Project Reality Forums

To be honest whenever I take an APC or any other heavy asset I don't give a ... about the tickets it'll cost when I get destroyed. Not that I drive it around recklessly but you'll get destroyed eventually anyway and the penalty won't suddenly make me think twice about going into that alley or not. A ticket penalty increase wouldn't make any difference in this behaviour, which most people have I think.

I (and I guess most of the players) just want some some nice and cool gameplay, and don't care at all about having to waste time being cautious just to save tickets or win the round.

The behaviour of Xander is the exact opposite of teamplay.

I measure my success by the ratio of tickets I cost my team and tickets I cost the enemy.
I think of less quantifyable aspects like saving others players asses, too, but keeping the ration above 1 makes sure that I haven't been a burden for my team.

Increasing the amount of tickets for vehicles would be okay for battles between vehicles, but the low "investment" of a soldier with a HAT (2 Tickets) is just not compareable with the high and highly probable "profit" of destroying a tank/IFV (12 Tickets).

Mora wrote:Keep ticket costs the same decrease spawn time by half. There is not enough support. There is hardly any balance, too many things can take out armor/gunships without too much of a hassle.

If anything i would like this to happen when 128 player support kicks in.

yes the 128 ticket cost would be obvious but all your thinking about are your presious gunship tickets.

I've got a feeling that this won't help, how many people care about the tickets?

Psykogundam wrote:yes the 128 ticket cost would be obvious but all your thinking about are your presious gunship tickets.

Not exactly, i just feel like people dont like armor and/or other heavy support because they all die within minutes causing lots of ticket loss. Of course there are exceptional rounds where or the enemy team have bad players and the heavy support stays up all round or they have lots of luck.

Talking about ground assets specifically: I think all tanks and APCs are too fragile as things currently stand (and before anyone starts I am strictly an Infantryman ), and I don't really see how any kind of ticket increase will help the situation.

Its not so much that people are too gung ho with their assets, its that any half enterprising chap with a HAT kit will mess up the most well intentioned crew 6 times out of 10 (Yes, I did just pull that number out of my ***). As nebsif pointed out, a lot of maps its barely worth using your heavy assets.

Mora wrote:Not exactly, i just feel like people dont like armor and/or other heavy support because they all die within minutes causing lots of ticket loss. Of course there are exceptional rounds where or the enemy team have bad players and the heavy support stays up all round or they have lots of luck.

isnt that more to do with skill than anything else? Of course its unfair to suggest that only people who are good at using tanks for example are more entitled to that asset, not to mention unrealistic. Does that mean that the next obvious step is to make the vehicles stronger to attack?

Personally I think that vehicles should have different ticket values depending on what nation they are from and at the same time making the vehicles more realistic. Example in the battle of Eastings 73 during the gulf war. 2 Bradleys acting as scouts were able to take out 5 (I think) Iraqi t72s with one tow each. During the battle the US took out 85 tanks without loosing one Abrams MBT or Bradleys, Yet in PR we see MEC T72s taking 2 or more tow rockets to kill from a Bradley and seeing the t72 going toe to toe with the M1A2. So if we make the vehicles reflect there real life counter parts but make the more high tech vehicles cost 3 or 4 x more we will find ourselves with a much more realistic game.

Psykogundam wrote:isnt that more to do with skill than anything else? Of course its unfair to suggest that only people who are good at using tanks for example are more entitled to that asset, not to mention unrealistic. Does that mean that the next obvious step is to make the vehicles stronger to attack?

This is not about skills as much as it is about balance and functionality. The APC's are a prime example of this; they're supposed to act as transport and support for the infantry, but any vehicle that is stationary or moves slowly even for shorter periods of times will quickly be zeroed in upon and become a sitting duck for AT-weapons. That's not necisserily unrealistic or unfair, but the degree to which it happens in PR right now is simply absurd and completely spoils the function that these assets are supposed to serve. In effect, the infantry doesn't rely much on APC's for transport because they know they're deathtraps, and APC crews don't stick with infantry because they know it will be welcomed with an AT-missile.

So, yes, it's about "skills" in the sense that doing anything else than driving around the map like crazy and using hit-and-run-drive-by type tactics is stupid. But then people are gonna complain about how APC's are used as light tanks rather than support assets and all that ****.

Jaberwo wrote:The behaviour of Xander is the exact opposite of teamplay.
.

thats an unfair judgment on the man.

I swear some people expect the heavy vehicles to survive the whole round no matter what.

