Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2016-04-26 18:15**

Murphy brought some good points.

And most evidently, the atmosphere of a server lays on the shoulders of its administration.
I have been witnessing alot of immature behaviors from in-game admins.

This mean admins that troll with the green text, using this new trend that are ''memes''. Failing to grasp the core of an issue between players. Abusing their administrative power.
Ignoring complains. (Leading to the loss of assets)

I saw situations where a bunch of admins were in the same team, and in the same squad, while no admin was in the other team.

All these flaw in administration that can lead a server into chaos. (Like mass Tk's in main, Vehicles crash in main.. etc.. )

But no one really cares enough to take action and solve this problem.

People have been complaining of bad administration for a while now, its just how it is.

Posted: **2016-04-26 18:36**

Murphy wrote:Do we see a way to slowly stop the slip in the opposite direction? Can we facilitate "serious play" on public servers, or do we have to accept that people prefer to derp around instead of being a cohesive unit?

I'm no expert but maybe a deprivation or pay-to-play scheme would work, where 64-player servers are pubs and 100-player servers are clan-only, with password-protected Squad Leads, people have to pay-to-play those while the pubs are more for practice/familiarization

Posted: **2016-04-26 19:08**

Murphy wrote:I feel the standards at which admins hold players has slipped a lot over the years, this has lead to sub-par SLing and has slowly turned the once obligatory "co-ordination" aspect into an optional facet of the game. I believe part of the issue is that many of the veterans who have moved on failed to pass the torch to the newer members of the community (I'm sure the reasoning is broad and quite varied from person to person).

There have been threads trying to nudge people into re-capturing the once glorious TEAMWORK aspect of the game, but to no avail. In the end I feel it's partly due to how we, the community, have handled the influx of new players since PR became stand-alone. I also feel the administration of servers and how the stance of admins has changed over the years to a much more relaxed, somewhat hands off role has given a lot of leeway for bad habits to form.

I only play with people I know as I have had pretty piss poor experiences with the newer generation of players. Where I once enjoyed SLing squads with a handful of randoms and 2/3 friends, I know try to avoid having more than 1 or 2 randoms. It's quite difficult to force someone into the "old PR mindset", we used to have an environment that facilitated "seriousness" where now we have a "play however you want" mentality becoming quite prevalent.

This has ultimately lead myself, and many people I know, to cringe at the prospect of pubbing. It's just the nature of the beast, if you're not able to find the fun you once had in PR you will turn to other games to find the same experience.

I have a question for you Mouthpiece, or anyone else who took the time to read and reply to this thread.

Do we see a way to slowly stop the slip in the opposite direction? Can we facilitate "serious play" on public servers, or do we have to accept that people prefer to derp around instead of being a cohesive unit?

The way I see it, the lack of good gameplay relies mostly on the lack of good SL's. A lot of people join MIC INF squads searching eagerly for good leadership, and wheb they find it, they mostly comply, specially if they join from the beginning of the match. After mic checks a few rotten apples may remain, but usually no more than two, that can be easily kicked.

The problem for people who enjoy "seriousness" is coordination with other squads, since it's difficult to see more than two good inf squads in the same team (although three is still doable).

Posted: **2016-04-26 19:10**

Wait wait wait, you are suggesting that servers have a white list for people who payed them money, just so they can be with more people in a round? For a free mod, whilst there are still other servers up offering the same thing but for free. (because face it not everybody would be after money for a server to put up a pay wall). That will be the most empty servers in the entirety of PR, it might even force a good deal of people away from it who otherwise would've enjoyed it without locking the squad leading position.

Posted: **2016-04-26 19:11**

Rice N. Beans wrote:I'm no expert but maybe a deprivation or pay-to-play scheme would work, where 64-player servers are pubs and 100-player servers are clan-only, with password-protected Squad Leads, people have to pay-to-play those while the pubs are more for practice/familiarization

That wouldn't work for most of the community (including people that enjoys seriousness), specially after having the game free. The best possible outcome of that would be a massive migration to Squad.

Posted: **2016-04-26 19:46**

Well he asked how to differentiate/segregate the new influx of players from the serious players

In my brainstorm idea the serious players pay their admin to play on their servers, or perhaps pay for a password to be Squad Lead

Maybe restructure the game also, so that players who lose are made into servant squad-mates for those squad leads that won in the next round -- else when they get kicked from the squad they get kicked from the server in this enhanced Seriousness Server version or I dunno lol

While this is going on, in my imaginary scenario, there will be other smaller 64-player servers where derp-age can continue uninhibited -- kind of like a getaway

Posted: **2016-04-26 20:01**

Holy shit that pay to play thing... It could actually work. But I guess that's for a another thread.

Posted: **2016-04-26 20:12**

How can it work? And in what ways can it make the Squad Lead role a serious one, and make Squad Mates fall in line more readily?

when Squad Leads who get sick of pubbers save up some money and pays a Seriousness Server admin to be a Squad Lead on their 100+ player server

that in my imainary scenario shifts the players around by pairing poor-performing players with high-performing Squadleads, not only for fairness but also so that the various paying Squad Leads become like drill sergeants and mercilessly teach intrepid players how to be disciplined, and then can cross-pollinate to the lesser 64-player servers to trade one form of abuse for another

It would be like a factory churning out mil-sim people
Anybody go ahead and use this idea or post it elsewhere if you like

Posted: **2016-04-26 20:18**

You're right. It's for a different thread.

