Project Reality Forums

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Terrible idea. It has been raised countless times too.

Minimap= awareness. This isn't real life, you aren't already briefed on here to go, you don't have communication with other squads or fireteams, and you are not moving in a large formation such as a platoon.

The minimap is even more important for when you have no commander. Face it, no one likes going Commander anymore, and even if people do, you can't place the outcome of a game solely on 1 person.

When I am SL and want to coordinate with other squads, how do I do it? Check my minimap and tell my squad to form up with another squad so we can move together. If all I see as a SL is just another SL, how am I to know he even has a squad there with him or if they are scattered across the map????

Exactly the point. Wouldn't this heavily stress the need for a commander? i've listed the reasons I don't play as a commander anymore, and it's not because of his job. It's because the squads already coordinate themselves without the need for a commander, and therefore you don't actually get a say often in what's happening. Reducing a squad's awareness of every part of the battlefield and giving it to the commander gives his job mean, and value.

cool idea, but SMs would need either a minimap with a radius of maybe 10-20m, ideally only showing their SMs or the green SM arrows should get some sort of distance counter. This would make moving in formations way easier and coordination would be easier too.

TK PARTY!!

Its true that you arent briefed but u play those maps all the time so you know the place... Awarness is something to be considered tho.

And for working with another squad, SL1 must report to CO to get the position of closest squad, then CO must reply back to SL1 and give him rendezvous point, then talk to SL2 to stop moving (or go to a meeting point), and warn SL1 and SL2 from wich side both will be coming to avoid frendly fire... May be long lasting process but it would be awesome IMO

slayer wrote:TK PARTY!!

Just like how it was when friendly names were removed at a distance, just adapt. Though if you'd like to elaborate, I'd be more interested to see your opinion...


BTW, could a Dev possibly make this into a poll, or would that be unnecessary? This would be a large, and imo, positive change, and it would be nice to know how much of the community supports/disagrees with it. Perhaps three options: Completely agree; Completely disagree; and Needs work (post why).

ChizNizzle wrote:Nice feature would be if you place the map as an weapon, you can throw it on the ground, so the whole squad could get a good look at it with their weapons ready, and then you could pick it back up like the grapple.
Another the prob is, how bad the texture would be if played on a low-end computer.

Like you said, texture is highly problematic, even on high end texutres. It would also be extremely hard to read the map thrown on the ground from a players perspective.

Spec_Operator wrote: 2. Make the map tossable and with unlimited ammo - but only one tossed map can exist in the world at once. This is to give the SL the option to show others the maps and explain something.

3. Have static maps at all spawn points so players at least know where the enemy is. (Note: The enemy as in, the enemy base, not the soldiers themselves of course)

Not possible/practical for reasons above and the fact it'd be much of a hassle while current Capslock/M map can be modded not to show blues-greens in a easier way.

McLuv wrote:

BTW, could a Dev possibly make this into a poll, or would that be unnecessary? This would be a large, and imo, positive change, and it would be nice to know how much of the community supports/disagrees with it. Perhaps three options: Completely agree; Completely disagree; and Needs work (post why).

Yea I would like to see the status 2

Good post in reaction to mine and your idea's and views on the situation are good as well Been a while since I had a good and mature discussion on a forum (not saying this one but there werent discussions on here I wanted to mingle in )

I can certainly see that if the CO had all the info people would like to go CO again. I certainly would! This evening on T&T we had 5 TW and VOIP squads. Perfect set-up for a CO. But since they where also on TS and doing what was needed there was no need for a CO. If they cant see where the rest is than the CO could at least organise them!

So Im a little bit more in favor of the removing. Still not that sure though! It will give a lot more room for noobing.

im not sure if i quite understand it, but what i think it shoulb be from what i got, a everyone keeps the current map, but certian kits, like the sl, or grenidar, could use the tropical map as a wepon, like you would pull it out and it would be a mini version that you can see over, but right click for zoom it pulls up the map to a full screen version.

also, if i remember right, the american army has that thing that can allow them to know where all teammates are at all times

Yeah I dont like either....the map is essential to see where your squad are, especially for SL to check spacing, etc etc....

Removing the blue mob off the map wouldnt be disastrous, but not being able to see where your squad are would SUCK.

[R-CON]Mescaldrav wrote:Yeah I dont like either....the map is essential to see where your squad are, especially for SL to check spacing, etc etc....

Removing the blue mob off the map wouldnt be disastrous, but not being able to see where your squad are would SUCK.

