Project Reality Forums

I understand your points about losing assets harming the overall teams progress. But honestly that is the reality of the situation. If one team is losing lots of assets compared to the other, that team will more than likely lose the game, even without the vehicles.

I understand there are maps like Barracuda, and Muttrah, where one team has a lot more assets than the other team. And this is indeed a problem, because even if both teams lose assets at the same rate, one team will lose quicker due to ticket loss. But the solution should not be to remove the ticket loss from vehicles, it should be to add more tickets to the asset heavy team. Ticket balancing needs to be tweaked on the assymetrically balanced maps.

I have spoken out against the removal of ticket loss quiet a few times now. But, i do not wish to give the impression that I am against fairness and want the team with choppers to always lose. I want a game that, given two teams of the same ability, they will have an equal chance of winning the round.

Think about the older days of PR, if you were here before asset ticket loss. It was not at all fair when it came down to the assets. For example, the insurgents would literally kill themselves time and time again to destroy a tank. But, the second that tank started on fire, both crewman jump out and catch a ride back to base, to man an APC. The insurgents lost a lot of intel, but they are no closer to winning the round. Sure, the brits don't have their big armored gun to drive around anymore. But in a game that relies on draining a number down to zero in order to win, securing the battlefield really means nothing unless you can beat them down to nothing. It does mean more in AAS, since the enemy will not have the tank to throw at you for another 20minutes, but it's still not the same as putting a dent in their overall progress.

The only way i could understand removing the ticket loss at this point, would be if the assets did not respawn. Like the tank on Basrah. If each team started with X number of assets, and when those were gone, that's it. Then, i could understand the argument about removing that asset from the enemies hands being a big enough punishment. Look at a truck, it takes what? 5-10 minutes to spawn? So if it wasn't worth tickets, why not just drive it somewhere and blow it up yourself? By the time you die & respawn, it will have too. No need to drive it back to base, ever. Does that not seem a little too gamey? At least with the ticket loss i can swallow the fact that a new tank materializes out of thin air every 20minutes. It represents the military spending money that could be spent on putting more boots on the ground, on replacement equipment.

google wrote:When I first saw this change, I was happy. Good, I thought, people won't go willy nilly wasting assets for the team when they should be supporting the ground forces and striving to coordinate more. While the idea was a good one and was made in good spirit, I find that the effects have actually been quiet negative.

First off, if anything, I would like to see the removal of ticket loss on APCs and Trans choppers and not necessarily the heavier assets. The reason is that if they are doing their jobs, these 2 assets will often get killed. In the case of choppers, you're always going to have idiots flying and crashing them instead of being careful. I know someone will come in here and post "if you design a game for idiots, only idiots will play". Well, you're always going to have idiots playing and there really isn't anything you can do about it. Punishing an entire team for the mistake of one person like that is not a good thing in my opinion.

I have also noticed a timidity in the use of APCs. People are afraid to support the infantry because they will lose such heavy tickets. Not to mention that they are APCs, and meant to transport infantry/support them. Giving them a price tag only encourages their mini-tank like usage. Also, the qwai .50 cal APC is practically useless and nothing than a jeep with 8 seats. Why is that worth as much as a cannon APC? APCs tend to die alot if they are trying to do their job, this should not be punished so heavily.

One last negative thing from this is the amount of anger and stress that it creates. "Oh my gawd, you lost x asset you noob" seems to be the general feel in matches. So someone was bested by another player, does he deserve the entire team yelling at him and hating him for losing tickets? Not in my opinion.

Games should not be decided by assets, it's a shame to see the infantry focus degrade in PR because that is really what the game is about.

On maps with air transport you usually have some kind of CAS. If the CAS is decent, it will offset losses to enemy fire.
"There will always be idiots" its the job of admins to keep the server relatively idiot free. You will only lose a lot of assets if you crash AND lose them to enemy fire, if assets are lost to enemy fire usually the team understands that and again, if a player is being disrespected he should take to the admins forum.

On the server I play on we have mostly decent pilots. Barracuda is one of those maps that is said to be hard for the USMC, when I play on that specific server 8 times out of 10 the USMC wins due to good pilots and close air support.

And as for apcs there are few maps where they are needed for transport, Kashan is one and even if they would be needed for transport most squads just gedintothechuppa. Most of the times you have a scenario up close where the infantery is outside the apc fighting.

I agree with cassius. People are generally understanding when you lose assets to legitimate enemy fire. If you lose the cobra 90 seconds after takeoff because you weren't careful, you deserve the abuse your team heaps on you. Assets need to be used correctly for the team to win, ticket losses simply assign a reasonable short-term value to them.

Tbh it never makes much difference except at the end of the game.

Also, tickets represent resources a unit has, if it loses a vehicle it is losing some of it's resources.