Project Reality Forums

Gotta say that all the changes sound great except the commander one - the team without a commander should lose

MadTommy wrote:Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.

x2

Ghost1800 wrote:I'd rather have no commander then one who's only there to be a construction foreman...

Ill rather have construction foreman than a jackass at the helm personally but I dont blame the guys who just build. Your only gonna get less than half the squads to listen to you anyway so why bother? Most people dont experience real strategy because they are not willing to give obedience because they want to have fun even though the real fun is when you have total team coordination. PR Tourney FTW NATO owns

Razick wrote:Ill rather have construction foreman than a jackass at the helm personally but I dont blame the guys who just build. Your only gonna get less than half the squads to listen to you anyway so why bother? Most people dont experience real strategy because they are not willing to give obedience because they want to have fun even though the real fun is when you have total team coordination. PR Tourney FTW NATO owns

but left us for nato 2 ^^ littel basterd xD

jordy wrote:but left us for nato 2 ^^ littel basterd xD

God damn it! Your everywhere

A commander who does nothing except approve build orders is a waste of a position. Giving squads the ability to place assets down without commander approval helps since no one seems to want to be commander. However when a team does have a commander and does relay comm between squads and plans ordered attacks there is a noticeable difference between a team with and a team without. A team who cares about team play and team work will have a commander. Those that do not will not. This does not eliminate the importances of a commander, it simply eliminates the requirement of a commander. Keep in mind that Commander Assets (Command Post and JDAM strikes) will not be available without a commander.

kilroy0097 wrote:Keep in mind that Commander Assets (Command Post and JDAM strikes) will not be available without a commander.

Dunno about JDAMs, but in .8 commander post will be static asset that is placed by mapper. Thus it will be available from the beginning on every round.

Razick wrote:Ill rather have construction foreman than a jackass at the helm personally but I dont blame the guys who just build. Your only gonna get less than half the squads to listen to you anyway so why bother? Most people dont experience real strategy because they are not willing to give obedience because they want to have fun even though the real fun is when you have total team coordination. PR Tourney FTW NATO owns

No one wants to be a commander, because CO can't do anything without becoming a fighting commander, and even then he is on his own. CO can't even build assets he deploys. So give that construction foreman more tools and intelligence info than squad leaders, not to mention about regular grunts.

1. Get rid off the live god-eye mini-map on regular soldiers and replace it with real, cartographic map with no information what-so-ever about other squads actions. Only squad leader markers, outposts and gps-like numeric coordinates should be visible.

2. Using the same type of map, give squad leaders rough live estimate about their location on the map, plus delayed static location info of his squad members and other squad leaders.

3. Give commander same information as today, but on real cartographic map, plus delayed static location info of random enemy assets (intelligence reports, similar to insugency maps). Spawn of varius assets and vehicles should also be under commanders control (and without the need to be requested first)

devnull wrote:
1. Get rid off the live god-eye mini-map on regular soldiers and replace it with real, cartographic map with no information what-so-ever about other squads actions. Only squad leader markers, outposts and gps-like numeric coordinates should be visible.

I say leave the map. Coz its sometimes hard to explait where is enemy just by words. Or you just don't have enough to do it. And since we can't point in the game the litlle red dot or ? marker is all we have.

Or a "attack here" marker, though thats only for SL's. But i'm sure the devs could manage it so you can still see the "?" markers, since they indeed simulate pointing at something somehow.

Keep the map the way it is, countless times have I spotted someone running in the distance and opened up my map to check if it was a friendly. It's saved countless friendlies from being TKed. Without it, how would I verify if it's friend or foe? It'd be far too complicated to open up my map, use a protractor and compass to figure out my bearings, and the location of the enemy I see. Then to type in team chat if any friendlies are there. Then wait and pray to god that they respond, and THEN take the shot.....

kilroy0097 wrote:A commander who does nothing except approve build orders is a waste of a position. Giving squads the ability to place assets down without commander approval helps since no one seems to want to be commander. However when a team does have a commander and does relay comm between squads and plans ordered attacks there is a noticeable difference between a team with and a team without. A team who cares about team play and team work will have a commander. Those that do not will not. This does not eliminate the importances of a commander, it simply eliminates the requirement of a commander. Keep in mind that Commander Assets (Command Post and JDAM strikes) will not be available without a commander.

