Project Reality Forums

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote: what about on a map that has no choppers? (at least for one team) I have yet to find the player who gets his adrenaline fix driving a truck to and from battle

Rudd, you've played with Bullseye on TG before, right? Now re-think your statement my friend.

I'm wondering how hunting for rallies will be different from the current tactics, which is hunting for FOBs? Does anyone else wonder this as well?

FOBs/Rallies cause players to give up quickly so they can get their ADD on and get back to the fight immediately. Hasn't this *always* been an issue with the casual, less-teamwork orientated players in PR? They're almost as begrudged as the newbie pilot or the guy who joins your squad just to take a sniper kit and then leaves to lone wolf aren't they?

Perhaps the best "cure" for any problems that a more permanent rally may introduce is more effective leadership from SLs. Order downed players to wait for a medic to revive them. Get them more into the mindset that every life matters to the team and the overall objective. Train them. Make them see "the light". If they won't listen then kick them from the squad. Eventually - hopefully - they'll learn their lesson and start to work with everyone else. If they won't then at least you won't have to deal with them. The reality of it is is that not everyone can be "saved", but it shouldn't be for lack of trying.

This isn't the job of the DEV team, they simply provide the framework for us to play. It is up to the PR community to utilize the tools that they give us to bring the mod "to life" and play the game the way we all want it to be played. The mindset of "it's always someone else's fault" is very counter-productive to us achieving that goal. How about the serious PR players instead bear some of the burden of instilling some teamwork into those that play the mod with us where it is missing? I think we're missing the forest for the trees on this one.

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:snip

While I totally agree with your post that it's the job of SL's in general to show the "light", I think that total removal of RP would benefit this cause. There are lots of ways how to regroup - FOB's, choppers, APC's - people just need to communicate (as can be said about every PR aspect). And if they would lack the possibility to regroup via RP, the communication becomes a necessity. And as PR is all about communication, I don't see how it would hurt the gameplay.

I just really don't like the idea of hunting a really small, well conceivable object on a 4 km map. Yes, if enemy gets closer to it, it disappears, but if hordes of people are spawning on that cleverly hidden RP, than they stand a small chance of overrunning it. It can get frustrating as hell.

^ Presumably the distance has been tweaked though, so that you can't simply use them as camping spawns on the roof of a tall building, etc.

A sound effect for the rally dismantling would be interesting perhaps?

This should be interesting. I know people like logistics but I hate them with a passion and i'm excited to see what a 100p server is like with less people doing admin roles.

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:...It is up to the PR community to utilize the tools that they give us to bring the mod "to life" and play the game the way we all want it to be played. The mindset of "it's always someone else's fault" is very counter-productive to us achieving that goal. How about the serious PR players instead bear some of the burden of instilling some teamwork into those that play the mod with us where it is missing? I think we're missing the forest for the trees on this one.

Well said. I agree it's the community that is at fault here but more so to the server administrators who could enforce or at the least encourage better gameplay. As a squad leader I am fully capable of instilling more teamwork but if i don't have the backing of the server it's a tough sell from squad to squad. There are so many new players who obviously have not been exposed to organized "team play" and it's showing.
Changes to the rally system or any other changes is not the problem.

Dispo and I are working to fix that problem and provide that server.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Rudd;1885073']what about on a map that has no choppers? (at least for one team) I have yet to find the player who gets his adrenaline fix driving a truck to and from battle[/quote]

*Puts hand up* Oh hai Yeah, I do this quite a lot, I can't fly but then logis don't give away FoBs like choppers do so even on 4km maps a logi has its place for FoB squading.

[quote="d1sp0sabl3H3r0""]Perhaps the best "cure" for any problems that a more permanent rally may introduce is more effective leadership from SLs. Order downed players to wait for a medic to revive them. Get them more into the mindset that every life matters to the team and the overall objective. Train them. Make them see "the light". If they won't listen then kick them from the squad. Eventually - hopefully - they'll learn their lesson and start to work with everyone else. If they won't then at least you won't have to deal with them. The reality of it is is that not everyone can be "saved", but it shouldn't be for lack of trying.

