Project Reality Forums

I think its time to stop worrying about the noobs messing up the game for the real teamplayers.
What i rly like about the suggestion is that itll give back the Commander to the game.

LudacrisKill wrote:Not a good idea, these ideas would maybe work with experienced players, however, with PR growing in popularity many new players are on the scene. Think how hard it will be for them to cope with these changes.

It will be even harder and more fustrating to have a nice functional team.

This IS a GAME, remember that, realism is good but lowering gameplay standards for realism is a STEP BACK in my opinion.

These 'changes' will only be changes to people who've played a lot of vBF2 or its mods. For people starting out fresh it will be the way it is. They won't know any different. And yes, i know since it is a mod, a lot of people will have played vBF2 before playing PR. But, honestly this would be more of a problem for people who've played PR for a long time. They would be used to doing things the way they do, and now we're changing a key element that will cause them to create new ways of doing the same things. It's a change for us. For new players or even people who haven't gotten used to PR's team work/squad system, it will be easier to not rely on pulling up the map and checking if they're friendly. They will naturally use their scope, or binoculars. Because, that's what they learned from the start.

I can't see this being any more damaging then removing the mini-map. Thats something that is in most shooting games, especially team shooters, and we've adapted nicely to that. Why not this too?

This change would go good with the new dependence on APCs coming in .85. If we kept the full map view for people in vehicles, your squad leader could jump in and check out the situation of the other squads and then make a decision based on that. Instead of carrying his portable blue force tracker around with him wherever he goes.

Engineer wrote:We already lack proper means of communication, pushing this responsibility more to Commanders alone wont work. Instead of making communication harder, it should be made easier.

This won't hurt communications. You would still have voip with your squad, voip to commander, & text chat. Nothing lost.

Commanders would have a more important role because they can issue orders, not because they can communicate to other squads. If that was such an asset, more people would be commander now. And, not having a commander at all(even if everyone on the battlefield has the same map as him) is what hurts communication. Without a commander your team is forced to rely on text chat, which a good amount of people(rightfully so) don't pay attention to. Even if you know the players name, location, squad, etc. A commander that can voice to voice with him or his squad leader is better then being able to watch his dot move around on a map.

If these changes were implemented. People would want to be commander, not because they get to relay messages to all the squads, they would be commander because the squads, for the most part don't know what is going on elsewhere, and need direction. They only know whats happening where they are. So they would generally listen to someone who had a view of the bigger picture. Squads would, unlike now, follow a commanders orders, even in pub games.

When you have a team of upto 9 commanders and 23 soldiers (who know as much as the commanders) who wants to jump in and start bossing people around? Even as squad leader, i feel like people don't listen to you as much as they agree with your orders. I'm guilty of it myself, second guessing my commanding officer. When i see something they might have missed, or our priorities differs. I will offer my advice, or wander off course, or quit the squad. But, maybe he didn't miss it, and his actions were intentional. I have now allowed myself to question his authority, in front of the whole squad, so now other soldiers start to do the same. The seeds have been planted. Honestly, i try my best not to do this. To obey them blindly. But, the only reason i am tempted to question them, is because i am given all the facts and information they are.

McLuv and i have the same analogy in mind, in RTS games your units(squad or individuals) don't get to see whats happening anywhere but their own radius. So, they don't react, when your forces start getting wiped out somewhere else. Which is a good thing, because you don't want to come back and find them all grouped together, in front of the enemy's super weapon, half of them dead and the rest rushing in blindly, because all they can see are the bodies. The units wait for your orders, they follow your strategy, because isn't that the point of being commander? The game is in your hands, you win or lose. Your squads(and squad leaders) only responsibilities are to follow your orders and stay alive.

I agree on that part. For the CO's its going to be great being the all knowing they should be. I would definatly want to see hows that like. Will need a lot of readjusting and the game will get a lot harder but it can work out good!

But for the players sake Im still not sure what is the best. Sure it helps the CO players a lot! (and thus myself cause I like the idea of being a CO like that) but It will give a lot of room for screwing up!

Tannhauser wrote:Like you said, texture is highly problematic, even on high end texutres. It would also be extremely hard to read the map thrown on the ground from a players perspective.

Why, the whole squad could use stare on the ground with their binoculars..

[quote=""McLuv"]Exactly the point. Wouldn't this heavily stress the need for a commander? i've listed the reasons I don't play as a commander anymore, and it's not because of his job. It's because the squads already coordinate themselves without the need for a commander, and therefore you don't actually get a say often in what's happening. Reducing a squad's awareness of every part of the battlefield and giving it to the commander gives his job mean, and value.[/quote]

It doesn't matter if it would heavily stress need for a commander or not, there still won't be a commander most of the time. Even in 0.7 when Firebases were required to be placed by CO, not everyone went CO. You can't put something that important in the hands of a Commander who may never come.

-The JDAM is cosmetic, its not essential to winning.

-Spotting enemies is not essential to winning as you can hear them coming with your own sound, not CO's spots.