Yes. Even when I command, I do something else other than Build orders... usually Recon/Transport with the Com. Truck/Bunker-on-demand (run around in Com. truck for those without).

I once spent the last hour of Kashan outside the enemy base (they were MEC), spotting when tanks were leaving or when the frog took off... only at the end did a sniper spot me... then I looked to my left and spotted an enemy rally... took that out, then the round ended.

I tend to try to do useful things when commanding.

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Jaymz;709717']They most definitely will. You'll still need a CO for AreaAttacks (JDAMS) and other toys we have planned for the CO.[/quote]

The JDAMs kind of a novelty right now, so it would really have to be upped in power or the timer decreased in order for anyone to actually go and stay CO.

[quote="MadTommy""]Commander R.I.P. sad, understandable, but the wrong direction. Teams without a commander should loose. Simple Dont dumb down PR.[/quote]

I agree.


Think about this. There is no CO and a stupid SL puts down a firebase in the most obvious spot. Well, you say "Wait for a CO to join to demolish it." Well, the CO joins halfway into the game and by this time, all the people on the team spawning in at that firebase have caused the team to lose a massive amount of tickets and lose. Firebases/Bunkers have the potential to be huge liabilities to the team in this way because we all know that most enemies will choose to camp the firebase/bunker over destroying it when they can. That means massive casulities and massive ticket loss.

Point is

-Bad Firebases/Bunkers= retards spawning into meat grinder


Then you have the rogue or rambo SLs that don't listen to you as I encountered yesterday. If they already have firebases up and they see that I take them down because they were poorly placed, that might have a reverse effect and turn the team against me because I destroyed their spawn. If I just leave it up and tell them to place another in a better spot, they might not listen to me because they already have a spawn and just want to fight.

Either way, lose-lose situation for CO kind of.



IMO, there should be a requirement like a SL having to have a certain amount of teamwork points and 5-6 people in his squad in addition to the points. If not, any CO that comes in midgame or replaces another will not be listened to if the SLs already have the firebases/bunkers up and on maps like EJOD, there is no JDAM for incentive.

CO can also designate a target for LGB from thousands of metres away, via the red cas symbol. Used properly LGB can change the game



They'll always be **** teams and **** servers where sl can get away with ignoring the CO or even tk, etc
I dont think this change will make poor discipline from sl to co any worse or any better really. It should make a regular pub team more organised more often which is good for gameplay.
A bad bunker can be blown up manually still or you could just switch to co for a second and demolish it, none of these changes reduces options allready available

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote:CO can also designate a target for LGB from thousands of metres away, via the red cas symbol. Used properly LGB can change the game

There's only around 2-3 maps with jets though, so it isn't a big enough reason to be CO.

They'll always be **** teams and **** servers where sl can get away with ignoring the CO or even tk, etc
I dont think this change will make poor discipline from sl to co any worse or any better really. It should make a regular pub team more organised more often which is good for gameplay.
A bad bunker can be blown up manually still or you could just switch to co for a second and demolish it, none of these changes reduces options allready available

It also has the potential to be highly abused because with more spawns set by the SLs, it could end up being very vanillaish because you have people running around everywhere instead of making them responsible as with a CO.

And by blowing up a bunker, it takes time and you risk killing friendlies who spawn and being kicked.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:And by blowing up a bunker, it takes time and you risk killing friendlies who spawn and being kicked.

What do you mean ? I thought the bunker only disapeared... ?

Darktrooper wrote:What do you mean ? I thought the bunker only disapeared... ?

That's if you have a CO. He is suggesting that if you don't have a CO, you could just get rid of it yourself as in blowing it up yourself which is risky.

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:can the number of Forward Outposts be diferent in each map? for example maps like kasrahn or quiling will requere more Forward Outposts than mestia or bi ming .

i still want this .