This isn't the job of the DEV team, they simply provide the framework for us to play. [/quote]

I completely disagree. The reality is the mechanics the Dev team implement directly affect how players behave, all players. That is the very heart of PR, that's why we have FoBs that takes literal minutes to build by yourself and heavy assets that intrinsically require teamwork to operate; as in, they have to be crewed by more than one person.

A substantial amount of the mechanics in PR are designed to initiate a teamwork mentality, how can you then turn around and say its not the Dev teams fault if something they do degrades that mentality?

I personally have seen good players take the die-respawn-repeat option as standard when given access to a permanent or near permanent rally, I've seen it happen to myself. I don't know how the 1.0 rally system will work, but unless we're talking an overrun radius of hundreds upon hundreds of meters, or some kind of limited spawning, I don't see how it could be anything but degrading to the current level of teamwork.

Web_cole wrote:I completely disagree. The reality is the mechanics the Dev team implement directly affect how players behave, all players.

I personally have seen good players take the die-respawn-repeat option as standard when given access to a permanent or near permanent rally, I've seen it happen to myself.

There are players, me included who choose not to do the "die respawn option" and actually time out waiting for the desperate efforts of a medic, hence the term "I'm dead dead". If there is no medic around the choce is easy. Teamwork continues despite the temptations and the changes the DEV's make. So far they have a pretty good track record.

I cant think of a change in past patches that was so devastating or counter to the game that warrants these alarm bells. I don't think these decisions are made on a whim. With a 100 player server this change might be needed, or maybe not. Well soon find out.


Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk HD

DDS wrote:There are players, me included who choose not to do the "die respawn option" and actually time out waiting for the desperate efforts of a medic, hence the term "I'm dead dead".

Frankly I find that statement borderline condescending. Really? Do such storeyed heroes truly exist? I squad lead on a weekly basis. I run squads with a low deaths mentality; everyone who goes down gets revived, always. I doubt there's many people on these forums who don't know that's how an Infantry squad works, if it can be achieved optimally.

But it is that way for a reason. A large part of that reason is the difficulty in keeping a squad together if people are constantly respawning. The nature of how FoBs work and are placed on the map makes it undesirable to have people respawn there and rejoin the squad, most of the time.

Whereas right now its tactically sound in a lot of situations to wait for revive, an easily placed rally point alters that dynamic. Whereas right now you might tell your medic to go for a "risky" revive even in the midst of an ongoing firefight, because risking your medic to get another gun back into the fight can be a tactically sound decision, again a rally point might make that a sub-optimal decision.

I am not saying this is the end of the world and oh my god this shit fucking sucks. What I am saying is I think re-introducing rallies will subtly alter the way firefights play out and as a medic and a Squad Leader I personally very much enjoy the current tension in the decision making process of how to revive and when to revive. I think a permanent or semi-permanent rally could obsolete much of that decision making process, which would be a shame.

For that specific example the current rally system (lasting 1 min) would do the same job of running away from the fight 100m and setting the rally. I usually placed the longer lasting rally farther away from the fight so it acted as a FOB for my squad, just not quite as far out.

Pretty funny to sit back and watch from a distance. I guess I finally know what it's like to see people argue about something that isn't in the game yet like they feel they know exactly how it's going to pan out. I still remember when APCIFVs functioned as spawn points, and there was just as much teamwork back then as there is now. There was less tedious makework to do back then, but the level of teamwork was exactly the same.

I suppose I should break out some of the numerous responses I've heard in attempting to point out potential flaws.

"We can't know for sure."
"Unwad your panties, X change isn't finalized yet."
"You're wrong, that isn't how this is going to turn out."
"Quit only thinking of yourself and what you enjoy, you're not developing the mod."
"The DEVs are pretty smart, they know what they're doing."

mat552 wrote:Pretty funny to sit back and watch from a distance. I guess I finally know what it's like to see people argue about something that isn't in the game yet like they feel they know exactly how it's going to pan out. I still remember when APCIFVs functioned as spawn points, and there was just as much teamwork back then as there is now. There was less tedious makework to do back then, but the level of teamwork was exactly the same.

I suppose I should break out some of the numerous responses I've heard in attempting to point out potential flaws.

"We can't know for sure."
"Unwad your panties, X change isn't finalized yet."
"You're wrong, that isn't how this is going to turn out."
"Quit only thinking of yourself and what you enjoy, you're not developing the mod."
"The DEVs are pretty smart, they know what they're doing."

