Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2011-03-16 21:22**

Stoickk wrote:What I am seeing in this thread are two diametrically opposed viewpoints going at each other head to head. On the civilian loving side, we want to instantly kill the horrible nasty barbarians who had the nerve to shoot the poor, defenseless, unarmed, flower-carrying, kitten-loving, civilian. Those horrible terrible people should be punished and punished hard because they had the nerve to shoot a civilian! Never mind the fact that they know for 100% certainty that regardless of the fact that you are carrying a civilian kit, you are 100% cooperating with and assisting the insurgent faction in killing as many Blufor soldiers and assets as possible. Why are you doing that? Because you are supposed to. That's the game. The fact of the matter is though, Blufor knows you are doing it. You are not an innocent civilian, and the 64 guys on the other team know it. You will not get them to treat you like one. Deal with it and move on.

On the other side of the fence however, you have the Blufor fanboys who have been taunted, pelted by rocks, given long spawn timers, lost points, lost intel points, and are extraordinarily frustrated with well played civilians, and are so fed up with opposing players playing the kit well, that they shoot civilians on sight. They do this for three primary reasons. Firstly, it is satisfying to many players to do so due to the torment that well played civilians can inflict on Blufor forces, secondly, everybody that plays this game knows perfectly well that the civilians are combatants on the insurgent team. Period. They are not civilians. They are combatants, end of story. Lastly, the current punishment system does little if anything to deter the action.

Bottom line, the civilian system needs work. The first two reasons, nothing can be done about within the current engine, to the best of my knowledge. The last one, can be adjusted. Yes, the punishment does need to be increased. I love insurgency mode, and I love playing as an insurgent. I am objective about this though, because the bottom line is if the game is not fair for both sides, nobody will play at all.

Blufor guys, I feel your pain. I have myself lost patience and greased an annoying civvy. Or two. Or maybe more. ops: The point of the game mode however is limited warfare. Blufor is supposed to be following limited warfare RoE, not scorched earth policy. The civilians are there to add another tactical layer to the gameplay. Insurgency is not AAS with different flags and factions. The gameplay is different by design.

Insurgents, Blufor civvy killers do not need to be killed for killing civvies. Personally, I think wounding is still too steep. There is no realism there at all. As nice as it is to think that divine intervention will take place and the heavens will part with a booming sound of rolling thunder and a brilliant flash of light and a great and mighty hand will reach out and put the head slap of doom on an asshat for shooting a civilian, it is just unrealistic, and can completely screw blufor, and cost them game changing assets, such as choppers, tanks, or APC's.

With a wounding in place, an organized group of civvies could theoretically suicide under the wheels of a tank or APC in sequence, wounding the driver several times, in effect sniping him out of his vehicle. This is hugely exploitable, and should definitely not be implemented. Spawn timers are so-so, but can be offset to the point that a good APC/tank/chopper crew can basically kill civvies at their leisure, and it's a minor speed bump.

I think that the intelligence penalty needs to be sharply increased, even to the point of relocating (think despawning and respawning in a new location, not intentional movement and placement of) a cache. Blufor works hard enough to uncover cache locations that the threat of the insurgent teams being able to "move" a known cache should drastically cut down on civilians being mowed down in the street, while at the same time not completely screwing up Blufor's chances at a successful counterinsurgency operation.

Those are some great points.

I simply believe that civi killers should be punished harshly. If they are inside a vehicle, they have 1 minute or 2 to return to base to prevent that asset from being detroyed/abandoned.

I think that putting civi-killers into wounded state would be effective because, 1st, it wouldn't be a "minor" annoyance. Besides losing IPs, you lose a ticket and waste time. Also, if you are someone who doesn't have a medic nearby normally (ie. a Sniper or a lonewolf), it normally means you DID have time to aim and confirm your target before firing, or you were not playing the game properly.

I really want harsh civi punishes to prevent people from exploding a mob of civilians. That wouldn't be allowed IRL if they were not collaborating with insurgents. Would be great for gameplay, keeping BLUFOR soldiers' hands tied (don't get me wrong, I almost exclusively play BLUFOR on insurgency maps) and encouraging people playing as civilians.

