Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:32**

bigbossmatt wrote:I'm beginning to really not like the way this mod is going with over complicity.

I'm going to get flamed, I don't mind.

I am not saying realism isn't great, as I love that to no end, but the implementations of :
You can place 1 bunker for every 3 CPs you control. You can place ONE and ONLY one firebase. Defensive bunkers must be placed within 100m of a controlled CP. Firebases must be placed more than 100m from ANY CP.
is ridiculous.

...to me, anyway.

I am sick of learning the hard way (by dieing) for mundane things like sitting in a turrent without a crewkit, etc...or being required to be an officer to be a squad leader. But then again, I no longer play SL...

I want realistic gravity, etc etc, and wicked model sounds/guns etc, not complicated rules regarding how to use equiptment. All the request kits atm should be pick ups, because it is too difficult.

I've never given negative opinions about pr before, but after 0.4 server side fixes, I was becoming jaded, sad to say, this is becoming not for me. Hey, you guys should be happy, if its not for me and I move on, then the community becomes populated with more of the people you want

Don't get me wrong, I love the work you are doing, it pwns over vbf2 any day, and I can't make a mod of my own, so I can't complain, I will voice my opinion, because I care for this mod and if my opinion is shared by a number of people, then it should be heard.

Perhaps the mod team who spend countless hours weekly making this game for us, don't realize that many of us cannot take the time to learn all the rules, due to rl commitments... Perhaps the new rules seem easy or obvious to them because they come up with them, discuss them and implement them, when we only have to learn them, given that we don't spend hours devising them, just have to deal with them ingame, making it harder to learn.

Hey, if I could simply know all the rules, that would be great. Yes, I am aware of the wiki.

Hugs all round.

Think of it as player control.

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:39**

bigbossmatt: The way PR currently works and will continue to move toward, is like this:

grunt/squad member - needs to know the bare minimum on how to play (how to be a medic, how to be a rifleman, how to be AT, etc)

squad leader - needs to know more than a grunt, how to setup an RP, how to organise a squad, vehicle restrictions, etc

commander - needs to know considerably more than even squad leader, needs to be a veteran, and needs to have a sense of tactics and strategy. basically, needs to be smarter than your averag cookie

so judging by your comments and your gamestyle, I think just werent cut out for an important leader role in the battlefield

But that doesnt mean you cant play the way you do now, you just cannot take a leadership role.
IMO its realistic in the sense that, in the real military, 'veterans' will generally hold a higher rank, and are more experienced so are more likely to know more 'tricks of the trade'. Whereas new players, they start at the lower end of the ranks, not having much experience.

The idea with new commander assets, is that eventually we have players who ONLY play as commander, and are quite good at it. And its actually a role that is quite fun to play

So you, the run and gun style player, are not interested in commander. However thats not to say that other players wouldnt be interested.

But its fine to stay as a grunt, each person is good at a role and I think its good to appeal to a diverse range of different play styles.

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:41**

Or as my grandfather used to say " Don't study, the world needs ditch diggers "

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:47**

Somehow I don't really like this.
It just ruins some realism for me when you build bunkers and such out of "nowhere".
Great things from a technical view though.

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:48**

The way I see it, 0.5 is a stepping stone. I rarely play 0.5 but I know my schedule is going to take a beating once 0.6 comes out.

Posted: **2007-03-30 09:55**

AfterDune wrote:@ 00SoldierofFortune00
Not every map requires both a tank AND a pilot crew, so all should be good. I'm sure the devs have thought about this one .

Just because there isn't 1 of those vehicles, doesn't mean there won't be campers. There will be guys camping for vehicles such as jets, choppers, or in the back base waiting for armor. I like the idea of a squad to help the commander out, but it is kind of asking for a lot in terms of players and right now, it is already hard to get players to defend a flag without going off and losing it.

@ SoldierofFortune: true in ways , but even in PR ive hardly if any times seen 9 squads on a team so i think a engi squad to help commander wont damage anything.

You misunderstood. I don't think all the squads will be filled up, but not enough people doing things in those squads. I have seen 9 squads before(on servers that require them like TG), but only half or less actually help take the flags. The rest run off, camp, or do what they do, but not attack/defend the key flags.

Posted: **2007-03-30 11:13**

bosco: they wont be 'coming out of nowhere'.... they will be coming out the support truck which will be able to amply hold the materials needed to build the bunker...

Posted: **2007-03-30 11:33**

You are geeks...really.
No one ever (I suppose Dice included) would have imagined this is possible

Posted: **2007-03-30 11:36**

Say, will the commander support vehicle (CSV?) look exactly the same as the ammo/support vehicle we have in-game already? Would be nice if there was some kind of difference there

(unless CSV == ammo/support truck?)

Posted: **2007-03-30 12:47**

Since you need 2 engys to build something, will the CSV (I adapted it already) be able to carry 2 passengers ?