Fact is, someone has got to die in the game for one side to win. When both sides have tanks, someone's tanks HAVE to die! You can do everything right and still lose.

What I'd prefer to more costs and respawn times is something that positively rewards players for staying alive longer, or for working with vehicles.

Also, the tougher you make the penalities for destruction the more you will encourage tanks etc to not help the infantry for fear of drawing fire towards them or being in non-advantageous positions. <- i.e. you're encouraging them to be those ******** on kashan that drive their tanks along the north edge of the map not helping anyone.

Talking about ground assets specifically: I think all tanks and APCs are too fragile as things currently stand (and before anyone starts I am strictly an Infantryman ), and I don't really see how any kind of ticket increase will help the situation.

I agree and disagree, APC vs LAT is the only place I think vehicles are too weak. But Given the avaliability of AT on a AAS map its quite unfair to expect all tanks to survive all th time. 2 TOWs, 2 HATs, XYZ enemy vehicles capable of destroying your vehicles.

Sure if a tank drives in to the view of a TOW that the infantry had already marked, yes he's a moron...but you don't see the players who regularly crew vehicles complaining that th infantry are losing too many tickets.

Yes we want a harsh environment that rewards players that stay alive rewards teams that kill enemies and punishes them for the loss of assets.

No we do not want punishment to be so harsh that players will actually avoid using assets at all, as this makes gameplay less varied, less realistic and also less fun.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:thats an unfair judgment on the man.

I swear some people expect the heavy vehicles to survive the whole round no matter what.

Fact is, someone has got to die in the game for one side to win. When both sides have tanks, someone's tanks HAVE to die! You can do everything right and still lose.

What I'd prefer to more costs and respawn times is something that positively rewards players for staying alive longer, or for working with vehicles.

Also, the tougher you make the penalities for destruction the more you will encourage tanks etc to not help the infantry for fear of drawing fire towards them or being in non-advantageous positions. <- i.e. you're encouraging them to be those ******** on kashan that drive their tanks along the north edge of the map not helping anyone.

Exactly, xander and me are usually in the tank together and its not like we tottaly don't care when we die, it sucks but it's a game so it's just part of it. When we drive tanks or apcs, we want to help the infantry out and when the penalties go up we won't be able to or we won't go into armor anymore because we would have to wait 300 seconds for example.. remember that it's a game

I think Rudd has a point here. A reward system is what we need here. An effective one that encourages players to stay alive longer and support the infantry better.

Something like if you prove to be a good tank crew you may respawn in a tank. (not a really good idea but i am not very good at rewarding people.) We should think of something except the score. I don't think anyone cares about the score anyway.

But i still think there are people who deserve to wait for 300 seconds.

A big problem for modeling vehicle warfare in PR is that there have been very few fair battles in recent time. Yes there were fights in Iraq where the USA or UK fought Iraqi T-72s, but those were cheap export models with less well trained crews and little support. Without real world examples of Leopard 2A6s or T-90s faceing a well equiped army on an equal footing most of this is unfortunately (maybe it should be fortunately?) guess work. Either way thing seem as good as they can get with only 64 players on the field.

I think their needs to be a readjustment in the very least when it comes to certain assets.

'Armored Scout Vehicles' need to have their own class apart from the "Jeep" class or the "APC" Class.

The APC class of vehicles show a huge amount of disparity between viability and overall battlefield effectiveness. There should be the 'Light APC' Class; M113 & MTLBpkm/50cal: the 'Medium Class' BTR60/Stryker: and the 'Heavy Class/IFV' Namer/any vehicle with a 'cannon' class mount. The IFVs should have their own class of tickets too, if only to beat into peoples heads that a STRYKER is not equivalent to a Chinese WZ-30mm.

Gone should be the days of saying: "Well you have a TOW so you automatically have to cost as much as a tank." The Bradely and BMP-3 and BMP-2 and AT-4 Spandrel BRDM and so on and so forth should not cost as much as a tank merely due to the ATGM they have equiped.

The MBTs, assuming all being of relative strength/endurance (minus glitchs/bugs with armor/hitboxes <I've had the worst luck against the T-72 with ATGMs recently, 7 hits no kills 1 tracked, 3 to top armor 2 to front, 2 to side/oblique >), should be equal.

