Project Reality Forums

LekyIRL wrote:I like the whole idea about there not needing to be a commander. Too many times have I seen people being forced to be commander just to get bunkers/firebases.

Me too... And so many time i seen people go commander just for give Target Coordinate for A10 since Laser from Soflam dont stay enought long time. Maybe something is on the way may be not, but, i think Squad Leader should be able to give target coordinate, whit or whitout commander. Close Air Support work whit Aircraft and Radioman down in the field, they dont rely on Commanding chain for that...

Sounds good

ironcomatose wrote:I know but thats why i said good luck finding two huey pilots

You only need one

Waaah_Wah wrote:You only need one

In a perfect world, yes. In PR,

Hmmm... not too sure on this. I dont like the idea of squad leaders being able to deploy assets without a commander. Yes, its annoying when there isnt a commander to accept build order. BUT, how annoying is it going to be to see 2-3 firebases in the most stupid positions done by some idiot. [Idea: What about assets only being able to be deployed by a squad of 5-6?]

I liked the whole defensive/offensive asset system in 0.75. I hope by giving so much freedom on where to deploy them we dont loose the strategic options commanders have. I may be wrong, but I think we might see careless play with a bit more freedom.

I hope a lot of testing goes on before release, with so much antisipation and people expectations so high it could all go badly wrong

Nice changes

LudacrisKill wrote:Hmmm... not too sure on this. I dont like the idea of squad leaders being able to deploy assets without a commander. Yes, its annoying when there isnt a commander to accept build order. BUT, how annoying is it going to be to see 2-3 firebases in the most stupid positions done by some idiot.

As soon as anyone goes CO they can remotely shut down these rogue or useless firebases in seconds with a right click of his mouse on the map.

CO has complete control in that respect


One thought I had about the CO post is what will be done about beach assault maps like Jabal.
Will this asset be tied to the beach flags and spawn in like a vehicle, it wont be much use situated on the carrier

Well, I thought the empty space was quite obvious...

Deployable TOWs?

Well I can see that the AAs, and the HMGs will help out big time when it comes to defence for fire bases. The AA guns will be back to normal for manual AA right? that crappy thing we have now IE Stinger turret sucks.

ironcomatose wrote:In a perfect world, yes. In PR,

I dont know what servers you play on, but i've seen pilots that are perfectly capable of dropping 2 crates in the same location

I WANT 0.8 NOW.

can the number of Forward Outposts be diferent in each map? for example maps like kasrahn or quiling will requere more Forward Outposts than mestia or bi ming .

'[R-DEV wrote:dbzao;705554']
3. Commander Approval for Forward Outposts
(...)

Our change here is that you won't need Commander approval to build a Forward Outpost IF your team doesn't have a Commander, BUT you will still need an approval if you DO have a Commander.
(...)

I'm having some mixed feelings about this as there's absolutely no 'penalty' for not having a CO (or bonus, since CO is really important on the battlefield and a team fighting along with the CO should have some serious advantage over the other team that lacks CO).

What about limiting number of deployable FOBs to two when there's no CO?
Or lowering 'health points' of the assets to ~65%?

Cascyth wrote:since CO is really important on the battlefield and a team fighting along with the CO should have some serious advantage over the other team that lacks CO).

They most definitely will. You'll still need a CO for AreaAttacks (JDAMS) and other toys we have planned for the CO.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:They most definitely will. You'll still need a CO for AreaAttacks (JDAMS) and other toys we have planned for the CO.

Did you say artillery/airstrikes/orbital bombardment?

And anyway, a CO would still direct squads and quickly pass along vital info, thus keeping your whole team together. A team without a CO would not only lack the commander "toyz" and the cohesiveness,but will most likely end up with 1 or 2 of the FO's in really pointless places.

Antonious_Bloc wrote:Did you say artillery/airstrikes/orbital bombardment?

Nothing too big ya'know....just a little,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc1POn3hSQU[/youtube]

sorey this vid is no longear avalbile

Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.

Everything is great, though the "You no longer need a commander to deploy assets" isn't too good an idea...

I was thinking that this would maybe de-promote teamplay And that squad leaders placing forward outposts wherever they want, causing conflicts between squad leaders etc (IE using all 4 before they really need them). Also what will happen if one FO needs to destroyed, will there be a "Demolish" button like there was for the commanbder? If so, you would see e players like *ahem* wumwuts *ahem* being SL and demolishing all the assets on the field...

Apart from that, things are looking good

MadTommy wrote:Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.

Couldn't agree more. Instead of decreasing benefits of an active commander, you should make commander role more appealing by providing CO with tools that are available to CO only. Thus, making it more playable position.

You also should make a team without commander much, much more crippled than it's today. As one of the problems with the current commander model is that game is still playable to some extent without one.