Posted: **2011-03-16 21:47**

Hey Goguapsy, I've seen you in game before. Good to talk to you here. I respect your game play and your opinion, but I stand firm on the point of wounding because of the aforementioned potential for exploit. An organized squad of civilians could theoretically suicide in sequence under the treads of a key vehicle, such as a non-respawning armor asset, and in effect "snipe" the driver out of the vehicle. Enough damage to a player to put them into a wounded and bleeding or red screen state is 25% or more, if I remember correctly. That would mean that the civilian kill penalty would need to be at a minimum greater than this percentage. Then when you add in the fact that every kit carries a patch, squad leaders more than that, vehicle crews/sniper teams operate in pairs, etc., you have to up the damage a bit to make sure that they can't just kill the civilian then bandage and go on their merry way.

So let's say we put the damage at 50% to be nice. This would give two collaborator's working together the ability to kill a driver of any armored vehicle in the game by running under the treads. If you put four together, then even if the gunner switches seats, he still can get "civvy sniped." Let's say you have a fully crewed tank. Hush. It's my scenario, it could happen.

Now it takes one dedicated civvy squad. Six guys. Unarmed. That everyone else is afraid to shoot because of the new rules. This circumvents armor protection completely, turning the collaborator kit into an antiarmor weapons team. From my perspective therefore, that form of punishment would be exploitable to the point of unbalancing gameplay completely in favor of the Insurgent team.

I want stronger punishment too, but that's just not the way to go, I'm afraid.

Posted: **2011-03-16 22:43**

^Well, in what situation would civies get near enough to an armor? Normally, armors are in the open, or when in the city, they would be close to infantry (they shouldn't be there otherwise). The driver could be smart and pop smoke and try to disband the civi crowd with his restrainers.

I see your point about damaging a player... but I think it might be codable so if the player is a crewman (driver/gunner/commander) or pilot in a vehicle, he has about 2 minutes before getting any heavy damage (small damages, including 50%, are weak IMO, because they can be patched up and go on their merry way - that's why I suggest taking players into wounded state (Wounded state, not bleeding) if they are on foot and in 2 minutes if they are on an armor or chopper). That way, it doesn't matter how many civies you kill, you will get severely punished as you should. And I don't see how that can be exploitable, since the armor/chopper WILL have enough time to return to a safe place/main before the court-martial decision.

And I think that men that were in armors/vehicles should be killed (not bleed nor wounded) even if they left the vehicle, so the insurgents have the advantage of having the armor disabled for a bit.

I'll just state this again: no civies could ever get runned over by an armor unless the armor driver is incompetent, or would they ever get close enough without using a vehicle (hence being allowed to be engaged). If they DO make it, though, there IS a trick in the Armor's sleeve... Or tubes, for that matter - pop smoke (so you don't get sniped in the process) and disband the mob with your restrainers. Quickly hop in, and move away from the crowd. Lure them into an infantry squad so they get arrested!

Posted: **2011-03-16 23:15**

What I am seeing in this thread are two diametrically opposed viewpoints going at each other head to head. On the civilian loving side, we want to instantly kill the horrible nasty barbarians who had the nerve to shoot the poor, defenseless, unarmed, flower-carrying, kitten-loving, civilian. Those horrible terrible people should be punished and punished hard because they had the nerve to shoot a civilian! Never mind the fact that they know for 100% certainty that regardless of the fact that you are carrying a civilian kit, you are 100% cooperating with and assisting the insurgent faction in killing as many Blufor soldiers and assets as possible. Why are you doing that? Because you are supposed to. That's the game. The fact of the matter is though, Blufor knows you are doing it. You are not an innocent civilian, and the 64 guys on the other team know it. You will not get them to treat you like one. Deal with it and move on.

On the other side of the fence however, you have the Blufor fanboys who have been taunted, pelted by rocks, given long spawn timers, lost points, lost intel points, and are extraordinarily frustrated with well played civilians, and are so fed up with opposing players playing the kit well, that they shoot civilians on sight. They do this for three primary reasons. Firstly, it is satisfying to many players to do so due to the torment that well played civilians can inflict on Blufor forces, secondly, everybody that plays this game knows perfectly well that the civilians are combatants on the insurgent team. Period. They are not civilians. They are combatants, end of story. Lastly, the current punishment system does little if anything to deter the action.

That's the problem. The players know, but that knowledge should not at all influence the way they act in game. Only this would be fair play.

Players, get over your desire to win! Make it your goal to play, not to win! Both civilians as well as coalition troops; don't run into mortars, for you do not want to die. Don't shoot civilians, for you do not know they are collaborators.

No matter what you really know - forget that! That stuff is outside the game! That knowledge is irrelevant!

