Project Reality Forums

mat552 wrote:Nothing deals with Dumpy trying to slip by into an ambush position on Fallujah West quite like a hat to the driver cab, let me tell you.

As for all the "But one noob can ruin my game ohnoez!!1"

I've not played with anyone yet who couldn't be taught to understand why the HAT/CE was such a tremendous advantage to the other team, several orders of magnitude more so than for bluefor.

What about those players that are INTENTIONALLY trying to be ******** and hand over the kit? I've personally seen it at least a dozen times. These players KNOW how important theses kits are, and that's why they hand them over. These are the same players that hand over caches by ghosting for the Bluefor, that place IED's on top of caches for fun, that place grenade traps on friendly spawn points...the list goes on. Getting the HAT and CE off the INS maps is just one way to add to the realism and get rid of smacktards.

maarit wrote:maybe we need military advisory here!!!!
is there any situtiation where blufor troops would take such weapons when they proceed in field?
just thinking that, ingame we know what there is against us but in reallife that area is unknown.

if its realism to take HAT`off,then take it off.


before advisorys comment,that one stupid man should be in squad and squadleaders should tell the squadmembers what kit they should take.

And when that player doesn't want to listen, you have an idiot lonewolfing with a fancy kit.

Yeah, matt, this isnt a post aimed at noobs who dont know what they are doing.


Iv personally convinced a few pubbers to take back the kits, and they did so politely.

Issue comes with the exploits. The whole "Kit on the ground for 10 minutes" has turned into a kit whore house, and that ESPECIALLY goes out for the HAT, CE, and AA, that are deliberately being taken out to give to the enemy, just because.

This sounds like a server specific issue and if the server rules don't cover this issue then they should. I know of a couple servers that have posted no HAT/CE kits rules for BluFor, you should be able to rely on the players to report someone breaking that kind of rule, and if someone is intentionally handing a kit over to the other team or ghosting for caches, you should ban them.

This isn't a problem on TG, while there will always be the occasional person who loses the kit the majority of the time players will educate the player by letting them know how damaging it is to BluFor if they lose the kit or use the chain of command to deny the kit. When they are lost on occasion the game is not ruined, the kit just needs to be reclaimed. If the problem is the player base on a server, maybe that should be addressed?

Fighter wrote:The mode isn't ruined because one team has a HAT or CE. I wouldn't say implement an option to disallow the HAT and CE kits for a server on Ins either. I would say it's up to the server to make server rules against that kind of gameplay, not up to the DEV's.

+1 i agree

Agreed i fully suport this sugestion.

because i always has defended that each server must have they own kit selection and of course because walking around whicht a AA is just to give the Insurgents a new toy.

the same go to Enginer that give C4 and land mines fair superior to the Insurgents sapper explosives.

snooggums wrote:This sounds like a server specific issue and if the server rules don't cover this issue then they should. I know of a couple servers that have posted no HAT/CE kits rules for BluFor, you should be able to rely on the players to report someone breaking that kind of rule, and if someone is intentionally handing a kit over to the other team or ghosting for caches, you should ban them.

This isn't a problem on TG, while there will always be the occasional person who loses the kit the majority of the time players will educate the player by letting them know how damaging it is to BluFor if they lose the kit or use the chain of command to deny the kit. When they are lost on occasion the game is not ruined, the kit just needs to be reclaimed. If the problem is the player base on a server, maybe that should be addressed?

Once again, it isn't the occasional noob that causes the problem, but the ones that do it intentionally.

As far as realism, it's been brought up that the HAT is in reality un-reloadable to INS forces, one shot and it's done. Since i doubt that the devs can code that bit in, it has to be easier to just remove it from those maps. They already do it with other kits and vehicles.

Keep the kits requestable, change the weapons, just like some maps have the parachute in the kit loadout and no Phos, make it so instead when they request a HAT they get one of these :



Then they can sit in the corner of main and think about what they have done. No changes to the kit request GUI needed, probably needs to be set on each map though. Same with the engy kit, obviously, it is a handy kit for removing mines and such, so just remove the C4 and all is fine.

Boris.T.Spider wrote:Keep the kits requestable, change the weapons, just like some maps have the parachute in the kit loadout and no Phos, make it so instead when they request a HAT they get one of these :



Then they can sit in the corner of main and think about what they have done. No changes to the kit request GUI needed, probably needs to be set on each map though. Same with the engy kit, obviously, it is a handy kit for removing mines and such, so just remove the C4 and all is fine.

I like this...I like this a lot.

'= wrote:H[=CubCadet1972;1352144']Once again, it isn't the occasional noob that causes the problem, but the ones that do it intentionally.

As far as realism, it's been brought up that the HAT is in reality un-reloadable to INS forces, one shot and it's done. Since i doubt that the devs can code that bit in, it has to be easier to just remove it from those maps. They already do it with other kits and vehicles.

