Project Reality Forums

I agree with Murphy

We have to differend arguments why tanks stay away from flags:

1. They are afraid of the 10 tickets they could lose because of hats and tows close to flags.

2. They try to stay alive to be a constant threat to enemy tanks.

They can be both true. If the second is ture - and I guess it is - the hole "lowering the tickets" discussion is worthless. Even if the tanks are ticket free you cant risk your tanks on an attack. If you get a flag, but lose all your tanks who will protect your inf from enemy tanks for the next 20 min?

If you want the hole team to concentrate more on the flags, make flags worth something. Your 10 tickets for a tank wont bother you, if youre about to lose 80 tickets for a flag. Or if you get a growing ticket bleed for every flag you lose.

And by the way, you should consider the asymetrical AAS and Insurgency maps. Having two different ticket values is confusing, lowering for all maps would lead to serious balancing issues.

Cassius wrote:..., than finding a balance between keeping the tank alive and using it to support the team directly torwards a goal (Taking/defending a flag, destroying a cache.

Some people mentioned the ticket count. You would have to tweak tickets a little oc, but you shouldnt play PR with the expectation of playing 4 maps in the hour to begin with.

There's another problem here. players expect armor to move in to an objective with them. ie. APCs and tanks which are actually supporting the team. and they do. which is why they get lost so easily. those APCs and Tanks SHOULD NOT be raiding a position. they should be transporting infantry NEAR ENOUGH for them to approach with efficiency and from a good position, not taking them right to the front gate. Armor needs to stay back preferably in an open space where it can monitor it's surroundings and defend itself while providing fire support FROM A DISTANCE.

most times i see armor getting lost is due to them entering cities or valleys where infantry are more agile and have every advantage over the armor. whenever i run an armored squad be it APC or tanks, i never drop infantry or place my vehicles any closer than 150 meters from the objective, or any urban areas. this applies even for light vehicles when i'm playing as infantry. given the option after dropping troops i would pull them back even farther if we can still cover them from the new position.

back on topic: I feel adding a price tag to flags, be it a ticket deduction or bleed would be the best option. removing the vehicle price tag on armor would change nothing so it doesn't really matter either way to me.

drs79 wrote:Keep it for trucks, Logi trucks, Hummvw's and the equivalent. Those who take these types of vehicles for their own personal taxi or those who take them with no means of returning them or letting others use them deserve to be punished in the form of tickets.

So you feel that punishing the team, for something someone has done who has done it because they don't care about the team effort otherwise they wouldn't have done it in the first place, is going to solve the problem?

One way to fix this is:

Make maps with no assymetrical asset layout.

Then the tanks dont have to worry about other tanks, the apaches dont have to worry about other att choppers and can do CAS at will.

vistamaster01 wrote:One way to fix this is:

Make maps with no assymetrical asset layout.

Then the tanks dont have to worry about other tanks, the apaches dont have to worry about other att choppers and can do CAS at will.

.... asymmetrical balance dose not mean that there is nothing to counter. All it means is that the counters are not the same assets. If one side has air, the other side needs AA. If one side has a tank, the other will need AT jeeps or w/e. Like on Muttrah, while the MEC do not have the same assets as the USMC, they still need to counter there choppers. While one side has Amphibious Assault Vehicles, the other has more APCs...

How about instead we fix it by removing all vehicles from all maps?.... That would fix it...

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:.... asymmetrical balance dose not mean that there is nothing to counter. All it means is that the counters are not the same assets. If one side has air, the other side needs AA. If one side has a tank, the other will need AT jeeps or w/e. Like on Muttrah, while the MEC do not have the same assets as the USMC, they still need to counter there choppers. While one side has Amphibious Assault Vehicles, the other has more APCs...

How about instead we fix it by removing all vehicles from all maps?.... That would fix it...

It's different.

Lets take an example, on Burning Sands, the Havoc hunts for the apache, without doing CAS.

When the apache is dead, the havoc can do CAS without getting worried about the apache (for 20 mins)

On muhtrah, because the cobra isn't fighting against any form of nme choppers or jets (only AA and APC's) he is forced to do CAS, supporting the INF.

And that has what to do with the ticket penalty for vehicles?

Yes I understand your point on why they are fun which is why we have asymmetrical maps but if we took all the symmetrical maps away, you would then loose the air to air part of PR for one quick example

Anyways get back on topic please.

Team friction is there for a reason, to make sure that people know that teamwork is needed. Despite getting in the way of fun sometimes, it's a small price to pay to assure that every element is on track with team coordination. Without this pressure to make things right and for the experienced to step further, we will witness a more negligent conduct. If armor already has a hyperactive behavior in the field, what makes you think that this will change?

