Project Reality Forums

Alex6714 wrote:Anti projectile bubble to fit tightly around the base.

that doesn't stop people walking into it and also has the gey side effect of players sitting inside the "protective shield", firing out at anyone outside of it

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: We will certainly be looking into it but the main problem is the way CA have done it also disables combat zones around main bases that only effect the other team to make sure they do not main base rape which would be a huge loss but I do believe there may be anouther way to get the best of both but I need to look into it

Take it from me. Combat zones don't stop base rape (they don't cover the main base anyways), the carrier dome and radar does.

Even if the entire map was a death dome you could still hit their base; The bleeding doesn't start for 30 - 60 seconds anyways in PR. And really the problems of the enemy firing from behind the carrier shield and base rape cancel each other out.

So there really is no other remedy for stopping base rape than a well defended base (and a ginormous force shield).

CAS_117 wrote:Take it from me. Combat zones don't stop base rape (they don't cover the main base anyways), the carrier dome and radar does.

Even if the entire map was a death dome you could still hit their base; The bleeding doesn't start for 30 - 60 seconds anyways in PR. And really the problems of the enemy firing from behind the carrier shield and base rape cancel each other out.

So there really is no other remedy for stopping base rape than a well defended base (and a ginormous force shield).

and this is coming from the man who put a flag right outside the main bases which you could shoot at anyone trying to cap it from inside the main base, where the players inside the main base where protected from any fire coming at them from outside the main (by the flag) by the "force shield"?

Yes Combat Zones do not stop base rape on there own, but they do a lot to help it. If Muttrah for example had no combat zone for the MEC round the carrier, MEC APCs would simply swim upto the carrier and shoot at all the choppers and men on the deck, like they use to in on the old Jabal.

You are also seem to forget I was the one who came up with the concept of a collision mesh round carriers to stop AA missiles etc wondering off from there targets and taking off choppers sitting on the carrier deck. I do know the ins and outs of the system.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:and this is coming from the man who put a flag right outside the enemy main base which you could shoot at anyone trying to cap it from inside the main base, where they where protected from any fire coming at them from the "force shield"?

Omaha charge?

CAS_117 wrote:
So there really is no other remedy for stopping base rape than a well defended base (and a ginormous force shield).

I have theory how to remove baseraping, and its exactly opposite to what you said =) If there is no base in mainbase, only spawn remains, and you rape it, what do you call it ? .....Spawnraping

Unlike baseraping, spawnraping is not tolerated among most admins, just add 1 small wall as LOS cover to the mainspawn and thats it.

If you make mainbase super cool hesco fortification, it actually invites baserapers, if its just single wall in middle of absolute nothing, its not so fun area to have fight on and if someone tries, im sure admins dont like it =)

Can't you make teh force shield disappear when the main is the final flag?

like attaching it as a spawner to the penultimate flag or something.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:and this is coming from the man who put a flag right outside the main bases which you could shoot at anyone trying to cap it from inside the main base, where the players inside the main base where protected from any fire coming at them from outside the main (by the flag) by the "force shield"?

Yes Combat Zones do not stop base rape on there own, but they do a lot to help it. If Muttrah for example had no combat zone for the MEC round the carrier, MEC APCs would simply swim upto the carrier and shoot at all the choppers and men on the deck, like they use to in on the old Jabal.

You are also seem to forget I was the one who came up with the concept of a collision mesh round carriers to stop AA missiles etc wondering off from there targets and taking off choppers sitting on the carrier deck. I do know the ins and outs of the system.

Lol yeah that's pretty stupid on Rats. Although I did place the domes not the flags. That's the problem with artificial stuff such as this is that its like whack a mole. Every problem you fix another 2 or 3 show up.

What I did to solve some of the issues is:

- Lower the domes to just the minimum blast radius of say a JDAM so attack choppers can't see the flag and attack from inside.

- All missiles start 10m below the aircraft. IRL they are supposed to drop a few meters anyways and obviously can't fire while landed. Before you could open your radar and shoot an aircraft flying above you.

