Project Reality Forums

Having a crate required by a fob would be cool!! It would have Trans to do stuff. If there isn't a crate within 25m of a fob... the fob health degrades 5hp every minute would be cool. Or a small supply crate would make it degrade 2 hp every minute. But a full big crate won't let it degrade.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

There's an element of impetuousness that has to be considered here too, squad leaders have a tendency to place their rallies way too close to their next firefight.

Psyko wrote:There's an element of impetuousness that has to be considered here too, squad leaders have a tendency to place their rallies way too close to their next firefight.

Either that or they place a rally right on a friendly fob.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

i think, squad leaders should be punished when their rallies are overun

Jacksonez__ wrote:Yeah, really fun when accidental vehicle team kills happen e.g in main or by griefer etc. Who wouldn't like some more waiting? As if infantry was overpowered. How about playing insurgency? You die literally all the time because of blufor armor or scoped weapons.

This thread is relating to conventional forces' spawn system, not insurgents. Less people on the map during a firefight = more fun.

X-Alt wrote:This thread is relating to conventional forces' spawn system, not insurgents. Less people on the map during a firefight = more fun.

yeah but the reason it doesnt apply to insurgents is becuase tickets dont matter to insurgents.

thats not to say the insurgent spawning system couldn't be better, as it stands, insurgent spawns are laughably predictable in my opinion. And my question always was, if insurgent's tickets dont matter, why then do you get punished with a longer and longer spawn timer when you are re spawning? Is that because you don't want people to run straight back to the place where they died? Shouldnt that be up to the playerr if he's stupid enough to get meat grindered?

its all very confusing.

I just hate when squad leaders don't build fobs... but put rallies instead. I just wish rally Points were LIMITED. Maybe allow a max of 6 rally points.

Psyko wrote: thats not to say the insurgent spawning system couldn't be better, as it stands, insurgent spawns are laughably predictable in my opinion. And my question always was, if insurgent's tickets dont matter, why then do you get punished with a longer and longer spawn timer when you are re spawning? Is that because you don't want people to run straight back to the place where they died? Shouldnt that be up to the playerr if he's stupid enough to get meat grindered?

its all very confusing.

Insurgency IMO isn't being played as it should, the one map I find where insurgents know how to play is Dragon Fly. Isolated ambushes in areas that aren't the cache are both fun and rewarding gameplay wise, the current timer is a decent balance between getting grinded 24\7 or having a cache die simply because BLUFOR could take their time to go room by room before everyone spawned in.

But regardless, this thread is how the Rally\Conventional (thus mostly AAS related) spawn system is, and I think it's become a game of run, shoot, die, repeat, instead of finding smarter ways around that. There's always somebody spraying his rifle wherever you go, he could be the guy who you just killed two minutes ago.

With that said, I think the reward for killing people (as INF of course) should be a -25 second spawn time, with the default being 120 seconds. As such, effective INF squads are rewarded, allowing them to push into say a FOB without being swarmed by new spawns. I didn't find much flaw with the .98 rally system, but I think we can work with the current system in some way.

X-Alt

old maps are old. Old maps are not good for 100players. They have NO SPACE for tactical maneuvers.
Qwai is good for 40 players, not 64, not 100. Muttrah, Asad, Jabal are good for 64 players, not 100.

why Qwai is still here? Absolutely uplayable today.

Very interesting concept X-Alt. If we could combine that with a mechanic that penalizes you based on how short your life was you could force people to value their lives a lot more, it would make respawning and rushing to your death a bad idea.

You start at 120 as suggested and the longer your life span is the more it gets reduced, say 5 second reduction for 30 seconds of life with a minimal value of 45 seconds without incorporating the previously stated mechanic. This would mean squads that are being effective can respawn and return to the fight very quickly, but if they die again they will be penalized and forced to slow down again.

I do, however, see a few flaws with this idea. Namely rewarding the already strong squads with more potency, which wouldn't be new comer friendly. How would this work with Civilian kill penalties and those jerks who exploit it? How could this affect the Rally system and how would it influence an already one-sided round for example? Most importantly though, how will the players exploit it?

zloyrash wrote:old maps are old. Old maps are not good for 100players. They have NO SPACE for tactical maneuvers.
Qwai is good for 40 players, not 64, not 100. Muttrah, Asad, Jabal are good for 64 players, not 100.

why Qwai is still here? Absolutely uplayable today.