Posted: **2011-03-17 01:38**

On a lot of insurgency maps, there are blind spots all over the place where a player, regardless of kit, can lie in wait and get close enough to sprint in front of a blufor vehicle. By having the civilian kill penalty set to put a player in wounded state, that would be an instant kill for a vehicle crewmember. That would be harsh for a tank or apc gunner that fired into a building or crowd without confirming a target, but in the aforementioned scenario of a collaborator anti-armor squad, would make them even more unbalanced. A three man team could annihilate any vehicle threat in the game, again, with virtually no natural predators due to the rules of engagement.

Yes, armor crews should stay away from congested urban areas, and should operate with infantry support. You and I both know that well played insurgents can and do get close to Blufor vehicles with alarming regularity. I have personally killed two different Bradleys with arty ied's that I crawled in and placed while they were in overwatch camping caches. I have also martyred myself under the treads of countless Blufor vehicles. The skill sets of PR vehicle crews vary greatly from match to match, and that has to be considered. Not every Blufor tank crew is going to be a veteran crew, and crews get tunnel vision. Not to mention, sometimes you can do everything right, and you just get outplayed.

Additionally, what happens to a crewmember that attempts to restrain a mob and gets stoned to death by three civilians with rocks circling him and healing each other? Personally, if I saw a crewmember of mine leave a vehicle in a combat zone for anything other than a quick listen or look with binos I would remove him from my squad without a second thought. Preservation of the asset is of the highest priority. Let the infantry squads do the arresting. That's why they get shotguns.

As for the player knowledge versus character knowledge debate, I feel your pain Operator. I have a crown royal bag of various sided die from my days of pencil and paper playtime sitting in a closet somewhere myself. I'm lying, I know exactly where it is

While I agree with you, I'm afraid fighting that battle is going to be a lost cause though. Much respect though sir for carrying the banner. You are without a doubt right. I just seriously doubt that you will convince much of the PR playing public.

Posted: **2011-03-18 19:49**

The "Cache relocation" is a very good idea, we need it now in the game =D

That will add a new thing to the insurgency =)

Posted: **2011-03-19 00:05**

General Dragosh wrote:The "Cache relocation" is a very good idea, we need it now in the game =D

That will add a new thing to the insurgency =)

I disagree with cache relocation.

It might seem like a good idea at first... Because, well, it would punish the team harshly. But then again, it will punish the whole TEAM because someone was not careful enough or was mad/pissed...

Posted: **2011-03-19 01:01**

Now here's why its a good thing

The things with insurgency ATM is like this:

BLUFOR's job is to find the weapon chaches and eliminate the local resistance that uses these chaches to fight them, thing is BLUFOR shoots everyone without a big penalty, they dont "capture" civis but they rather shoot them often

So they have to be punished in a way, e excellent solution would be,
If BLUFOR kills a X ammount of civies(or another aditional counter of things, maybe insurgets with Shotguns get a point towards the "Chache relocation" if the kill a blufor with it) the chache that is known gets moved to another location on the map without the Insurgents losing it, that would simulate that the insurgents had enough time to move the known chache to stop the BLUFOR from destorying it

As for the Insurgents, this adition to the mode mechanic would improve their chances to stop BLUFOR from destroying a chache, and it would help them a great ammount in the fight against infidels, the less weapons they loose to them the more effective they can fight against them.

This game mechanic must be implemented, IMO they are selft explanatory enought that they qualify to be in the game.

Im certain that IRL they would relocate weapon chaches if the were found by the BLUFOR, it would makes sense

I really dont see why this would be a bad thing, if BLUFOR isnt doing what they were supposed to then they really need to be punished, this would be the best punish ever =D

Posted: **2011-03-19 01:35**

Relocation is potentially buggy-ish. Nothing'd be more frustrating than making a perfect defense plan as INS team for a cache just to have it suddenly disappear because some nub shot a civie.

Posted: **2011-03-19 02:01**

I feel that some additional information is necessary to further clarify my original idea of cache relocation as a potential punishment for killing of civilians outside of the RoE.

First off, I am proposing that the lost intelligence points for killing a civilian be increased sharply. This is a key component of the system. Killing a single civilian is a public relations nightmare for the Blufor side usually, and this should be reflected in game, to an extent that maintains balance and fun factor. This being said, accidents do happen, and a single kill of a civilian should not screw over the entire team. In addition, it might be nice to maybe add a global message, or at a minimum a team chat message, about the civilian kill to all chat to help Commanders, Squad Leaders, and Server Admins keep an eye out if it is the same person consistently killing the civvies, or something of that nature. The global chat message part is new, as I just thought of that. The realism argument would be that a soldier gunning down a civilian in the streets of Fallujah would make CNN headlines in the day of global media coverage. Even the insurgents watch CNN.

