Project Reality Forums

X1 Spriggan wrote:Gamemode- ( AASv4 ?) The current style of command point style in my opinion is becoming really old and redundant. The BF2 mentality of rushing must somehow be channeled into to better gameplay. A very troublesome but extremely effective aspect that directly affects almost all of PR’s gameplay is the aspect of speed. Players often mistake speed as the priority over their own virtual life. If they have a place they want to go, they want to get there the fastest way possible.

Suggestion- If possible, remove flags markers on the player map but have them still exist. It’s basically the same exact command points that are currently used except players don’t know where the command points are. If possible, only allow the commander to see the true command points that need to be captured.

Oooh yeah I like this idea, no doubt. Combine with the random flag spawns of AAS v3 (fine tuned to avoid having to defend a completely barren hill a la Quinling) and you are on to a winner imo.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:The RP/spawn suggestion has been done/suggested to death too many times. This is just another suggestion that sounds really good in practice, but would be terrible ingame, especially on insurgency where "falling back" is pretty much impossible when you have a wave of insurgents who respawn twice as quick as you. Plus, you can try to fall back sometimes only to get shot in the back.

And if losing your RP from being overrun right now doesn't encourage your squad to "regroup", you really think this is? This just further punishes the squad (more than the magical disappearing RP) and would just frustrate people more.

Falling back is not to be confused with running away like a chicken. Strategic falling back would allow you to gain some ground on the enemy and get those reinforcements back, then push forward again with them.

Not to mention that the ground gained will allow the remaining few troops of an insurgency map to use distance to their advantage. The farther away they are, the better of a chance they have against the insurgents. If falling back is the only way to get that advantage, I'd sure as heck do it. But right now gameplay mechanics don't very much encourage falling back, since you can just respawn on a relatively permanent rally (yeah, it can be overrun/knifed/etc but for the most part it usually stays where it is during a firefight, leaving no incentive to fall back and actually regroup on the battlefield)

Losing your RP now does encourage you to regroup... but usually during a firefight it includes half the squad spawning either at main or at a friendly firebase which could often cause a large separation of the forces, instead of using the few remaining men to fall back and set a rally in a safe area and allow those reinforcements to get back into the battle.

I agree that some changes are needed to AAS. Too many matches are won or lost on the merits of one squad rather than the whole team having a real part.

The key frustration comes in when you are trying to capture a place and then suddenly it is no longer a valid target, and you must travel a kilometer to the next place, which is virtually captured/fortified by the time you arrive.


I am not 100% comfortable with the commander idea. I don't like too much of the game resting on one person who can be an idiot. 30 people should not have an hour of their time wasted by 1 stupid man... so, you have to be careful with that. (possibly even 60, when the other team doesn't get a good fight because everyone's been commanded to go to the wrong point).



That being said, I really, really like your idea for the rally points. Too often I squad up with a squad leader who doesn't provide a place for me to spawn as frequently as he should, or, he places them in stupid places and gets them captured constantly. I think this single change, or one very much like it, would improve the enjoyability of PR tremendously.

Following up on the recent beta changes, I'm glad to see a version of the rally point system is being tested. Also reading up on the feedback thread, it is getting positive remarks. Many complaints I've seen in the "Beta B and Beta C is that people are not liking that Fire Base focus. So I'll update this rarely seen thread with more ideas I came up with.

Use-age of the new ACVs

Currently, the ACV is a remodel of the UAV command center, but I have some more interactive use for the ACV. My idea would be to remove the spawn points from Fire Bases and creating a mobile HQ with the ACV that will act as the spawn point. The only spawn points that would be in the game would be the main base, the ACV and the rally points.

How the ACV spawn system would work:

Do not mistake this as the old " spawn on APC" spawn system from vanilla; this would be quite different. The ACV would be a crew-able one manned vehicle that one would drive. The vehicle itself is not the spawn point. Rather, one would drop a "spawn crate" that would activate the requirements to deploy a invisible static spawn point that squad leaders must deploy within say 10 meters of the ACV. After about a minute the spawn crate would disappear. Now here's the tricky part. If possible, the spawn point can only remain if the ACV remains stationary or stays within the vicinity. The ACV would have the health of any normal APC that is currently ingame. AT would be effective against the ACV and is still prone to all old Fire Base dangers ( incendiary grenades).

What it accomplishes:

- A mobile spawn point that be used offensively or defensively but only one or the other.
- Reduces overall spawn point availability but increases spawn mobility.

