Project Reality Forums

Wait so lets remove the map to help lonewolf players? I am confused by your posts, and frankly annoyed by your attitude Lugi. Post a solid coherent counter post to my claim that updated maps are important and maybe I'll respond with a proper post.

Lugi, you seem to think PR is another game promoting solo players, and to win a match you simply kill your opponents more times. I think you may need to boot PR up again and see how it actually plays.

KTHXBAI

Murphy wrote:Lugi, you seem to think PR is another game promoting solo players,

It's not promoting solo players, but it's not harassing them either as it should. Removing the map would be a step towards realism and a big inconvenience for everyone who don't want to play with the rest of the team.

Murphy wrote: and to win a match you simply kill your opponents more times.

From what I've seen the winning team always has more kills than the other one (in AAS obviously). People in PR always fight to death and never surrender, thus the only way to make some progress in capping flag is to kill them. Sad but true.

Lugi wrote:...Removing the map would be a step towards realism...

I would leave that for the MA to decide.

Lugi wrote:...From what I've seen the winning team always has more kills than the other one (in AAS obviously). People in PR always fight to death and never surrender, thus the only way to make some progress in capping flag is to kill them. Sad but true.

I have on numerous occasions outwitted the enemy with my squad by capping their back undefended flag with zero casualties.
The greater number of kills does not necessarily mean winning the game it is about tactics. Period.
Every time I hear people brag about their kills in & out of game, I want to play PR a little less.

As far as removing the map. Sure, the realism would better. But you will cant change attitudes about the commander role (this is still the topic here btw). People do not play commander because the COMMUNITY seems to be rejecting the use of commander. Only long enough to deploy area attack or snack a SL kit.

DDS wrote: Every time I hear people brag about their kills in & out of game, I want to play PR a little less.

That's the other thing, I've no clue why the realism mod decided to keep the kill counter.

DDS wrote:As far as removing the map. Sure, the realism would better. But you will cant change attitudes about the commander role (this is still the topic here btw). People do not play commander because the COMMUNITY seems to be rejecting the use of commander. Only long enough to deploy area attack or snack a SL kit.

This:

Gracler wrote:Right now commander is like the rifleman anti-personel kit..... its there....but no one really needs it.

With that change you WILL need a commander, cause without one you wouldn't even now where the objectives are (AASv4 is a good thing).

Players aren't quite as hardcoded as you might think. We have adapted to a lot of things. Loss of minimap, loss of rally points, deviation - and many of these things have changed gameplay for the better. Don't be afraid to experiment with things like removal of friendly positions on the map for everything below commander. It might actually turn out that people will then see the value of the commander role. Or it might fail, but we can always hotfix these things, or make an open beta to test them while the regular PR remains playable.

Spec wrote:Players aren't quite as hardcoded as you might think. We have adapted to a lot of things. Loss of minimap, loss of rally points, deviation - and many of these things have changed gameplay for the better. Don't be afraid to experiment with things like removal of friendly positions on the map for everything below commander. It might actually turn out that people will then see the value of the commander role. Or it might fail, but we can always hotfix these things, or make an open beta to test them while the regular PR remains playable.

PR is fast approaching v1.0, not much room to steer one way or the other. With ArmA2 mod on the way I'm not much interested what that is. Just reminiscent of what was.

Lugi wrote: This:With that change you WILL need a commander, cause without one you wouldn't even now where the objectives are (AASv4 is a good thing).

Would make a commander have alot more power in moving around troops. They would need to listen.

And as Spec wrote:

Players aren't quite as hardcoded as you might think. We have adapted to a lot of things. Loss of minimap, loss of rally points, deviation - and many of these things have changed gameplay for the better. Don't be afraid to experiment with things like removal of friendly positions on the map for everything below commander. It might actually turn out that people will then see the value of the commander role. Or it might fail, but we can always hotfix these things, or make an open beta to test them while the regular PR remains playable.

Agree.

I thought holding ground/controlling areas was the main target. I could always however be wrong. Kills are a secondary compared to objectives.

DDS wrote:PR is fast approaching v1.0, not much room to steer one way or the other.

IIRC one of the devs stated that 1.0 will be just another number, nothing special.

SGT.Ice wrote:I thought holding ground/controlling areas was the main target. I could always however be wrong. Kills are a secondary compared to objectives.

In real life you can make your enemy fall back (even from a well-defended position) by gaining tactical advantage, ie. flanking them, or having a lot of firepower concentrated on them. In PR the only way to eliminate them is to kill them, as every enemy will try to do as much damage to you as he can, not minding his own survival.

I make tactical withdrawals alot, cause charging an enemy head on usually gets you killed. That being said. The larger view of flags and not leaving them, or risking so much just to get in the cap zone does tend to promote quite suicidal actions.