Secondly, I am proposing that when Blufor's intelligence points fall below a certain threshold, for argument's sake (pulling a number out of thin air because I do not know the current formulas for intelligence points, cache exposure, etc.) let's say at 100 points below what is needed to expose a cache location, the insurgent team "moves" that cache. In terms of in game mechanics, it should be as simple as despawning a known cache and spawning a new unknown.

The way I see this playing out for Blufor is as follows. If you have one player that shoots a civilian by accident, it hurts because you lose a lot of intelligence points and it takes that much longer to find a cache. This is where the steeper individual intelligence penalty, and the global chat notice, comes into play. If you have a chronic civilian killer, the Blufor team can at least keep an eye on who is doing it and take steps to correct the problem.

Now, when you have a Blufor team that, as a team, are making a habit of killing everything that moves, they will consistently lose so many intelligence points that even when a cache does go to a known state, their scorched earth tactics will result in their intelligence points going down low enough that the Insurgent team moves the cache, and they have to start over looking for it again. A Blufor team that consistently tries to play insurgency like this will end up bleeding themselves dry without ever finding a cache, let alone eliminating one.

I am not talking about the cache moving every time a civvy gets shot, that would be irritating and problematic at best. As for the defensive arrangements though, the best cache defense in the game is Blufor not knowing where it is.

Posted: **2011-03-19 03:12**

In my opinion civis take alot away from the combat experience of the game.

Civis may be one of the reasons Blu For wins so much, they sit on the cache and they cant defend it, they cant fight back, they take away some of the engagments and i came into PR looking for a good combat experience not playing cops and robbers, having to arrest every single one, I still to this day shoot them on sight about 90% of the time. If your scared go play farmville or a peaceful game.

i compare them to draft dodgers/hippies. Its simply choosing not to fight and to watch. I vote to take them out of game

Remember this is my opinion express how you feel about them

Posted: **2011-03-19 03:14**

And remember guys this is a Combat based game, not civillian/poplulation control, as it is 32vs32 how can you afford to take away a fighter and replace him with a peaceful civi? it just doesnt make sense

Posted: **2011-03-19 10:39**

Yet that's how the game was designed and is meant to be played. Some people do not only want to kill things, and if I go and play a civie (who doesn't go on suicide missions) then I expect from the game not to be shot on purpose, just like you expect combat when you play the game.

Since you're not the only one playing, I'd ask you to respect the wishes of the other players, enemies included, and not break the rules of the game, which quite clearly state that civilians must not be shot on purpose.

Posted: **2011-03-19 10:55**

I agree, though if civvies don't want to engage they shouldn't have ropes, be medics for their faction, or even be able to communicate to the insurgents. Additionally, busting out some binoculars to watch blufor or using their cell phone should set them as hostile immediately and being arrested should remove the players ability to play as a civvie for the rest of the match.

Posted: **2011-03-19 12:54**

Ninjam3rc wrote: Additionally, busting out some binoculars to watch blufor or using their cell phone should set them as hostile immediately and being arrested should remove the players ability to play as a civvie for the rest of the match.

Would you shoot an average looking guy using the binoculars or the cell phone in a battlezone?

You're the perfect candidate for a court-martial.

No one would play the COLLABORATOR* kit with those changes.

* I also make the mistake of calling them civis from time to time. But a collaborator takes a whole different role than the one of a "only watch" civi - according to stealth240.

Posted: **2011-03-20 02:12**

Guess what stealth420, the point of this discussion is to find ways to fix the currently broken collaborator rules of engagement. If you want to hate on the kit, do so in another thread please. The devs obviously want the kit in the game as they took the time to design it, code it, and implement it, and it is still a part of the game as of 0.95. Whining about is because you don't like it is rather pointless.

Properly played, the collaborator kit is a huge asset to an insurgent team. What we are attempting to do in this thread is find ways to improve the current RoE to bring the gameplay in line with the devs original intent for the kit. If you don't want to play as a collaborator, don't. Those who do are simply choosing a different play style than you are.

People like you who deliberately shoot collaborators are part of the problem that we are trying to address. You are the one failing here. You are failing to follow the rules of the game mode. Obviously the punishments that are in place are not enough to teach you, and others, this lesson. That is why we are here. Thank you for showing everyone why changes are in order.

Posted: **2011-03-20 04:15**

This is a combat based sim, you throw a peace loving civi in the mix your messing up the flow of things.