The Scout Helicopters and Light Attack Helicopters need to be seperated from the Combat Attack Helicopters. The Kiowa should not be synonmous to the Apache, the Rocket Huey should not be related to the Cobra. (on an aside I'd love to see the recent influx of wonderful scout class helos be modified into an actual 'scout' vehicle with its own radio to place markers and mortar missions from the copilot)

The Combat Attack Helicopters are fine being equal to the MBT in cost but NOT Scout Helicopters.

The Jets are fine as they are, though I'd suggest making them more than an MBT due to striking cababilities.

The AAVs also need thier own classes. The MTLB AAV =/= Tunguska.
---------

About the gameplay given by assets... it depends on the map and amount of them. Personally I know that tanks/IFVs run through tickets quicker than infantry do. On Kashan I ran up a good 70 tickets in one bmp that flanked about and killed only armor assets. When, in ten minutes 70 tickets go buhbye, for no good reason the infantry have a good reason to be upset.

I'm not allowed to state specifics but I think a good map is one where the assets are small in number. That means you have more footsoldiers and less armor to waste. When an armor goes down YOU FEEL IT more so than the slight 10 ticket cost, because now the other team has an MTB and two IFVs and you have none. Kashan and Quinling are really more 'Vehicle Battles' where a nice new one is Infantry with vehicle support.

ytman wrote: (on an aside I'd love to see the recent influx of wonderful scout class helos be modified into an actual 'scout' vehicle with its own radio to place markers and mortar missions from the copilot)

plz suggest this. ive seen too many people 1 manning kiowas and not using them to their full potential. this+ the new hellfires would make 2 manning essential

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:thats an unfair judgment on the man.

I swear some people expect the heavy vehicles to survive the whole round no matter what.

Fact is, someone has got to die in the game for one side to win. When both sides have tanks, someone's tanks HAVE to die! You can do everything right and still lose.

What I'd prefer to more costs and respawn times is something that positively rewards players for staying alive longer, or for working with vehicles.

Also, the tougher you make the penalities for destruction the more you will encourage tanks etc to not help the infantry for fear of drawing fire towards them or being in non-advantageous positions. <- i.e. you're encouraging them to be those ******** on kashan that drive their tanks along the north edge of the map not helping anyone.

Totally agree in all points. But how to implement something like the positive rewards for working together? Can't think of nothing.

I think the answer to this problem is two tier. Here is my back story to give a frame of reference:

Kashan Desert will be the example used.

I and 14thunder20 are pretty exclusively armor driver/gunner combo respectively. On Kashan, we have developed an armor first inf second SOP. The reason being is that the tanks themselves are not strong enough to withstand HAT hits. Ideally, we hunt down enemy armor in our pre-designated operations lane. After we feel this is secure, which can take any varying amount of time, we support blufor INF and attack Opfor INF and light vehicles. We always feel that if the MBTs are able to focus soley on INF or enemy MBTs, we have a much higher survival rate (0-1 death on a good night, +3 deaths on a bad night lol).

This could be changed in a few different ways. The first way I am going to suggest is the most cumbersome but probably the most effective. If a good MBT and support inf squad combo worked together to safely and effectively move around the map, then the tanks could be used for both hunting enemy armor and supporting friendly INF simultaneously. That being said, a squad of 3 tanks and a full 6 membered INF squad is very hard to coordinate. Trying to tell where targets are at, what the threat level is, what each other sees takes an enormous amount of training to achieve, even with mumble. This would be ideal, but it is impractical within the limits of the game. The reason I say its impractical also has to do with movement. trying to have an INF support team to guard tanks against small arms fire and HAT kits is impractical due to the mobility speed of foot INF. In pr, MBTs must use there speed more than anything else for evasion. The size, camoflauge, and engine noise are too indicative of where the tank is, so a tank squad cannot be slowed down by foot INF. As a result, we hunt tanks first, then support INF.

Solution 2 is much easier to adjust within the game. Re-vamp the tanks to be able to effectively take two or three HAT hits to the front armor and 1 or 2 to the sides, and 1 hit to the top and rear. This would make the tank stronger, but also give more incentive to go into the fray.

Solution 3: Make the ticket cost less and respawn time slightly less. A tank squad will be willing to support INF if we knew that we would waste less tickets plus not have to wait another 20 min when we get chewed up by enemy HATs.

This is just my opinion. Thanks for reading.

Tanks should hunt tanks.... thats how they support infantry. I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are doing.

Its double edged. On one hand you have people doing just that, throwing them into the fray. On the other hand you have people being so carefull, they dont get destroyed, they arent doing much to help either though.