If we start playing AAS, with no flags. What would happen? Would the CO, or a "CO" similar person be more required?

Wicca wrote:I make tactical withdrawals alot, cause charging an enemy head on usually gets you killed.

That's withdrawing because you can't kill enemy while you attack. I was rather speaking of withdrawing on defense.

Wicca wrote:That being said. The larger view of flags and not leaving them, or risking so much just to get in the cap zone does tend to promote quite suicidal actions.

The whole concept of respawns promotes suicidal actions, if there were a possibility to strap a c4 to your helmet and detonate it I bet people would be using it. That's why I came up with one life event idea.

Wicca wrote:If we start playing AAS, with no flags. What would happen? Would the CO, or a "CO" similar person be more required?

You should remember THAT EVENT. Was the commander more required then? I can't tell you cause I can barely remember anything.

Well in the 200 player event, there was 12 man squads. And not to mention 100 players per team. PR standard wasnt the same.

however it was awesome

But, i remember having 1-3 SLs working togheter from time to time. The only objective was killing enemies and their ASSETS. and the game was alot more dynamic and fun IMO.

Not to mention the 1.5km View distance.

The whole idea is to create less incentive to get killed, without making the game unplayable lugi, having one life per server, is unrealistic. in a gameplay point of view. Slowing the game pace down, or letting the player decide the pace is far better.

// Wicca out

Wicca wrote:But, i remember having 1-3 SLs working togheter from time to time. The only objective was killing enemies and their ASSETS. and the game was alot more dynamic and fun IMO.

Yup, I would like to see more events like that, especially if the devs wont't decide to try out some maps with no flags.

Wicca wrote:Not to mention the 1.5km View distance.

It's awesome but on such empty map could be pushed further.

Wicca wrote:The whole idea is to create less incentive to get killed, without making the game unplayable lugi, having one life per server, is unrealistic. in a gameplay point of view.

What do you exactly mean?

Wicca wrote:The whole idea is to create less incentive to get killed, without making the game unplayable lugi, having one life per server, is unrealistic. in a gameplay point of view. Slowing the game pace down, or letting the player decide the pace is far better.// Wicca out

Agree Wicca. People having to sit out a 2 hour game would not go over well. Maybe something more inline with 3 strikes (deaths) your out. But that is a hard sell.
I always thought the point system was idiotic. No incentive for certain tasks.

DDS wrote:Agree Wicca. People having to sit out a 2 hour game would not go over well. Maybe something more inline with 3 strikes (deaths) your out. But that is a hard sell.

Well, the most realistic game ever is not for casuals. What I would like to see is some sort of PR tournament with having only one life per the whole competition, and with more harsh way of dealing with wounded (you go down->revive->gotta drop your kit and get evac to the main, then you disconnect and can't take part in the rest of the battle but you can come back in the next one). That probably sounds like s-f to you guys, but I hope I'll ever have a money and power to organise something like that. But I've got a feeling that community just won't like it (even if we could get rid of these random deaths due to bugs).

Yes, thats all fine Lugi . But this discussion is regarding the public commanding, and how games could be made better with a CO.

Not to make a tournament.

I think making some events with no flags, and removing mumble out of the equation. Would be interesting.

Not to mention making the CO have full rights on making FOBs etc. Would make it more powerfull being a CO.

an event with that would be good.

And having one death per battle is unrealistic cause people dont want to play like that. Do you honestly think people go to war for fun? If they risk getting killed? Sure its exciting, but when your dead, your dead. And i dont think anyone even wants to "mimic" that

So playing a game, where you can try again, is better. Than on try, and your out kinda apporach to it. Complicating it with "strikes" or similar. Makes games very frustrating, cause you end up hearing how pissed people get over getting killed, or retarded mistakes etc. Its a game, its to be enjoyed not raged over.

Lugi wrote:Yup, I would like to see more events like that, especially if the devs wont't decide to try out some maps with no flags.

I tried this on Shijia Valley, where there were only two flags (Supply Line and Uranium Mine). My thought was that it would open possibilities and require more realistic coordination and teamwork... but 99% of the people that posted about it either didn't like it or thought it was a bug, so I removed that AAS "route".

So yeah, we do try stuff.

Ah dude, we had an excellent game on Karez with 200 players NO FLAGS ! was good fun!

Should try that out.

I want to see how it plays out on 64, i shall endevour to do so.

Going CO is kind of a catch 22 thesedays. In the early days most people had no clue how to play PR, now there are a lot of Veterans on, who get by fine without a CO telling them what to do. The thing with going co is, if you have a team that is responsive, they dont need that much help, although you can fine tune it. If you do have a team, that needs help badly, they usually ignore the CO, the reason being they do badly is partly because of their attitude.

But yeah with the addition of the UAV the commander has even more powers. Spotted for a mortar squad on Muttrah once and got scores of kills.