What are you talking about? Qwai river is awesome with 100 players. How is it unplayable? I'll wait.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

I agree with Weed Killer, there's just too much spawning at the moment. Did you die? Respawn in 30 seconds. Meanwhile the squad you fought have to wait 2 minutes (because revives) do be at full strength again.

I feel the game favours killing people as opposed to playing objectives at the moment, simply because you can make the enemy team lose more tickets by just killing people as opposed to playing objectives like capping flags, destroying fobs etc.

I'm all up for doubling the respawn time, and increasing ticket penalty for losing Assets and flags. Maybe even add a ticket penalty for losing a FOB?

matty1053 wrote:What are you talking about? Qwai river is awesome with 100 players. How is it unplayable? I'll wait.

Not enough space for tactical movements, no space for flank attacks. Its the river in center, two parts of ground. Teams can easily control the bridges(and whole river) all the time so no able to cross that river (if teams are balanced). So teams sitting in their parts and shooting from 1 shore to another. Also teams have to mortaring each other all the time cause its only way to do smth at this map. Qwai is small map and not for 100ppl. I think qwai is good for 50-60ppl.

The same happening at Muttrah when 50x50.
When teams are balanced 95% firefights happens in yellow fight zone. Its 2-3% of map. You cant use some smart tactics or smth like that. Any of your attack costs more tickets than other team's defend. To win the map in that situation you dont have to cap other flags at all. Teams have to sit on positions and try to save more tickets than opponent.

Muttrah is good for 64-80ppl not more.

PeppeJ wrote: feel the game favours killing people as opposed to playing objectives at the moment, simply because you can make the enemy team lose more tickets by just killing people as opposed to playing objectives like capping flags, destroying fobs etc.

I'm all up for doubling the respawn time, and increasing ticket penalty for losing Assets and flags. Maybe even add a ticket penalty for losing a FOB?

Killing people is the objective. Breaking their stuff is the objective. Capturing points is not the objective. Simply "capturing" an objective isn't a thing, you have to make sure no one is going to try and take it back or claim it as their own. Points in game serve as places to focus the fight, common places of interest that vaguely represent tactically or strategically important locations (or in PR, a random hill that's no taller than any other).

Commissar, look. Flags are already worth 30 tickets. Losing an FOB means your walk back to the combat zone could go from seconds or single digit minutes to double digit minutes, during which your enemy can take more flags or find a position to kill you better. An aircraft or main battle tank already costs more to lose than a full infantry squad and takes almost half an hour to get back in the fight once you look at travel time in a game that might not be more than about 1.5 hours long. How much would be enough? 50 tickets? 100? Should the round end as soon as a laggy pilot mangles his takeoff roll?

Since FOBs already represent something vastly more important than any amount of tickets, time saved, how much in tickets should they cost? Should they be worth more than an IFV? An MBT? A fighter jet? Should FOB hunting be more important than fighting over flags? Should admins need a reason to ban people for griefing because the team thinks the FOB placement is stupid?

I don't think ticket penalties are good in any circumstances beyond dying. It isn't easy or natural to factor in what an action is going to cost in little numbers. People don't avoid dying in PR because it will be expensive, they avoid it because it will be boring. Asset users don't want to go back to slumming it with infantry for twenty minutes. You put FOBs in safe locations so that you only have to walk for 2 minutes instead of 8 when you inevitably get turned into so much raw meat by any number of incredibly lethal things that exist in this game. And before we have that conversation, I think times are a little high right now. Vehicles have to be strong because they are expensive to lose. Since they're powerful, they have to be expensive to lose. See how that loop develops? Bad things come from that loop. Don't increase their spawn timers, then they'll have to become more powerful to make up for the increased risk of using them. Nobody would ever take an unarmed humvee out of base if it were worth 1000 tickets (well, new players might, and then you have to ban them if they so much as twitch at it), it's just not reasonable game design. If you make them less expensive, you can make them less powerful.

You can't hardcode players. Trying to punish a behavior out of a subset you don't like just punishes everybody for no good reason.

zloyrash wrote: When teams are balanced 95% firefights happens in yellow fight zone.