Posted: **2016-04-26 20:31**

I think a real life ranking system could curb this problem a bit as reward can be a incentive to play seriously.There are many who when given the SL, give up right away saying that they don't wanna give orders but wanna take orders from a SL. On the other times the guy who was the SL in the previous map is just a squad mate in the current map and still he acts like a SL or just leaves.

The other thing could be done is a reward in the form of tactical aid like artillery or something else.
Most stragglers are snipers and marksmen in the inf squad and at other times they are just not liked by other squads.So maybe these kits needs to be looked at.

Lastly a score system that takes in account like deaths,kills,etc rather than just flag capture score to be at the top.Or should rather remove the whole score system that shows a list of top 20 people and their stats.

How people get hooked on to other games like say BF3 or FARCRY4. It has a hierarchical system in which you don't get to have everything rather you have to earn it.

Posted: **2016-04-26 20:44**

With a Ranking system players will become more aggressive (which is good!) but also become more independent and individually-driven (in the case brought up in the original post, not-so-good)

Such a Ranking system ought to go into infinity, not have a finite cap, so that players will not apex and then quit like COD4 or something

-

AS PUNISHMENT..
I think the stragglers (those not in a fireteam) like you say
I think the wanderers ought to be in some form of danger at every minute, perhaps there should be CPU units/bots roaming around the map that are invisible to those closest to the Squad Lead but as they venture further away from the Squad Lead the CPU bots appear and kill the straggler

The CPU bots meanwhile are invisible to the Squad Leads and Squad Mates working closely-together

That will force people to stay together or bring along a fireteam

Posted: **2016-04-26 21:31**

This idea is ludacrious Rice.

Rank system like vanilla BF2 could be nice tho.

Posted: **2016-04-26 21:40**

I don't think there could a system that recognizes where the player is and sets loose the bots.
Those wanderers could just be kicked from the squad.

No, a new ranking system because ranking up like BF2 vanilla would be easy!.. IRL it takes years to earn a rank.So it should be relatively difficult to rank up and you can only rank up in multiplayer.

Posted: **2016-04-26 21:41**

Rice N. Beans wrote:With a Ranking system players will become more aggressive (which is good!) but also become more independent and individually-driven (in the case brought up in the original post, not-so-good)

Such a Ranking system ought to go into infinity, not have a finite cap, so that players will not apex and then quit like COD4 or something

Disagree w/ you, because Project Reality is a very good game, players play this game for the game and not for a reward like a bunch of people playing Cod or BF...

So a Ranking system would do nothing but make veteran(players w/ more time in game) think that they are better than new players
Edit- not think that they are better than new Players, but be "sure" that they are better than any low rank player

Posted: **2016-04-26 21:55**

Rank doesn't represents who's better but in fact experience.That would be a rare case, thinking that they are better, the result and team's effort will show who is better anyways.Frankly, i have never seen a person on PR claiming they are better than others,its just a personal delusion that some ******** have and that would be a rare case.

Okay forget rankings, we need something player would strive for like limiting something that needs to be earned.
for example, you do something good and you get a one time JDAM strike like you would get airstrikes on Delta force/delta force 2.

Posted: **2016-04-26 22:02**

Stop with this ranking talk/bullshit (sorry, I tried to think of a nicer word but just couldn't xD) please...

Posted: **2016-04-26 22:03**

I would like to say proudly that the PR community is different from other community and we are mature, and that a ranking system would not make other people be ********.

But with the new players that are part of the ''memes community'' and general trolls of internet.

Meh..

******** are ********. With rank system or not.
Just play CAS once in a while, you'll meet the best of the best in there

Posted: **2016-04-26 22:55**

PR didn't start super serious, it was just meant to be more tactical and focus on teamwork and for people to have fun. Tbh I wouldn't say they mentality changed till about .7 and only got worse from there. I will say it, I think TG was shit. They found fun in milsim and if you didn't feel the same then fuck you. I really enjoyed PR when it was tongue in cheek realism and before everyone got up their own *** about hardcore realism, I still like the teamwork but to fuck around and be a **** to friends in your squad.

Posted: **2016-04-26 23:08**

anantdeathhawk wrote:Rank doesn't represents who's better but in fact experience.That would be a rare case, thinking that they are better, the result and team's effort will show who is better anyways.Frankly, i have never seen a person on PR claiming they are better than others,its just a personal delusion that some ******** have and that would be a rare case.

They will appear if its something like a clan Asset or something that don't like to get
criticized... of course this will be the minority, but is better if its one or 2 guys by server

Posted: **2016-04-26 23:12**

The problem with saying something is mature is that for most people it's subjective, and you can't fault the playerbase for not being mature, it's a game for crying out loud, a couple of guys having fun by playing or talking or playing serious shouldn't matter to the rest.

Being serious in things gets boring after a while, which is one of the reasons why a lot of people play games (to do something less serious). So why force people to be serious? Why split the playerbase by having a paid side to gaming, why force your view of how the mod should be down the throats of everybody else and let them choke on it because they weren't being serious enough (e.g. the proposed loner bots).

And then we haven't even shed a thought about bad parts of the suggestions, such as it being blatantly annoying if your sl tells you to stay and cover and you suddenly being killed by said invisible murderbots. Or maybe the whole paying to play squad leader, there might be a lot of people willing to be squad leader, not necessarily having the experience but having fun trying something new, who wouldn't be willing to pay for something they can't experience yet. And sure the money might help pay the server costs, but what's wrong with the current donation system that we would suddenly have to periodically shell out money to be a squad leader? And having to pay for something doesn't dissuade some people from annoying others, they'd just pay and still play to be annoying.

Project Reality Forums

Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]

Re: Is PR serious business? [semi-rant about "What we've become?"]