I'm not also defending that the current system is perfect. The psychologic effects of the ticket amount are consequential to a player's behavior to a SMALL extent and this is only reason to why I see we should keep at it is between the two options. The present one obliges a well rounded player to make decisions, the one suggested in this thread allows a "fuck all" to all players.

Practically, the approach to this is completely wrong. Instead of price tags, we should be talking about reducing spawn time and/or making armor more resilient. Treating armor any less than CAS or even air trans is silly.

I would like this (maybe in combination with something else):
If the crew survive for 5 (?) minutes after they get out of the asset, the licket loss is less or nothing.

5 tickets for the asset + 2 tickets for crewmen + 5 tickets for crewmen if they die within 5 minutes after leaving driver/gunner seat.

You get the point.

In my opinion it should go like this:

infantry death: 1 ticket(suecide 2 tickets)
Humve transport vihicle, trucks, logi techi,... 2 tickets
APC aka stryker,..: 3 tickets
Small attack heli kiowa,... 5 points
Trans heli: Huey, bell, chinook, BH,cow,...: 4 points
Small attack heli kiowa,... 5 points
LAV or BMP and AAVs IFV,.. and similar 6 tickets
Tanks : 7 tickets
Attack heli aka havok/cobra/apache.... 8 points
Planes... 10 points

IRL one rifelman cost way much more then 1 tank!

Bringerof_D wrote:There's another problem here. players expect armor to move in to an objective with them. ie. APCs and tanks which are actually supporting the team. and they do. which is why they get lost so easily. those APCs and Tanks SHOULD NOT be raiding a position. they should be transporting infantry NEAR ENOUGH for them to approach with efficiency and from a good position, not taking them right to the front gate. Armor needs to stay back preferably in an open space where it can monitor it's surroundings and defend itself while providing fire support FROM A DISTANCE.

I agree armor should support infantery from a distance, shelling a position so infanery can move in. When I say oftentimes armor stays away, I mean away like 2km+ not anywhere near the objectives.

Ca6e wrote:In my opinion it should go like this:


IRL one rifelman cost way much more then 1 tank!

IRL a tank costs way more MONEY than infantery. If a tank is destroyed you lose the tank and 0 to 3 lives. You dont have in addition 5 soldiers summarily executed because a tank is lost. The tank has still to provide support on the field or pursue an objective to actively help the war effort. If a friendly tank merely destroys enemy armor then all it does is nullify enemy armor, the infantery has still to wear down the enemy on their own if the tank stays away and does not support them.

In PR on the other hand, when a tank is lost the team loses up to 10 tickets in addition to the ticket cost of the crew. So rather than try and go after infantery it is more ecnomic to hunt down more assets which will cost the team more tickets.

Himalde wrote:I would like this (maybe in combination with something else):
If the crew survive for 5 (?) minutes after they get out of the asset, the licket loss is less or nothing.

5 tickets for the asset + 2 tickets for crewmen + 5 tickets for crewmen if they die within 5 minutes after leaving driver/gunner seat.

You get the point.

interesting proposal. however what do you see this doing to the game play? what affects do you see coming from this idea?

i can only imagine that it would curb drivers from bailing out to act as an observer.

Decreasing tiketloss is total the wrong way! More action use will come then.
Assetwaste is still a big concern, i think increasing the tiketlosses for vehicles and increas spawtime of vehicles can prevent for that more, the system is ok. Also the Tanks will be used more taktikly and wise.

In my opinion the hitareas needed a tweak specialy for the HAT-System.
(For more taktik use and "realism")
Front hit: Still "ok", or Trackt (increase using of supporttrucks and teamwork counters the action factor)
Side hit: Trackt
Back hit: Killed

Same vor LAT and APC.

(2nt hit everytime kill)
Simple as that, i still dont understand why this is not done yet.

ChallengerCC wrote:Decreasing tiketloss is total the wrong way! More action use will come then.
Assetwaste is still a big concern, i think increasing the tiketlosses for vehicles and increas spawtime of vehicles can prevent for that more, the system is ok. Also the Tanks will be used more taktikly and wise.

This is the argument that lead to the current system which has been in place for over a year if I'm not mistaken, and I feel safe in assuming that most people feel the system hasn't worked as intended. Players who don't intend to participate in teamwork still don't, but the best way to "be a team player" is to hunt your counterpart asset exclusively, leaving the infantry to duke it out alone over the flags.