Its like having a giant killing factory ( best way to describe US) and your producing kills but your throwing Wrenches into the gears which slow you down.

But in reality US team is not getting slowed down, the insurgent team loses out every time some one picks that kit and is dedicated to it.

Basically what it comes down to is this. Insurgents are meant to defend the cache. When they pick Civi kit the whole idea of defending the caches goes out the window due to no weaponry ( Besides a rock). Taking the kit out will make the insurgents increase defense capabilitys.

I understand this kit is useful for spotting, but you can spot just as well and shoot still with a regular kit.

Posted: **2011-03-20 04:27**

Arcturus_Shielder wrote:Would you shoot an average looking guy using the binoculars or the cell phone in a battlezone?

You're the perfect candidate for a court-martial.

This is Project Reality yes? Guess what sugar cakes, that's ROE. guys with cellphones and binocs observing friendly forces are treated as enemy spotters, which is what they're doing in game. You can probably guess what happens next.

Posted: **2011-03-20 04:48**

Ninjam3rc wrote:This is Project Reality yes? Guess what sugar cakes, that's ROE. guys with cellphones and binocs observing friendly forces are treated as enemy spotters, which is what they're doing in game. You can probably guess what happens next.

No, sweet cheeks, they are not. The following is a direct copy and paste from the PR manual, distributed with every download of PR. I suggest rereading it since you seem a bit confused on the subject.

Project Reality Manual wrote: Civilians and unarmed insurgents/Hamas fighters are covered by rules of engagement (ROE). Any of them doing the following within the last minute are considered combatants and may be shot without penalty:
spawn or pick up a kit
use a weapon or vehicle (stones are not counted as weapons)
use resuscitate or the epipen

Outside of those specific actions, they are not allowed to be engaged under the current ROE. The problem is that players continue to ignore the current punishments and shoot collaborators outside of ROE anyway, hence this discussion.

As for you stealth420, you are still missing the point completely. Insurgency game play is about limited warfare. You will notice that on insurgency maps Blufor forces aren't bringing in every single asset available to their faction. The point is to make precision strikes against caches of weapons with minimum collateral damage. The collaborator kit was placed in the game to add to the realism feel of this type of warfare, and is a huge asset to the insurgent faction.

Real world U.S. forces do not go rolling through the streets of downtown Fallujah indiscriminately gunning down everything that moves in real life, regardless of who is carrying a cell phone or binoculars. Cell phones and binoculars are not lethal weapons, and by themselves can not be used to harm Blufor forces (short of beating someone to death with them, which has not been implemented in PR as of 0.95. No I'm not suggesting that either

) Those soldiers are governed by rules of engagement stating that they can not shoot people for getting on their nerves or looking at them. Those same rules apply to the insurgency game mode. The problem is that the current punishments are not adequate to enforce the existing rules because players such as yourself are obviously comfortable ignoring them, and continue to do so on a regular basis.

Posted: **2011-03-20 05:18**

Stoickk wrote:No, sweet cheeks, they are not. The following is a direct copy and paste from the PR manual, distributed with every download of PR. I suggest rereading it since you seem a bit confused on the subject.

Ah well, let me start off by apologizing on the name calling before this spirals away from the point. I should have emphasized the Reality bit.

Real world U.S. forces do not go rolling through the streets of downtown Fallujah indiscriminately gunning down everything that moves in real life, regardless of who is carrying a cell phone or binoculars. Cell phones and binoculars are not lethal weapons, and by themselves can not be used to harm Blufor forces

This is a completely false statement, Fallujah in 04 (which is the time period the in game map is based off of) had very few civilians left in it and the people I mentioned previously were terminated quickly upon observation. As they were, again as I mentioned, enemy observers.

Those soldiers are governed by rules of engagement stating that they can not shoot people for getting on their nerves or looking at them. Those same rules apply to the insurgency game mode.

This first statement is true, but doesn't work in game. With civilians who leap into fire how can you justify harsher penalties on blufor? It would become even more viable to run into enemy fire as a civvie if even half of this threads suggestions were put into place.

The problem is that the current punishments are not adequate to enforce the existing rules because players such as yourself are obviously comfortable ignoring them, and continue to do so on a regular basis.

I don't really think anyone is going out of their way to harm the "innocent" but there's not a whole lot of innocence going on. As for me personally, I don't shoot them if I can help it but I will when they're being used as meat shields, I don't like the longer spawn times and punching and arresting them is hilarious in my book.

Project Reality Forums

Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them

Re: Civilians and how we feel when we kill them