Known problems:

I am aware of the old insurgent spawn point system with the red cars. Insurgents would take the red cars and slam them into corners and ally ways to hide them. But the ACV is bigger and still requires a crate to come out the back.

Out of the box thinking from the original poster regarding AASv4.

Well done

I really like the AASv4 suggestion. It should definitely be tested and it would probably improve team coordination if a good commander is used. It should probably be a server side setting though.

Irons and scopes I dont care about as much and I actually really dislike you latest suggestion with the ACV spriggan. It is to much emphasis on a single asset, which will ruin the game if its destroyed. Not fit for public play. Dont be too you had one great idea atleast.

Ps. If you want your suggestions to be discussed with lots of imput its probably best to put each idea in a separate thread. The discussion gets to much all over the place otherwise.

X1 Spriggan wrote: - After being placed, the rally expires in 60 seconds.
- Can be deployed by anyone in the squad.
- Requires 2 people.
- Cannot be replaced for 2-5 minutes

Grrr It annoys me when people talk about expiring Rally Points - Great Fall Back Places if they go after 60 seconds. Tbh a Rally point should always stay there as an actually RALLY point, where everyone meets up after a fire fight. The Sl should be saying "Regroup at the rally" so it's a marker of where to go if everything goes tits up - not a place where the Sl sets it so everyone can spawn then forgets it.

Infantry

I've been playing a lot of ACE mod for Arma. I've always been a fan of their damage system and wounded incapacitation system. Once your shot in ACE, 80% of time, your going down.

In PR, there is its own system which I'm sure everyone one is familiar with. When your shot , 80% you get this very annoying bloody vision that represents your current state of combat ineffectiveness. Because there is no body drag method in PR, this way of damage system is used.I'm basically ripping of these two different ideas as they are basically the same premise as the ACE damage system.

Suggestions:

- Change the effect of critically wounded state. Instead as viewing your self falling on your back and staring at the sky, have EVERYTHING completely black. No message saying your critically wounded. If possible remove ALL sound from the moment you go down, except if possible keep the VOIP squad system.

- If your hit anywhere around the chest or head, you should be sent to the critically wounded state. I don't care if your wearing body armor. I can imagine being shot is going to fucking hurt and going to knock the wind out of you. Fine, if your shot in the arm or the leg, go ahead and bring up the bloody vision, even if you shouldn't even be able to aim the gun or walk very far.

What it achieves (or at least hopefully achieves):

- A more convincing reaction of getting shot
- A better appreciation of your virtual life

I'll have to admit that these ideas are pretty extreme. They are not exactly a high priority problem, but I still think its something that potentially improve overall game play.

I think the rally point system is a lot bigger problem than the damage system right now. It's fairly easy to take someone down, and keep them down by keeping their medic off their body. On the other hand, with the RP system they can simply respawn and come after you in 30 seconds, and there is nothing you can really do about it. So I think it's much more important to deal with the rally system than the damage system.

I return with another long and excessive rant! This time, it is about insurgency game modes and my total dislike about how rounds usually play out.

Insurgency Game Mode

- Bluefor die too much
- Insurgents get too bored
- Blufor are too scared
- Blufor revert to stealth tactics
- Blufor believe that Maneuver Warfare is too ineffective


Usual scenarios

A totally non team work oriented squad walks directly into the city heading straight for the suspected cache- needless to say, they get wasted.

A totally team work oriented squad has APCs and logistics, they have the totally original idea of building a FO at D 8 on Al Basrah.

1. They stay too long and get mortared
2. The APCs get wasted by a bomb car slipping in the rear
3. The infantry squads ends up in scenario 1s position

A squad who is semi- teamwork oriented try to “sneak” into the cache area and use maximum stealth tactics to basically bump into the cache- someone needs to explain to me why this is the most accepted strategy

Random thought up suggestions
Blufor – Reduce tickets to 100-150

Insurgents - Remove a “fixed” spawn point
- Allow only one cache to be available to be seen by Blufor
- Second cache must ALWAYS be at least 400-500 meters away from the first cache
- The second cache is the only static spawn point
- Hideouts disabled upon 100-200m interference
- Decrease damage of bomb cars, at least 2 to destroy a APC let alone a tank

What this does- Allows the Blufor to actually BREATHE inside a city and not feel like they are constantly being overwhelmed. Nothing is worse to have cleared out a sizeable area move 50 meters away and being killed because enemies took up the position you just cleared. Blufor should feel more pro active; insurgents always get bored waiting for Blufor to trigger their traps and usually end up doing stupid **** like wandering around the city. If there is only one cache that is seen by Blufor, the fighting is always centralized BUT the Blufor can feel like they achieved something when they know they won’t be immediately be counter attacked within a 60 second time frame. Blufor should be worried about cache location and not “ uhh the cache is INSIDE the city, we better not do shit and just kill people till a easier cache is spotted.