What I'd like to do is:

- Move the dome to only cover the helipads and ruwnays. Not the vehicle spawn areas. Then add a fence or hesco between the two. This will prevent the problem of tanks firing from inside the main.

On Jabal the issue is that APCs can see targets from behind the shield. Just a matter of moving it out of view distance and it won't be as bad.

CAS_117 wrote:On Jabal the issue is that APCs can see targets from behind the shield. Just a matter of moving it out of view distance and it won't be as bad.

ye I wasn't referring to that but something that needs to be fixed. What I was talking about is without the combat zones as domes of deaths around mains etc, sh*t can happen like APCs being able to swim right upto the carriers and shoot anything on it as well as everything else that can happen by pretty much allowing players to walk into the enemy base

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:ye I wasn't referring to that but something that needs to be fixed. What I was talking about is without the combat zones as domes of deaths around mains etc, sh*t can happen like APCs being able to swim right upto the carriers and shoot anything on it as well as everything else that can happen by pretty much allowing players to walk into the enemy base

I think if there were possibly 2 "domes", at least one anyway, that fits tightly to the carrier/mainbase then the enemy would have to get ridiculously close, or even inside the base/carrier to be able to get projectiles inside, at which point I would highly expect it to be dead.

The problem with jets is that their speed has been (realistically) increased to the levels that dont fit BF2 engine. Imagine vBF2 jet on a Kashan and all your problems goes away.

Maybe accepting such engine limitations and sacrificing some bits of realism by reducing the average and max speed of jets should take place?

Not a bad idea, that. I also noticed that jets in PR are less maneuverable than they were in vBF2. Maybe increase the jets' agility too?

Stu.

I think that adding something like the V-22 Ospray where it would be a heavy, last transport aircraft

Im still waiting for the vtol Harrier to make an appearance along with the british carrier map to go with it

RHYS4190 wrote:And what im saying is if we put jet's on a map like Ramial, it whould kill the game play, because you whould not have to go into the city and look for the Cachies all you could just bomb the city with impunity.

Unless, there was some kind of radical penalty for killing civilians. Similar to RL, when a civilian dies in a US airstrike it typically creates another 5 insurgents. Perhaps, adding 5 tickets to every civilian killed to the insurgency side would make the US side think twice before anhilating the city with their air assets.

No matter how we look at it, heavy air assets are used all the time today. Not having them in insurgency mode is unrealistic.

npeiffer wrote:Unless, there was some kind of radical penalty for killing civilians. Similar to RL, when a civilian dies in a US airstrike it typically creates another 5 insurgents. Perhaps, adding 5 tickets to every civilian killed to the insurgency side would make the US side think twice before anhilating the city with their air assets.

No matter how we look at it, heavy air assets are used all the time today. Not having them in insurgency mode is unrealistic.

Actually the penalty for bombing a civ should just make everyone INS get instant spawn for one death.

npeiffer wrote: No matter how we look at it, heavy air assets are used all the time today. Not having them in insurgency mode is unrealistic.

You mean that when US troops in Iraq have intel about hidden weapons in some village they are bombing the village and after that they are looking for the weapons?

Nemus wrote:You mean that when US troops in Iraq have intel about hidden weapons in some village they are bombing the village to death and after that they are looking for the weapons?

No, he means that not having air support in modern warfare is unrealistic.

How you chose to use it is up to you. Maybe they don´t bomb the whole village before entering, but they also have civilians there in real life...

If you don´t want to use it realistically, thats your choice, but its also your loss. Don´t limit the rest of us who want to play more realistically just because some people feel they don´t want to.

No. He talked about heavy air assets.
Its very different from air support.

An Apache can provide very close air support. Can distinguise if the target is a civilian or a civilian armed (insurgent) and pick them up with its cannon.
But an F-16 flying at 250 Knots/h releasing bombs....

Nemus wrote:No. He talked about heavy air assets.
Its very different from air support.

What is a heavy air asset? Anything above an AC130?