-Placing Firebases is essential to winning, but even in 0.7, you had an alternative of Rally Points so when your CO wasn't there half the time, you wouldn't be screwed.

-Seeing your squad and friendlies on the minimap "IS" issential to winning and not causing FF. Unless there is always someone there to be CO 100% of the time and knows what they are doing, then there is not point in taking away minimap.

Also, I guess you guys are forgetting the biggest thing. Take away the minimap, and then you would have every single squad on the team at 1 flag, and no one at any other flag because they would not be able to see friendlies there.......

[quote="ChizNizzle""]Its true that you arent briefed but u play those maps all the time so you know the place... Awarness is something to be considered tho.

And for working with another squad, SL1 must report to CO to get the position of closest squad, then CO must reply back to SL1 and give him rendezvous point, then talk to SL2 to stop moving (or go to a meeting point), and warn SL1 and SL2 from wich side both will be coming to avoid frendly fire... May be long lasting process but it would be awesome IMO[/quote]

No, it would not be awesome.

1. No CO half the time. Don't put your team's faith in a person or smacktard who may never come. With 0.7, there was always alternatives to not having a CO. With this suggestion, you making a CO a REQUIREMENT, and unless you show me how you can get a compentent person in there 100% of the time, it isn't worth the risk.

2. Just because the CO gives the location of the nearest squad doesn't mean they will be there when you get there. If you can't view your minimap and see that they are getting wiped out, then you are essentially going to your own death by going straight into the fire. You wouldn't know to flank.

3. Not everyone has VOIP and just because you have a CO doesn't mean everyone magically begins to listen to him. I know for a fact that half the squads usually do not follow CO or are too slow with his orders from 0.7 and 0.8.



And as I said, I guess you guys are forgetting the biggest thing. Take away the minimap, and then you would have every single squad on the team at 1 flag, and no one at any other flag because they would not be able to see friendlies there.......

badmojo420 wrote:McLuv and i have the same analogy in mind, in RTS games your units(squad or individuals) don't get to see whats happening anywhere but their own radius.

That's the problem. In an RTS game, your units are Computer Controlled AI who follow your orders. This is with real people who aren't controlled and who aren't likely to follow your orders most of the time. Some don't even have VOIP or even talk to the commander in chat. And just because the CO gives them an order to link up with another squad doesn't mean it would work. For all I know, the CO could be sending my squad into a meat grinder or he could be sending all the units to 1 flag, but leaves the other totally undefended or unattacked.

Everyone should have a topographical map.

LudacrisKill wrote:Not a good idea, these ideas would maybe work with experienced players, however, with PR growing in popularity many new players are on the scene. Think how hard it will be for them to cope with these changes.

It will be even harder and more fustrating to have a nice functional team.

This IS a GAME, remember that, realism is good but lowering gameplay standards for realism is a STEP BACK in my opinion.

I came to Project Reality precisely because I was looking for a far more teamplay-oriented, realistic experience.

I was very surprised and confused at first with the lack of minimap, the numbered respawn locations, the missing red names on enemies, etc. But I was happy with all these changes from the very start, and I grew fond of them.

I think nearly all new players come to PR for the same reason, and we should not underestimate that. All of the people who liked the idea in this thread were once new players themselves. Some are even pretty new, like me.

I agree this is a radical idea (though I personally think removing the top-right minimap is far more radical, yet it has been done), but I think the decision on whether or not to incorporate it should depend entirely on how it plays in beta tests, not how it would theoretically appeal to new players.

Oak wrote:I came to Project Reality precisely because I was looking for a far more teamplay-oriented, realistic experience.

I was very surprised and confused at first with the lack of minimap, the numbered respawn locations, the missing red names on enemies, etc. But I was happy with all these changes from the very start, and I grew fond of them.

I think nearly all new players come to PR for the same reason, and we should not underestimate that. All of the people who liked the idea in this thread were once new players themselves. Some are even pretty new, like me.

I agree this is a radical idea (though I personally think removing the top-right minimap is far more radical, yet it has been done), but I think the decision on whether or not to incorporate it should depend entirely on how it plays in beta tests, not how it would theoretically appeal to new players.

It has nothing to do with new players at all. Even for the most experienced players in PR, it would totally break up team cohesion. The minimap from the top is taken out sure, but we still have a backup one so we have a way to view where other players are on the map. You take the players on or the minimap off completely and you completely eliminate any way of SLs seeing other SLs locations, squads linking up with each other, where friendly armor is, where to be dropped off in choppers next to other friendly squads, what flags to even attack, etc.

And you cannot depend on the CO for basic stuff such as this. If you do, then you are waiting for a person who may never come, and if he does, who says he will do his job correctly?


Tell me 1 thing, just 1 that is to be gained by taking this away? It doesn't free up clutter on the screen since it is a pop up minimap. It just makes the game unncessarily hard. And you can't hide behind the excuse of "realism" because in real life, we have something called awareness etc.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:Tell me 1 thing, just 1 that is to be gained by taking this away? It doesn't free up clutter on the screen since it is a pop up minimap. It just makes the game unncessarily hard. And you can't hide behind the excuse of "realism" because in real life, we have something called awareness etc.