So, like friendly fire, it is an issue when people are jerks and hurt their own team on purpose?

Sounds like an issue for server administration.

While I do understand the point of the thread I think the kits should be left ingame because they do have some purposes(getting on a roof or someplace where a tow cant go to kill a cache,...), and especially the CE kit since they can remove mines, repair light vehicles, as an example when I have had a squad I trusted I brought a CE with my humvee and removed mines we came to and repaired it without a truck.

I do realize that it would be better to stop these things from happening in the beginning but with the plus sides they do offer I think its really up to admins even if they can't figure out who did it ingame to check the BFR and make sure that player won't be doing it again.

They simply need to change the fact that insurgents can reload BLUFOR weapons on caches. That's ridiculous and unrealistic. I say let them take the HAT, but they get on shot and can't reload. Or if the round is already expended, tough luck. This would help out alot with BLUFOR running into trouble when insurgents get their kits. They get whatever ammo was left on the body and THATS IT.

charliegrs wrote:I posted a thread about this months ago. Basically the response I got from EVERYONE was "its not that hard to fire a javelin" Which I had a hard time believing.

And Il say it again, lets say they actually figure out how to shoot it, its not going to be the unstoppable killing machine it is right now if the Insurgents cant reload it! And theres no way in hell they have any javelin or sraw rounds of their own.

And most of the time, people who said "its not hard to fire a javelin" arent even in the Army, they just believe that Armerica's Army and Armed Assault way of using JAVELIN its the way it is in Real Life' and honestly i would pay alot just to seen them carrying that thing around for days in the desert' Just carryin a Carl Gustav its a pain in the *** and its way lighter than a FGM148

HAT should be removed from Ins, just as TOW. On the other hand, LAW are widely used by NATO in Afghanistan, and yes i do know they also use javelin, but since its not ingame there is no problem

snooggums wrote:This sounds like a server specific issue and if the server rules don't cover this issue then they should. I know of a couple servers that have posted no HAT/CE kits rules for BluFor, you should be able to rely on the players to report someone breaking that kind of rule, and if someone is intentionally handing a kit over to the other team or ghosting for caches, you should ban them.

This isn't a problem on TG, while there will always be the occasional person who loses the kit the majority of the time players will educate the player by letting them know how damaging it is to BluFor if they lose the kit or use the chain of command to deny the kit. When they are lost on occasion the game is not ruined, the kit just needs to be reclaimed. If the problem is the player base on a server, maybe that should be addressed?

TG has insurgency? admins are supposed to watch everybodys kit and say "hey! is that hat blufor or insurgent!" then investigate it? NO. instead they run out and die without any reason to get kicked or banned because you can't ban ppl for dieing.

for those of you who think a hat can't ruin a round..... think of albasrah.... still think so? then your dumb.

HAT AND AA ARE THE KITS THAT NEED REMOVED FROM BLUFOR ON INSURGENCY. ce kits do too. but hell, i'd take hats and aa as a major improvement. atleast ce kits can be usefull.

Commando_Jenkins wrote:You have to put yourself in the position of the Blu-for team. This is what the thread is about, not about being rewarded as an insurgent.

Ah, my apologies for not being clear enough. I meant ambush as a term for the insurgent. As in it's always nice to put in planning and take advantage of bluefor. Normally the prize is a scoped SAW or rifleman AT, but there are those truly rewarding and exciting moments where I discover I have obtained a HAT. It's almost always a single shot weapon anyway, I usually get tracked down and eviscerated before I can get it reloaded anyway.

Also, I'm a little confused, either hardcore has rules against people handing over the kit but they do anyway causing complaints, or there is no rule against it..causing complaints?

goguapsy wrote:I wouldn't BAN HATs and CEs.

What I WOULD do is prohibit HAT kits to be taken out of main (if an insurgent manages to retrieve it, he deserves it ).

CE kits on the other hand are sometimes useful to clear out mines. But we gotta do that on clear terrain.

When one of my squad members found a CE kit on the ground, we escorted it back to main to prevent the insurgents to have it. CE kits should be treated as ASSETS!

100 percent right.

another point is, that CE Kits are useful for field repairs of hummvies. Karbala has alot of open ground.
u can use the powerful 50cal for ur backup/surpressing fire. if it gets damaged, u aren't be forced to drive it back to base. that saves a lot of time. as goguapsy said, it should be handled as an asset.

K4on wrote:100 percent right.

another point is, that CE Kits are useful for field repairs of hummvies. Karbala has alot of open ground.
u can use the powerful 50cal for ur backup/surpressing fire. if it gets damaged, u aren't be forced to drive it back to base. that saves a lot of time. as goguapsy said, it should be handled as an asset.

yes i somewhat agree with this! but this this is why the ce kit should stay. but also take off the c4 or fix the c4 so it doesn't stick to insurgents bikes etc. aa/hat kit has no place.... its unrealistc.