Project Reality Forums

[R-MOD]BloodBane611 wrote:Yeah, a lot of times players walk to the nearest building/compound from the cache and pop down their hideout. Really, they should measure about 100m from the cache and do it, and then pop down 2 more for good measure.

Yea,it really is annoying when the British guy is like on that river in Laskar and boom,i cant spawn in where my squad it!

Infantry1242 wrote:Yea,it really is annoying when the British guy is like on that river in Laskar and boom,i cant spawn in where my squad it!

Get them to drop a rally, or suggest they make some fallback/backup dogboxes

People sure have a hard time keeping the 'Tactics and Strategies' discussion in that section. I still don't see how player usage has any bearing on this suggestion.

badmojo420 wrote:People sure have a hard time keeping the 'Tactics and Strategies' discussion in that section. I still don't see how player usage has any bearing on this suggestion.

Well I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting. At first it came off as making it harder to overrun dogboxes, but then the thread seemed to lend itself more to the suggestion of tighter dogbox placements [<200m apart?], and then you were talking about defending a 200m radius from the dogboxes, which confused me to no end.

The current overrun conditions for a firebase/dogbox:
- 2 players within 50m of said FO at the point when the checker runs (once every 10 seconds afaik)

The current placement rules for firebase/dogbox:
- 200m apart

So which is the suggestion addressing? Also, if you're suggesting one of the two, what values do you propose the change be made towards? 6 players within 5m of dogbox? 100m apart? Or you don't know, but think it should be different from the current situation?

Edit: Oh and maybe rather than making remarks on off-topicness, use the moderator alert tool to bring offending posts to the attention of the R-Mods

Psyrus wrote:Well I'm not sure that I understand what you're suggesting. At first it came off as making it harder to overrun dogboxes, but then the thread seemed to lend itself more to the suggestion of tighter dogbox placements [<200m apart?], and then you were talking about defending a 200m radius from the dogboxes, which confused me to no end.

The current overrun conditions for a firebase/dogbox:
- 2 players within 50m of said FO at the point when the checker runs (once every 10 seconds afaik)

The current placement rules for firebase/dogbox:
- 200m apart

So which is the suggestion addressing? Also, if you're suggesting one of the two, what values do you propose the change be made towards? 6 players within 5m of dogbox? 100m apart? Or you don't know, but think it should be different from the current situation?

Edit: Oh and maybe rather than making remarks on off-topicness, use the moderator alert tool to bring offending posts to the attention of the R-Mods

My suggestion is to reduce the radius of the overrun area around hideouts. I wasn't sure what the exact numbers were. So I only suggested lowering. It's really up to the testers and devs anyway.

But, If it's 2 people 50m away, why not try 20 or even 15 meters.

That still gives us a 30x30m circle for people to walk into. But, it's much easier for 1 or 2 insurgents to defend a 30x30m circle than a 100x100m one, like we have now.

I don't want the spacing changed. I merely mentioned it in reference to the hassles associated with hideouts on 1km maps. Smaller maps like Gaza and Korengal would benefit most from my suggestion.

And just to be clear, I don't want this change on any other spawn items, rallies, firebases, caches, etc. should all retain their current distances. This change is just on the hideout/dogbox/tunnel object that the Insurgents, Hamas, Militia, & Taliban build.


Finally, I don't think it's against any forum rules to post about ways to strategically overcome the need for a suggestion. It just angers me because people automatically assume proper tactics are not being followed. Did people tell Rhino his CSBs weren't needed because he should be protecting his bridges?

badmojo420 wrote:Finally, I don't think it's against any forum rules to post about ways to strategically overcome the need for a suggestion. It just angers me because people automatically assume proper tactics are not being followed. Did people tell Rhino his CSBs weren't needed because he should be protecting his bridges?

You're comparing apples and oranges here. They're completely different things, don't be cut just because people don't agree with you.

Tbh 50m small enough. Sounds like you just had a shitty round one day.

Ford_Jam wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges here. They're completely different things, don't be cut just because people don't agree with you.

Tbh 50m small enough. Sounds like you just had a shitty round one day.

I'm sorry you can't see past the 'Change the radius' and 'Close support bridges' being two different things. Yes, they are completely different things. I used his suggestion as an example of how inconsiderate it is to dismiss a suggestion, solely based on assumed in-game performance. Is it not true that protecting the bridges would remove the need for the CSBs? It's also true that building multiple hideouts and protecting their zones would always provide you with a spawn. But, it's ignorant to ignore the real problem and just focus on ways to get around the problem. Like I've said before we (the PR community) have the power to suggest change, why resist this? Why not work on polishing PR into the greatest game ever.

I'm not cut(whatever that is) that people don't agree with me. I'm angered because some people refuse to address the suggestion I brought up. Instead, they insist on putting the blame on me or my teams performance or experiences.

I'm happy that you disagree with me. But, backing up your opinion by just saying that I just had a shitty round is avoiding the real subject. I've had shitty rounds, and I've had some amazing rounds. I've played many rounds of PR ever since 0.7, but of course none of that game playing experience has no bearing on my decision making process? It's only 1 shitty round that drove me to suggest this? Please.

I have a lot of suggestions for PR floating around in my head. I guess it's just part of my personality that I look at a game, see what I believe are flaws and then think up ways it could be made better. I can't help it, I do this in every game I play. But, PR is the only one that can actually change. Which is why I become so passionate about my suggestions. They aren't half baked ideas I came up with while high, or during a shitty round, they're ideas I've run through my head many times, looking at possible exploits, possible gains, and possible negatives, as well as the need.

So I'm not going to push this idea further, I think I've said my piece. I'm sure someone on the DEV team will read it. Further arguing about player performance removing the need for a change is pointless. If, however someone brings up some good points relating to the change, I'll gladly debate the matter further.

Ford_Jam wrote:Why is that?
If building one dogbox to defend a cache isn't working for your team then build two or three. Simple

Hell I've seen all six dogboxes built around two knowns that spawned next to each other. Held the area for a good 90 minutes

That is by far different. There hideouts hence the name should not be easy to find and since their not suppose to be easy to find they should not get overrun so fast. Some maps you can't hide them everywhere around a cache, such as basrah.