The tricky thing with APCs and tanks is that THEY ARE COOL AS FFFF but are usually either OP or killed within minutes losing a ton of tickets. This is the way I see it, if the cache is inside the city, the tank/ apc should be denied access by mines and IEDs. So if the armor is doing its job by providing over watch for infantry to ENTER the city, then they shouldn’t be punished by having a face full of bomb car to the ***.( a bomb car hit to a APC is a disabled track and turret, second hit death; 2nd hit on a Tank is disabled turret and track, 3rd hit is death) which bring me to my next toping the ATs!

I already had a hour long rant with Falkun about ATs awhile ago repeating the same stuff over and over

Anti- Tank

-LAT should be more quickly assembled and more quickly be accurate( have you ever tried shooting a rampaging APC???)
-One LAT hit to any APC is disabled track and turret
- Second hit is Death
- The HAT should NOT be guided at all for game plays sake or should be removed out right
- One TOW shot should only disable turret and tracks to tanks, second is death ( APC should be killed outright)

Unarmed kit

-Unarmed kit should have a shovel

Your suggestions seem to stem from issues with the team and not the game itself.

Something must be done about insurgents just spawning and spawning because they are being without ticket loss.

ChizNizzle wrote:Something must be done about insurgents just spawning and spawning because they are being without ticket loss.

The point of insurgency is that the US drastically outmatch the insurgents. Better weaponry, high tech, lots of vehicles, air support, better support, better area attack, etc.


I don't see why you would need tickets for insurgents. Insurgents are supposed to defend caches. If you give insurgents tickets, they will worry about tickets, not about caches.



Also, Why was a 9 month thread brought back to life..

Tartantyco wrote:Your suggestions seem to stem from issues with the team and not the game itself.

Players are hard coded.

X1 Spriggan wrote:Players are hard coded.

No, they're not. With every new iteration PR has pushed players further and further in one direction, its very existence dispels this myth that is bandied about the boards all the time.

I dont want to get entangled in some form of round-about discussion, but are you trying to say that any new change that PR has implemented has never been made because of the way players would previously behave?

I think that most of what Spriggan has suggested will help gameplay towards the better. As BluFor, it's usually quite impossible to get inside the city at all without being wiped out by continuous waves of heavily armed insurgents. What he mentions about insurgents immediately occupying an area that has just been cleared is very accurate, and I've noticed this on several occasions.

BluFor do need more time to breath inside the city just as much as insurgents need to set up an actual defense at the cache area rather than just run around almost aimlessly, looking for trouble. That seems to be the case now.

H-AT's need to be guided otherwise there is little point in them, also not having them guidable in highly unrealistic.

Dev1200 wrote:The point of insurgency is that the US drastically outmatch the insurgents. Better weaponry, high tech, lots of vehicles, air support, better support, better area attack, etc.


I don't see why you would need tickets for insurgents. Insurgents are supposed to defend caches. If you give insurgents tickets, they will worry about tickets, not about caches.



Also, Why was a 9 month thread brought back to life..

But they don't!!! In CQB, which is found in most insurgency maps, the insurgents are just as well, if not better armed than the blufor. Think about it- in the city blufor have:

• No Armour support
• No Firebase support
• No CAS
• No Spawnpoints anywhere near their location

Whereas insurgents on the other hand have:

• Vehicular support in the way of Technicals and bomb cars
• Hideouts supplying amazing spawn locations right next to caches

And then infantry wise Insurgents are DEFINATELY equal to blufor:

• Insurgent weapons are far superior in CQB (think about AKS-U, AKs, Shotguns, IEDs etc compared to M16s and SA-80s... in CQB they are pretty much superior)
• Even at long range an Insurgent squad will almost always have one Blufor Kit with a scope- Squads im in regularly have all 6 members with blufor kits
• The civilian performs exactly the same as a medic
• Weapons from cache give an extra punch

If you think about it it is no wonder BluFor always seem to hit a brick wall when they go after any urban cache location...