It sounds a little like you're under the assumption that when there were only 64 players it was common for muttrah and qwai to be more dynamic. Let me assure you from first hand experience that is not the case. That yellow band is where teams have always come to fight in the second phase of the round in muttrah because it is a natural barrier that works out to be the same distance in travel time from both main bases, meaning teams typically come to that point naturally at the same time.

Qwai has always had people camp/blow the bridges in an attempt to deny the enemy the other side of the river, requiring a reliance on border hugging helicopter drops or APC rushes over the least protected part of the water, or even straight swimming. Mostly people just tossed rifle bullets, grenades, mortar shells, tank and autocannon fire, ATGMs etc across the river at each other. Some teams didn't defend their riverbank as well as the other and the fight would break out when somebody could get an FOB across, just like it happens today.

If we look at muttrah map we can see there is no space for maneuvers for teams - only face to face through yellow zone. It is too narrow for 50+50 players.
At Qwai river we have even less space - 2 bridges(destroyable) and northern road. And every square of map is full of players. Every f square.
Okay, forget about this

Muttrah is not too small for 100 players. It's a poorly designed map period. 80% of it is unusable space. Qwai on the other hand is fine. The team that can best focus firepower while protecting its flanks will win. That's how is should be. All maps have choke points and "no man's land". Just not every team chooses to cover them every single round.

At least those have been my observations so far.

mat552 wrote:People don't avoid dying in PR because it will be expensive, they avoid it because it will be boring.

This is the current problem though and it's partially what Weed Killer wants changed, it's not boring to die. You only have to wait 30 seconds and then you're back in the fight, no questions asked. And the squad that killed you have to regroup, revive maybe even rearm and this is MUCH more boring than just respawning, mind you it also takes a lot more time. These two points together is what makes it not feel rewarding to win a firefight.
This is why I feel people should be punished substantially more. People simply do not value their lives much anymore. On the otherhand people do value assets because of their high spawntime.

I've had countless of smurfs die next to me, only for me to notice they've already given up when I've secured the area for a revive 30 seconds later. Telling them to wait for a revive rarely makes a difference in this situation. What's the point of staying on the ground if you can just respawn and come straight back in?

I also sort of agree that tickets may not be the best solution for this problem, but it's just one I had and wanted to see what others think about it. I believe higher spawntimes or a harsh punish for respawning in a short duration is probably the best solution.

When you die and die you increase your spawntime. Mb we need to increse that time even more?
I mean
now:
1 death = 30sec
2 deaths = 35sec
5 deaths = 50sec
10 death = 60sec
in future:
1 death = 30sec
2 death = 40sec
5 death = 70sec
10 death = 120sec

If you make it more costly to risk dying, people won't risk it. That's fine and dandy from a realism standpoint but there's no way I'd ever push a point if I was risking a 60 second spawn time every time I popped out of cover and got cut down. If what you really want is people to value their virtual lives and take time and advance properly and all that other millsim arma-imitative nonsense, why even allow them to respawn at all? Why allow FOBs and rally points in the first place? BF2 wasn't built with the idea that the revive mechanic should replace the spawn system, which means PR inherited that system design as a core part of its mechanics. The only way to get away from that is to break the game into something that doesn't function any more.

A big part of this is that it SEEMS faster to respawn and run back, even if it's not actually the case and I suspect that it will always SEEM faster to give up and respawn right up until the point when it's faster to quit and rejoin the server to circumvent a 360 spawn timer (eg the tank gunner in insurgency problem). The other big incentive is that you get to approach the problem from a new direction, where reviving just brings you back without any health into a potentially dangerous situation.

Finally, smurfs just don't revive enough. I give up if there's no one in my squad near by because I have a better chance of winning the powerball than I do attracting a smurf medic to pay attention to me.

mat552 wrote: Finally, smurfs just don't revive enough. I give up if there's no one in my squad near by because I have a better chance of winning the powerball than I do attracting a smurf medic to pay attention to me.

This so very much. Though I will say I think this is more because there are too many SL's running around like chickens with their heads cut off and then verbally abusing their squad if they aren't within 50 meters of them than medics not wanting to revive. Would love to run a squad of 8 medics that parcels out to support attacker and defenders but sadly that can't happen.

The question should be, "how do we make waiting for a revive more attractive than simply respawning?"