Project Reality Forums

Aleon wrote:The point of this thread was to highlight an opportunity to increase balance by changing how heavy assets are distributed on asset maps.

Your suggestion was quite flawed and it seemed to me like not many people liked it. It was pointed out that decreased heavy asset spawns, even with lowered numbers, could cause asset waste and more rushing. Those issues are already the main culprits for lowered level of gameplay. That's why your suggestion went nowhere and people started discussing other options.

Wicca wrote:Well, I think in most senses you should account for every scenario.

If both teams assets players are bad, if one teams assets are bad but the other good. Or both are good.

The same applies to the infantry, and what emplacments are manned or not.

So, how do you create a system where each team has a fair chance of winning? And the game is always good since assets do not outcap the current players without altering too much?

Well, my take on it is allow for more players to join a server, maybe 200 is extreme, but let's say 128. Thats 14 more players per team, 7 more players to make up for squadleaders moving their squad into nowhere or armor squad losing all their assets.

My biggest issue with 4k maps is that some of them have only a few helicopters, the biggest issue people have with 4k maps, is losing all their fobs and only having truck transports. Noone wants to make a comeback from that.

So, I would suggest applying more helicopters to 4k teams maps, such as Kashan, Bamyan or any other map that might only have 2. Bring the number of helicopters up to 4 per team, or even more. And then you might see teams might have a better chance at comebacks.

Decrease the time it takes on all maps to resupply helicopters, and give helicopters the ability to drop repair stations, or make it a buildable emplacment or smt.

200 players to balance out game = ends up as a bigger killfest for assets as viiru stated.

More trans helis = good idea in theory, in practice 2-3 is already good enough, the fault is beetween the seat and the joystick. With more helos, more of them would be crashed and flown straight towards enemy asset like it's happening right now.

I know you try to look for different ideas to balance gameplay, but the largest reason for imbalanced gameplay is the shitty playerbase which you don't like to admit for some reason. This incompetent playerbase is due to several veteran clans/squad leaders leaving, and communities not teaching new players how to play the game correctly and how to combat other veteran/assetwhore players. PR does already have all the tools to combat first flag rushing or any other tactic, it's just the people are too lazy and incompetent to use them. To help those people out by adding more assets or players is not gonna change the root cause. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink.

What would I do if I knew my asset squads are shite and on the enemy team there's ppl in an asset squad who always like to rush? Go to my own first flag and build a proper defensive superfob, if possible, use LAT/HAT/CE aswell against armor. Most servers already have the 10 minute safe space for first flag, that's more than enough time to set up defensive perimiter with FOB assets. If people instead still try to rush against more experienced players and get killed, it's their own fault.

I have no problem admitting there are a lot of new and unexperienced players, or even players that are experienced who are taking a "laid back" approach to it or just never learn to squadlead properly on the right objectives.

Half the reason good players leave is the salty and quite elitist squads of friends that take up asset slots or even infantry squads, even to this day. Which is why most of my clans and efforts in this area has been public squadleading, and trying to bring new and inexperienced players into the fold of more organized gaming.

I'm not saying this stuff is easy to do, it takes time to make a player better. But it really sucks having half the community telling me I am retarded for going "Quantity over Quality", how else are you going to get through this huge amount of people?

I have a new plan for training coming up soon, but I doubt it will balance the game too much.

The main issue here is that the balance is so sharp, if you start losing abit, with the fobs or similar the transport from main, the cascade is almost immediate. FOBs make or break this game in terms of defense. Vehicles are definetly a major cause of killing of infantry who then have nowhere to spawn, so in essence you need to either dumb down the game for the players, or alter the mechanic so flags are harder to cap, say a 10 minute cap time instead of the 2 min one there is now (Not sure its 2 minutes.

There are alot of other steps too, such as increasing the flag size, to cover more ground and make it harder to clear out.

We can't just give up and say "the playerbase is retarded", we have to work with what we got, or we end up with no good games. This is certainly an ethos that I always liked about PR, although in certain doses.. We can always do better.

viirusiiseli wrote:your suggestion went nowhere and people started discussing other options.

It may be hard to believe, but I can read and comprehend what's happening in the thread. So I have no idea why you'd feel like you need to point this out to me. K? I guess...?

Slim threads are searchable, and stay relevant to the OP/title. Fat threads do not. If anyone ever has a similar idea, they might search and find this (I know I'm naive, but still, give them the chance). If they are willing to read trough a few pages of discussion then they'll get an idea on what the community thinks. Boom, you have a useful thread.

If this becomes 30 pages of "balance discussion" it's absolutely impossible to find anything meaningful in it. The point of the thread wanders around so much, the first 5 pages usually have nothing to do with the last 5. If anyone has anything to add to the original post, you're welcome to do so. If you want to discuss anything else, go ahead make a new thread. Not like there is a limit on the number of threads that can exist on the forum or anything. Don't like the idea? Let the thread die. This is a pretty simple concept.