Removing the map Icons

Phoenix4894 · Post by **Phoenix4894** » 2015-12-01 04:28

The idea is great in my opinion. This would definately increase the communication and teamwork between squads. Plus, it is a good opportunity to make the commander role attractive again, if he's the only one able to see squadleaders for example. To help the squadleaders though, he might set Number markers matching each squad on the map to set the squads current area and he'd have to refresh this in case the squad moves further away.

The teamkilling concern is not a big one for experienced players, since I guess you guys recognise the uniforms and decide to fire, instead of checking the map alot.

...which leads to the problem with new players, which cannot recognise friend or foe straight ahead.

This is worth a discussion in my opinion.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 5 mit Tapatalk

Fir3w411 · Post by **Fir3w411** » 2015-12-01 04:33

The issue is most notable when firing at a distance. For example, you're in a tank. You can't identify a friendly if they're 500 meters out, in a bush.

What? Will you ask each and every squad if they have infantry there until you get an answer? What about if it's a piece of armor in the same spot and you have little time to act? I can see comms being spammed by squadmates asking on friendly whereabouts, too.

This suggestion is beyond ridiculous and not a really realistic approach is taken into what the consequences would be by many of you here.

Phoenix4894 · Post by **Phoenix4894** » 2015-12-01 04:43

In this case there would be a lack of communications.
To prevent this you would need a commander which sets a squad marker on a map (lets say an area of a keypad).
and if enemies are spotted, you report it, as you do nowadays. The enemy position will be marked via squad leader or commander.

And it isnt a big difference if there is friend and foe mixed in your sights, no matter if you can see them on the map or not.
If you cant recognise friend or for on the SIGHTS, you simply dont fire.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 5 mit Tapatalk

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-12-01 11:07

Phoenix4894 wrote:In this case there would be a lack of communications.
To prevent this you would need a commander which sets a squad marker on a map (lets say an area of a keypad).
and if enemies are spotted, you report it, as you do nowadays. The enemy position will be marked via squad leader or commander.

And it isnt a big difference if there is friend and foe mixed in your sights, no matter if you can see them on the map or not.
If you cant recognise friend or for on the SIGHTS, you simply dont fire.

Gesendet von meinem Nexus 5 mit Tapatalk

Yes, more people talking in mumble about inconsequential things is what we need! More mumble comms, less playing!

You realize communication is ideally kept to a minimum in RL armed forces? Why does everyone think talking a lot means you're being realistic and effective?

a3dboy1 · Post by **a3dboy1** » 2015-12-01 16:32

This suggestion is beyond ridiculous and not a really realistic approach is taken into what the consequences would be by many of you here.

viirusiiseli wrote:Yes, more people talking in mumble about inconsequential things is what we need! More mumble comms, less playing!

You realize communication is ideally kept to a minimum in RL armed forces? Why does everyone think talking a lot means you're being realistic and effective?

Majority of casualties US troops sustained in Iraq was caused by friendly fire.

Removal of markers will force players to communicate or be blind headless chickens. I am sure many trolls will leave as soon as they realize they actually need to use teamwork or have practically no fun.

Fir3w411 · Post by **Fir3w411** » 2015-12-02 00:29

a3dboy1 wrote:Majority of casualties US troops sustained in Iraq was caused by friendly fire.

I will repost what I wrote earlier

This isn't real life.

crazygamelover · Post by **crazygamelover** » 2015-12-02 01:21

a3dboy1 wrote:Majority of casualties US troops sustained in Iraq was caused by friendly fire.

Can someone else back this up? I highly doubt this statistic is accurate.

sweedensniiperr · Post by **sweedensniiperr** » 2015-12-02 09:10

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that removing icons would be more realistic, but that's not the issue here.

You guys who are in favor of this; it's about the effect on gameplay. It is not going to improve by removing the icons. It will not increase teamwork. Those of us now that use teamwork would see no change(only more comms, "where are you etc"), and those that at this day, run around as headless chickens will still do that, only now they will be blind as well.

Jacksonez__ · Post by **Jacksonez__** » 2015-12-02 09:34

crazygamelover wrote:Can someone else back this up? I highly doubt this statistic is accurate.

Total USA soldiers KIA in Iraq (2003-2011): 3,527
Friendly fire incidents:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_f ... _from_2003

X-Alt · Post by **X-Alt** » 2015-12-02 13:54

1m engagements, you must not like getting sniped.

viirusiiseli · Post by **viirusiiseli** » 2015-12-02 20:16

a3dboy1 wrote:Majority of casualties US troops sustained in Iraq was caused by friendly fire.

Not true. Unless you're talking about Abrams tanks.

a3dboy1 wrote:Removal of markers will force players to communicate or be blind headless chickens. I am sure many trolls will leave as soon as they realize they actually need to use teamwork or have practically no fun.

No, removing the markers will cause un-necessary communication. For what? Just so there's no map markers? And no, the trolls/stupid people don't just leave because someone removed map markers.

Also, armed forces aren't that far from minimaps either. Link.

Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons

Re: Removing the map Icons