You'd still be able to see them if they're walking with you. You'd still be able to coordinate them with 3d markers. You'd still be able to ask them their positions. though, I kind of do agree to an extent. Unfortunately, a topographical map as a weapon isn't worth much if you can still pull out your main map and see your Squads position

Perhaps a compromise could be that when an SL has his map out he can use the squad screen full zoom to see everyone around him in his squad. Something similar to the command post, but instead of having to be in a vehicle, you need to have your map open, if that's possible.

Don't take it too seriously, though, it's just a possible solution if it ever becomes a problem.

If I had any modeling programs or exporting/texturing/UV mapping experience, I'd probably get a "map" done in 5 mins, and apply the map onto it, just to see how it would work in-game. This probably won't/couldn't be included in pr 0.85 without delaying it a few weeks. But I was wondering if this could be tested at least on a few select maps to see some of the effects it has on gameplay.

i think it should atleast be given to grenidiar, to help them on the mountinas map with where to aim.

the normal map is needed for the ppl who cant tell who it is(from far away, like me) and just shoot em...... but i still think it would be good for sl and grenidar and such, to find good pathes witch are hard to see from the satalite map. like passways.

idk... i would use it as sl, just to tell good places for rallys

No its not unrealistic. It is modern warfare.

This should be implemented for militia and insurgents perhaps but since it is impossible to implement other things that would sway things to their favour (such as superior knowledge of the enviroment, tunnel digging, hiding the actual IED, etc etc) then I think that this is a bad idea.

Also it would make gameplay just to teadious. I'm here to have fun, not to be annoyed.

Ondskan wrote:No its not unrealistic. It is modern warfare.

This should be implemented for militia and insurgents perhaps but since it is impossible to implement other things that would sway things to their favour (such as superior knowledge of the enviroment, tunnel digging, hiding the actual IED, etc etc) then I think that this is a bad idea.

Also it would make gameplay just to teadious. I'm here to have fun, not to be annoyed.

I'm sure you can have just as much fun with my suggestion than without, it all depends on the situation. Though if you could provide specific examples that would make this suggestion bad for game-play I want to hear it. I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I want to know what could go wrong with this suggestion so that it can get looked into perhaps.

I may have missed it, but what about when you have a unit of tanks? The squad leader will be able to see the situation of the squad, but you can only see the squad leaders tank?

I feel the map as it is makes up for a lot of the unrealistic aspects of the game itself. Although your suggestions make some sense to me, I feel this will be a detriment to the overall fun of the game, especially in public play.

Blakeman wrote:I may have missed it, but what about when you have a unit of tanks? The squad leader will be able to see the situation of the squad, but you can only see the squad leaders tank?

I feel the map as it is makes up for a lot of the unrealistic aspects of the game itself. Although your suggestions make some sense to me, I feel this will be a detriment to the overall fun of the game, especially in public play.

ATM, I haven't made any posts regarding tanks or other vehicles. I would imagine they at least would be equipped with all-purpose GPS systems, so we can leave the satellite minimap for them. Though I wouldn't mind seeing the blue mob at least taken off of the vehicle minimaps, along with the other proposed changes for infantry maps.

McLuv wrote:ATM, I haven't made any posts regarding tanks or other vehicles. I would imagine they at least would be equipped with all-purpose GPS systems, so we can leave the satellite minimap for them. Though I wouldn't mind seeing the blue mob at least taken off of the vehicle minimaps, along with the other proposed changes for infantry maps.

I still feel that the map makes up for the fact that squad leaders cannot communicate between each other. If we had full battlefield comms, comm phone on the rear of tanks and apcs and all the other communication gear that reality has, then maps wouldnt be needed much at all. As it is, one of the main forms of communication is the map. When you see another squad all headed toward something, they are basically communicating their intentions to you through the map. Yeah you can ask them through text, or try to relay through the commander, but it doesn't work like realism.

Well it could work, since the enemy can't use your vehicle or uniforms. But the communication toward and from the commander would be vital. The most doing the TKs would be A10 and frogfoot since they cant zoom to target, basically it would mean that they dont engage anything without orders. This reminds me the blue on blue situation where A10 engaged on british convoy, terrible stuff.

I'm kind of iffy about this. Even though it's more realistic than the omghaxradar that we get now, it would increase the number of TK's(which makes the people punish for stupid reasons a lot more)

Although, after a few weeks of this change, the players would have probably adapted to it. (like the fact that you can't use the Q-rose spotting to sniff out enemy vehicles.) As long as the players will be able to adapt to this, I really see no problem placing this in.

Not a good idea, these ideas would maybe work with experienced players, however, with PR growing in popularity many new players are on the scene. Think how hard it will be for them to cope with these changes.

It will be even harder and more fustrating to have a nice functional team.

This IS a GAME, remember that, realism is good but lowering gameplay standards for realism is a STEP BACK in my opinion.