It all comes down to the players in the end but the trend in the last years in terms of quality of the playerbase has been a steady trend downwards and IMO gamemechanics have to be adjusted accordingly to counteract this very development. PR isn't anymore about the little hardcore group of players that got hardly 4 servers filled (or even 2 like in the mini-mod days ).

Web_cole wrote: The reality is the mechanics the Dev team implement directly affect how players behave, all players. That is the very heart of PR, that's why we have FoBs that takes literal minutes to build by yourself and heavy assets that intrinsically require teamwork to operate; as in, they have to be crewed by more than one person.

Agree with you completely, and this is what I meant when I said that the DEVs provide the "framework". However, how many times have you seen games when there are no FOBs built? The framework is there, but the players are ultimately responsible for using the tools at their disposal. There are APCs on most maps designed to carry and fight with infantry. This is part of the framework provided, yet how many times do you see mechanized infantry squads working with their steel horses as opposed to how many times have you seen those armored limousines driving off with no infantry inside? Again, the players make a conscious decision not to utilize that framework. There are plenty of other examples, and this is what I meant by my statement.

Web_cole wrote: A substantial amount of the mechanics in PR are designed to initiate a teamwork mentality, how can you then turn around and say its not the Dev teams fault if something they do degrades that mentality?

Simple. It's called freedom of choice. PR is not a "on rails" fps shooter.

Web_cole wrote: I personally have seen good players take the die-respawn-repeat option as standard when given access to a permanent or near permanent rally, I've seen it happen to myself. I don't know how the 1.0 rally system will work, but unless we're talking an overrun radius of hundreds upon hundreds of meters, or some kind of limited spawning, I don't see how it could be anything but degrading to the current level of teamwork.

Agreed. I've also done it to some extent. Ultimately as a SL you need to make the decision of what is best for your squad and best for the team based on the current tactical situation. Do we wait for a medic, or is there another flag that needs reinforcements now that we should spawn back on? Again, tons of examples either way, and once again you have the freedom of choice to play within the framework provided.

So I don't think we're that far off on agreeing, I just should have been a little more clear in explaining my position.

chrisweb89 wrote:For that specific example the current rally system (lasting 1 min) would do the same job of running away from the fight 100m and setting the rally. I usually placed the longer lasting rally farther away from the fight so it acted as a FOB for my squad, just not quite as far out.

A FoB is not a rally and is used differently and placed differently. A permanent rally is not the same as the rally we have right now, they all function differently when they interact with the rest of the game and they all have slightly different affects on gameplay.

For instance, a FoB has to be built, building takes time, it creates a visual and audio affect which could give you away whilst you are vulnerable to attack. You need a vehicle to drop the crate, to build the FoB. All of these things add to a certain profile for where you ideally want to place FoBs, e.g. a significant distance from the fighting in concealment or cover.

A permanent rally might be similar to a FoB in a number of ways, convenience being the major distinguishing factor; you right-click, its done. This ease of use allows you to place it in positions you would never consider building a FoB, probably still a good distance from the fighting, but with the potential for easier access to an area. And if its overrun, well it was just a rally, you get another one in X minutes for free.

I can't really see how you would suggest perm and temp rallies function the same in my above example. I would never consider falling back from a firefight in progress to place a temp rally, it would be unlikely to work and counterproductive to winning the firefight. (I would stress this is different from a firefight that is basically lost where most of your squad are down and you want to disengage to rally them back in).

If I am in the middle of a protracted firefight, I always try to get revives even during the battle, if its "safe enough". With a perm rally close I can see how it would be correct to tell them to respawn in order to win the fight, rather than reviving. Its two different kinds of risk management I suppose, but I believe I would prefer the one that puts more of a value on in game life, because I personally find that more interesting.

mat552 wrote:Pretty funny to sit back and watch from a distance. I guess I finally know what it's like to see people argue about something that isn't in the game yet like they feel they know exactly how it's going to pan out. I still remember when APCIFVs functioned as spawn points, and there was just as much teamwork back then as there is now. There was less tedious makework to do back then, but the level of teamwork was exactly the same.

I suppose I should break out some of the numerous responses I've heard in attempting to point out potential flaws.

