balcony" rods in front of the windows.
- There were like four of those building, forming the south eastern corner of the city. Each of these houses had a small open place in front of it, framed by a low wall, just high enough to get some cover if you crouch behind it. The open places always showed to the center of the city.

That's all I remember, I didn't see much more of the city

Hmm, Not only the Russians have BDRMs, the MEC or Militia ("rebels") I believe have them also.

No US v Russia. Maybe it was a US v MEC or US v Militia?

City in the desert? Al Basrah? Fallujah? Jabal? Ramiel? Maybe even Muttrah?

Red Brick buildings? Like a "Soviet looking" Style? Closest would be Iron Ridge...

Hmmm, "Soviet" style building in Ramiel? lol

But in all seriousness, it sounds like different maps your talking about.


Wait, in Beruit, around F8 area, that seems to be what he is describing.


Looks to me like he just mixed the Israelis with the US Army/Marine Corps. Map sounds like Beirut, but not 100% sure.

Above post is an excellent example why you should also read the whole thread before posting.

But I have to admit, he is good. He found the map by my description.

Psyrus wrote:Well, surely if it was an issue that bothered the general population, don't you think your topic would be gaining a lot more support? I decided after my previous post to stop contributing because clearly you're not going to be 'convinced', and thus I can't see much point in myself or anyone else continuing to argue with you about it. I'm posting this as the topic has changed somewhat to your feedback on the feedback section.

Much like your Deviation thread (and first thread on the forums), your arguments seem to stem from your lack of experience with the game. It's not a bad thing, people don't dislike you, they just find your arguments lacking given what we/they've experienced.

Sometimes we see an issue where no one else does... and unless we have direct control of the problem, we have to sit back, shake our heads in dismay, and deal with it

Well, I know I am still a noob, and I will always accept it if people say "trust me, it's the other way round, I know it, and you will see it, too".

But on this matter there is nothing I can perceive the wrong way, I literally played a map ten minutes and then I spent another ten minutes waiting in spectator screen, because the few survivors were nailed down by an APC in a house and had no AT-weapons. And the more I think about it, the more I think I really waited ten minutes, because I had a phone call in the meantime and a few other things.

I would have preferred to play the game, but I was not playing at all. I was watching a map. And I already consider "watch the back side of our position to spot eventual lone wolfs for twenty minutes" as playing, I am really humble in that matter.

Perhaps this happens too rarely, and perhaps many people don't even know how this feels like, because it never happened to them, but it sucks incredibly to actually be logged onto a server but be disallowed to join the fun. The only post which convinced me by some degree was the post that there used to be some baserape in the past, but I don't think the current solution is acceptable.

It's just a basic rule of game design to NOT prevent people of playing a game. I would still prefer the solution to spawn in the main base to be able to fight back, perhaps a few changes need to be done to make this viable again, or perhaps you could just let the map end the second all flags belong to one team, a map doesn't always need to end with "to zero". I don't know, that's why I posted it in the feedback forum, if I had a concrete suggestion I would post it in the suggestion forum. Perhaps already an unkillable, remote-controlled rocket launcher (guided) with unlimited ammo in front of all bases would prevent spawnrape, because it's suicie to approach it, even if you are a bit behind cover. Whatever.

I just want to prevent people of experiencing the same thing like me. And it definitely IS demotivating. When the round ended my team had about 30% players left, and this was my final motivation to leave that server, too. I don't think that game design should have such an effect... ??:

There is a Russia vs US map. Pavlosk Bay.

Joker86 wrote:Is the feedback forum only there to hear how you can get along with some issues you have with the game? Is it not more about hearing what other players think, what they like and what they dislike (e.g. not being able to spawn), so that the developers can improve the game accordingly?

What is the point of spawning when enemy capped your BASE?

Just to get spawnkilled?

...I bet if dev made it possible to spawn in main even after last flag was capped; you would be complaining about spawnkills...

ComradeHX wrote:What is the point of spawning when enemy capped your BASE?

Just to get spawnkilled?

...I bet if dev made it possible to spawn in main even after last flag was capped; you would be complaining about spawnkills...

You could charge out of your main and reconquer all flags. And I didn't mean the enemy capped your base. That's the issue I have with it. He did not, he just capped all flags on the field, and suddenly your main is closed. I see no logic in that.

The trick is just to prevent the spawn killing, and everything will be fine. It's not like ther wouldn't exist "push"-gamemodes in other games, which have exactly this initial situation: one team spawning in their main base, trying to push the enemies back.

Of course I do not want to get spawnkills, and of course I would complain.

I just want this: being able to join the game ALWAYS and have free access to the battlefield. Once on the actual battlefield, it's perfectly fine to soot and kill me. I LOVE pain.

Am I correct in saying the issue is that when the last flag goes neutral that team cannot spawn, but if the bleed doesn't get on and start then its a waiting game?

There is a solution I think, if the values I have in mind actually work.
Flags have this

ObjectTemplate.timeToGetControl X
ObjectTemplate.timeToLoseControl Y

So we'd set the lose control a bit longer than normal, say 240 seconds, and the time to get control at 1 second,

hence, only 1 second will be spent neutral

this means bleed can get on, and perhaps that needs increasing on some maps too like Fools Road.

If those two things are implemented, then it would effectively mean taking the last flag is the end of the game with no more waiting, just get on to the next round.

Or have i misunderstood the issue?

Navo wrote:Above post is an excellent example why you should also read the whole thread before posting.

lolwut?

I guess I had a derp moment.. lol.

An interesting topic, and while i'm inclined to go along with the whole experience thing, i do think that it should be open for players to be able to spawn at their main bases at all times during the game, although the issue of base rape would remain there as well.

With regards to the issue at hand, i think the reason why the devs haven't set the game to end as soon as the last 'Field' flag has been captured is that there still could be the entire team alive, just in different parts of the map. Obviously those who're dead aren't going to be particularly happy about having to either a) Wait for the ticket bleed to run out, or b) Wait until whoever's in their team still alive re-takes a field flag.

Obviously, if pretty much the whole team is dead save for 2 or 3, and all field flags have been captured, then yes, the game should end, but i think that should be at the server admins' discretion. It could turn up that, in your scenario, out of 7 players who were still alive, there were 5 being held in the house you described, but 2 still out in the field. Who's to say that the two who are left in the field couldn't find a HAT kit or run to a crate, run back around a flank, take out the BDRM, release the guys being held in the house, combine forces, re-take the field flag being contested and open it and the main base spawn points up for the rest of the team to spawn into, then launch a mass assault on the remaining flags? I'm pretty sure i've been in a battle where something similar has happened before.

Personally, i find that games where you're just on the verge of losing, but come back to put up a good fight are a damn sight more satisfying than the ones where you just roll over and let someone shove a bayonet in your face (as a figure of speech, of course!)