There are huge disincentives to behave realistically, supporting infantry advances from close/medium range and similar, because the risk/reward payouts are very unequal. Why risk 30+ tickets on an assault when you can make the other guys do it, and cut them apart? Teams who hide their assets can, and usually do, win out over agressive teams. It isn't about the difference between playing for action and playing tactically (I don't view the two as mutually exclusive), it's the difference between playing as realistically within the framework of a game as you can and playing it as much as a game as you can while confined to the limits of the realism the game tries to enforce.

for me, as a driver, the absolute number one reason that i don't support inf at close/medium range is HAT kits. its a 95% chance im doing to instantly die. id much rather duke it out with an enemy tank or APC, at lease were exchanging hits then instead of trying to coax a jack-in-the box behind the hill/wall. i think that front hits should lock the turret most of the time, and side hits should have a 50/50 chance of tracking you and back hits should set off the alarm. that would cut back on all the lonewolf HAT guys on kashan that just hang out on the mountain ones-shoting your armor. they would at least have to reload. one-shot weapons encourage lone wolves. i know as a driver i would be a million times more willing to support inf if i knew there was an alternative besides instant death.

Mantak08 wrote:for me, as a driver, the absolute number one reason that i don't support inf at close/medium range is HAT kits. its a 95% chance im doing to instantly die. id much rather duke it out with an enemy tank or APC, at lease were exchanging hits then instead of trying to coax a jack-in-the box behind the hill/wall. i think that front hits should lock the turret most of the time, and side hits should have a 50/50 chance of tracking you and back hits should set off the alarm. that would cut back on all the lonewolf HAT guys on kashan that just hang out on the mountain ones-shoting your armor. they would at least have to reload. one-shot weapons encourage lone wolves. i know as a driver i would be a million times more willing to support inf if i knew there was an alternative besides instant death.

That the point i sad with the hitareas and damage.
The HAT System kills to easy a Tank/APC. It need to be used more wise.
Vehicles cant realy support because the get owned and cant do anything against this.
So there must be a balance. HAT?s can only disable a Tank direct not killing it (only from the back). Disable means he cant shoot and only drive very very slow.
So if the tank is in the front and dont do his supporting role he gets killed. But when he is in back and suports infantry he has very good chance to stay allive.
So then teamwork starts to repair and so on cool stuff for the game.

To Mat: The game has still to mutch action and decreasing tickets for assets would only
increase there careless use of them.
Like faster spawntimes. The same i sad in a other post is with FOB?s the decrease value of a "live" so increasing action gameplay. Limiting the spawns of a FOB and limiting the amount of FOB to max 2 on a map would do a great job i think.
And it cant be that a Tank has a lower value than some Infantry man.

Its hard to say but assets have in a real war scenario a higher value than a mans live. ^^

Regarding HATs, it might also help to bring it back to the old ammo standards. It's a bit ridiculous that every ammo bag can poop out a (~1,3 even) heavy AT rocket now and it's way too easy to run back and forth getting new ammo to spam HAT missiles.

One HAT kit can devastate the entire enemy team's armor right now (like a USMC HAT at the bridge in Jabal and all MEC apcs will die).

The kit should be a scarecrow to armor, not a weapon of mass destruction. Less ammo and less damage might balance things.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:So you feel that punishing the team, for something someone has done who has done it because they don't care about the team effort otherwise they wouldn't have done it in the first place, is going to solve the problem?

*It seems my original reply to this post yesterday from my iphone didn't go through so the below will have to suffice.

It will help curb the problem. I'm a realist, we've all done it, I've taken a transport truck with a full squad, dropped it off near a flag taken the flag and either defended the flag and not returned the truck, forgotten about it or went on foot to the next flag and didn't mention it to anyone.

But there are those players who constantly do it, with no disregard for the team, even worse they do it with logi trucks, so it's up to us as players to call them out on it, and to keep the ticket loss for those vehicles.

I've seen players who join squads, request and take kits without asking the SL get kicked from that squad and then after a few rounds they type in team chat "why do squad leaders kick me out of their squad again and again." Well obviously its a bad habit which they have and they don't try and fix it, or even better yet, they don't ask.

So the same can be done for these types of vehicles, the tickets add up, and in some cases as we all have experienced some games come down to the last few remaining tickets.

There is no way to prevent tanks hunting enemy tanks, without being ridicoulous.

Lets say that you completely remove ticket penalty. What happens? Tanks hunt other tanks because if they kill them, enemy team is without tanks for 10 minutes. Still something worth.

Possibly the ONLY way for tanks to avoid such behaviour is, to simply penalise your team with ticket loss if YOU destroy the enemy tanks. Killing a tank loses your team 10 tickets, being killed as a tank is 5+2 for your team. So its better NOT to engage tanks because of tickets but can risk it, because they still have the 10 minute respawn. So its a gamble. Buy yourself time for the cost of tickets.

Mild system would be that you lose equal amount of tickets that they lose. Only depends on vehicle. Lets say you destroy a chopper with 8 people, that is 13 tickets in total. Your team loses 5 tickets, but their loses 5+8.

Its stupid, but its possibly the only way that could work.