"We can't know for sure."
"Unwad your panties, X change isn't finalized yet."
"You're wrong, that isn't how this is going to turn out."
"Quit only thinking of yourself and what you enjoy, you're not developing the mod."
"The DEVs are pretty smart, they know what they're doing."

We have had semi-/permanent rallies in the past, the recent past if you count DB Mod. I'm not sure its unreasonable to extrapolate from our real in game practical experience of the feature & what the decoded changelog says (assuming its accurate):

PYTHON: Implemented rallypoint changes as discussed on the DEV meeting, closes #xxx. No timeout, takes xSL+xSM to place, x enemy very close to destroy (xx, xx, xx, depending on map size). When it's overrun, you can't set a new one for x minutes, when it's not overrun, you can set it x minute later. This is not up for discussion, we'll see how it plays out. Needs testing. (bloodydeed) 18160

And draw some conclusions from there, with varying amounts of salt as needed

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:Agree with you completely, and this is what I meant when I said that the DEVs provide the "framework". However, how many times have you seen games when there are no FOBs built? The framework is there, but the players are ultimately responsible for using the tools at their disposal. There are APCs on most maps designed to carry and fight with infantry. This is part of the framework provided, yet how many times do you see mechanized infantry squads working with their steel horses as opposed to how many times have you seen those armored limousines driving off with no infantry inside? Again, the players make a conscious decision not to utilize that framework. There are plenty of other examples, and this is what I meant by my statement.

If there was a way to force people to use, let's say, APCs in a proper way by changing the mod-design, I'd be all for it. Sadly it isn't possible, or really feasible to assure a smooth gameplay and a such it comes down to server admins and experienced players to "enlighten" the newer players. In the case of rally points, or the general idea of how the virtual life in-game is seen, you can very easily highlight the right way by simply removing features that might lead to unwanted results.

It's like you point someone towards three doors and tell him, only one is the right choice. Sure you can leave the person alone and see if he makes it, or give him a hand and lead him to the right door but why not, instead, simply remove the other doors and leave the only logical choice there. This, of course, only applies if you really want that change and you truly believe in it to be the right decision, in this case I think it's the right thing to make, others don't have to agree.

You can say that the playerbase and community has a great part in improving the situation, yes, that, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't make use of features in-game to diminish unwanted results. Otherwise why do we have the limitation of minimal crew requirements for tanks, etc. That could also be solved through players explaining other players that having a fully crewed vehicle is a lot more effective. Yet we have that in place, why? Because it is more handy. Don't see the point in making it even harder for others to have a proper game, just to keep others on track.

Brainlaag wrote: it comes down to server admins and experienced players to "enlighten" the newer players..

Darn right it does.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

All I have to say is....

"Players are hard coded"

I dont see it that much of a change with all the X still in the change log. I mean right now SLs could mostly set a SL if they retreat a bit at least in my experience.

Dont know what everybody is going on about if you dont know what the X stands for in timing and range and everything?!

okay it is permanent I guess. But I dont see a big problem with it... On big maps it was such a pain if there are no FBs. I will see how it plays out but from a "competition" point of view it makes PR more interesting I think

Oh how loads moaned about the 0874 betas (A,B,C,D) and the new RP mechanics in those, that eventually made it into 0.9

Just need to play it out.

And to echo Conman, "Players are hardcoded"

I DO think that the long rallies induce "give up as fast as possible and respawn at the rally" tactic to win firefight. I also agree that does degrade gameplay a bit. It tends to encourage people to waste tickets.

Has it ever been suggested for rallies to only have a certain number of people allowed to come in on them? I mean if they last a long time, but you can only get 4 men in on it, then it would be completely squandering a very useful reserve of men you have if you frivolously gave up everytime you got shot. With unlimited men per rally, and rallies that last a short time, it's almost as if youre wasting your rally when you're wounded on the ground, and your friendlies are getting shot up. If I were wounded, the rally was due to expire in 1 minute, and my medic might not be able to get to me ever, it seems foolish to even think of waiting for him to revive me. However, if it were to not expire for 20 minutes, only two more men could come in on the rally, and a couple guys in my squad had already been revived, so if shot next they would be "dead dead", then it would be wasteful to give up.

Conman51 wrote:All I have to say is....

"Players are hard coded"

See my signature for the rest of that quote.