Posted: **2007-03-30 13:07**

quite a few good changes in there dont think it all will fall to gether in all the servers as you need ALOT of team work to get all the things build and I'm not gonna be one of the engineer that hooks up with another to go and do stuff that the commander tells me to do,
I think this is extreemly borring as 300 tickets can take over half an hour to get over with,
but the ideas sound cool only I think they should be made easyer to deploy and use

Posted: **2007-03-30 13:26**

Have/will there be any changes/ or extra benifits for killing the enemies commander? Or is just taking them out of the game for 30 seconds enough?

It would be cool if when you killed the enemies commander the rest of your team is notified somehow (**** killed enemy commander! Huzzah!) and at least knows for 30 seconds they don't have to worry about an eye in the sky or other commander options.

I think it would also give you incentive to protect your commander.

Posted: **2007-03-30 13:34**

sounds great cant wait for the new changes!!!! one question the engis/crew working with the commander will they have to communicate wit the commander through the SL that is "bodygurding " the commander?

Posted: **2007-03-30 13:40**

Fuzzhead, good points. Even though I won't play those classes because I find them increasingly complicated which removes from enjoyment (for me), I'm not a proletariate.

Squad leading requires too much consideration for other's for me.

Commanding has never interested me, even in vanilla.

Just give me a gun and I'll use ma skillz.

If I can continue to do my thing, and help the army win, I'll be having fun.

Posted: **2007-03-30 14:50**

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:How are we suppose to add another squad to the already large amount required to win?

This is an excellent question.

I atcually believe the .6 CO deal will actually put more boots on the ground where they need to be and when they need to be, thus allowing the large amount required to be satisfied.

I understand now why the devs gave the claymores to the engy.

Like egg said, the engy is the most diverse player on the team (in .6)

Once the structures are built the logistics team can take five and get a cool one... I am only fooling.

From here they will defend the CP. So what the .6 command structure has done is not only make the CO spot better and give the team the advantage if they have a CO, but it also brings about a defensive unit.

Pretty sure the devs do not plan on a couple of engys to work the wrench all the bloody time and not have any fun. Plus, the Rifleman is not going to be a ammo ***** for the builders. There is a CP to defend here people!

I would like to see the new engy come prepacked with 2 claymores, but have them put down up to 8 claymores, and give the blast damage a 100% improvement from .5.

This will better defend against an sapper team from running inside and causing damage and capturing the CP.

With two engy, this could be quite the defended CP.

Plus, both could put down 8 mines and have a nice mine field going.

So the logistics squad will have two roles.

1. Build the stuff Bob the Builder style.
2. Defend the Assests and the CP. Remember, the fortifications will be within 100 meters, so this is rather close to a flag, hence why I typed the logistics team will be on defense detail also.

Again, players my see playing defense as boring or retarded, but that is a good thing, can't have everyone going CO/building/reparing assets, and defending CPs.

Posted: **2007-03-30 15:03**

One issue I can see coming up, especially in smaller(32-50 players) games, is simply a manpower/objective ratio.

How many players will it take to make these cool new features feasible on the battlefield, and how long will it take? Even from a league or clan scrimmage point of view(whereas in a pick-up game this would be way more evident) where squads are dedicated and efficient at what they do, would you drop an assault squad or portion of one for a squad that deploys *destructable emplacements that costs tickets?

I obviously haven't tested out these new features myself, but it seems to me that some of said features may fall into a state of non-use simply because it is more efficient to have manpower doing other important things.

A second point I would like to make in regards to pick-up games, is that the engineer may turn into the 'obligatory worker class'. I can see commanders having trouble finding willing 'workers' to carry out their battlefield whims(tactically soundor not), when spamming for a sniper/marksman kit or rushing with 'nades is far more immediately gratifying.

I'm not sure spending manpower to use these new features will be the most tactically prudent decision.

Thoughts?

Posted: **2007-03-30 15:03**

Engineer wrote:Sounds cool, I'm awaiting for to see how it works in Reality.

But I'm having the same concerns as SOF, because of the 'fast' gameplay the PR has now, we dont have enough players to handle the fighting side and capturing flags.

I rarely see other Engineers in the battlefield, but I promise to be a good Commanders personal w*ore and dedicate my life on his commands. And what I get for it? Crappy shotgun and 1 repair point.

Don't worry, they already told us that they are planning on improving the shotguns. I don't know about the repair points though.

Posted: **2007-03-30 15:19**

indigo|blade wrote: I'm not sure spending manpower to use these new features will be the most tactically prudent decision.

Thoughts?

The CO will make the call one what the unit will look like.

He/she has the option to make the team more offensive or more defensive. Clearly on maps where the team is defending, the CO will invest his assets into building such structures (AA nest, that a enemy jet/gunship will not know where is at, hehe).

However, on offensive maps, he/she just needs to focus on making a firebase. Assuming firebase is where the arty will spanwn in at. Making bunkers and such is not that important for a fighting movement always on the go.
But, clearly the CO who has the enemy on the bleed will invest in these assets when they have the enemy bleeding. Would be a great place to hold in and bleed them out.

__

A good CO will need to make the call when to invest (lost tickets) on these assets for certain maps/ certain teams they are on/ and the conditions on the battlefield.

Posted: **2007-03-30 15:28**

"he/She" Come on Rick this is Reality,......just say "he"..................

Project Reality Forums

Commander Changes in v0.6