I've listed many on the front page. There are others too, that would come about. You may not agree with these reasons, but it doesn't mean they haven't been mentioned.

As to your posts saying that this will completely scatter the players, because there is only a commander half of the time, I have to disagree. You can still put markers on what needs attacking to get a sense of squad direction, but to get the full coordination you should have a commander. The posts regarding the lack of commanders are moot because they regard the commander of 0.8, which is moot. With the proposed changes a commander would actually be extremely beneficial to the entire team, whereas it is currently no better then a player taken off the field to fire some Arty every hour. I'm also surprised you've actually seen commanders half the time, unless you're talking about pre-0.8 builds. Currently I've not ever seen a single commander play an entire game, and the only commanders I've seen ever try to command and not just grab an officer kit/drop a JDAM have occurred about once in a hundred games. The loss of inter-squad reliance will allow the commander to perform his job.

And, if it weren't only for that, it would also add a new level of immersion into the game. You'll still be aware of your surroundings, if not more, because you'll actually use your environment to get a sense of where you are going rather than a HUD based map in front of your face that's open half the time. If anything, this will make squads more aware of their surroundings, because there are many things that you can miss in your environment currently because you might be using the HUD map for navigation, rather than your surroundings.

McLuv wrote:I've listed many on the front page. There are others too, that would come about. You may not agree with these reasons, but it doesn't mean they haven't been mentioned.

I didn't say there weren't any mentioned, I said tell me one that would be gained by taking it away? None of these are benefical to gameplay.

1. The need to use landmarks to know where you're going and not get lost.

Everyone knows the maps and the best spots to attack or defend. If you get lost on any map, then you should probably stop playing lol. But ok, lets say you get lost. How exactly does that make the game fun....

2. The need to correctly ID targets through their uniforms before firing

That's already in game with no tags, and guess what? There is still tking. If anything, the minimap STOPS tking because if you aren't sure the person over there is an enemy, check your minimap. Minimap= akin to yelling at them from across the field and IDing yourself rather than popping your head up long enough for a tag to appear in which case you will get popped.

O yea, real good IDing targets does with collaborators too. I guess that's why no one plays them anymore.....

2.A heavier reliance of the commander to give friendly positions.
Another advantage to having a commander, because of an all-revealing map.

Friendlies are always moving and to win a PR Pub game, it is about which side moves the quickest. By the time the CO puts down a marker saying where friendlies are, they will have moved or got eliminated for all we know. How does that help gameplay? The Commander already has to put down markers of where the enemy is, so you propose to clutter the minimap up by having to put friendlies as well?

And its not up to a Commander in real life to lead a fireteams, squads, or platoons. He gives their supperiors a briefing, then they do it the way they need to. The enlisted do the work in the military, not the Officers which the CO is. You are trying to make the SLs too dependent on the CO on things they handle themselves IRL. FOBs are a different story though.

4. A more in-depth playing experience.

It's actually less indept because now you are just moving from place to place without even knowing where your team is. Sure, a CO may help, but even with the firebases in 0.7, how many people went CO? Probably half, and than at least half of them were idiots or incompetent.

5.An expanded hierarchy providing each higher level (SM, SL, Commander) with better tools to be situationally aware. (from no map, to topographical map, to satellite map with friendly positions).

So how exactly are you more aware without a minimap? A minimap is real time, like if I looked around and saw my friendlies running forward. When the CO posts a location, it isn't real time, its old the second he puts it down cus the target has likely moved. Enemy Location Markers are there for a general idea of where the enemy is. Putting SL markers down won't work because knowing where friendly squads are and linking up with them is more precise.

6.Makes the commander useful, as he can keep his job, but is the only one aware of all the battlefield intel. He can now be used to coordinate the squads properly, since they'll need to rely on him.

Again, there isn't always going to be a CO. Don't rely on 1 man to win the game. If you do, then the game is not going to be FUN, which it is about in the first place. I agree, the CO needs to return to the way he was in 0.7, but this is not the way. There are other ways to make him an important tool to winning, but not solely on him to win the game.

As to your posts saying that this will completely scatter the players, because there is only a commander half of the time, I have to disagree. You can still put markers on what needs attacking to get a sense of squad direction, but to get the full coordination you should have a commander.

So now you are contradicting yourself. You said before that by eliminating the minimap or troop locations, it would make the forces more dependent on landmarks. So if there is still going to be a minimap (but without frienlies), how does that make the troops more dependent on landmarks? If anything, that makes them bust out their minimap, check if there is a mountain there, walk around the mountain with their minimap up, and continue......

But anyways, next point. Yea, lets say you can still put down attack markers. So now you will have the whole team attacking 1 flag instead of both. How is that benefical to gameplay? It makes everything a cluster f*ck and frag fest by essentially putting 32v32 people.

The posts regarding the lack of commanders are moot because they regard the commander of 0.8, which is moot. With the proposed changes a commander would actually be extremely beneficial to the entire team, whereas it is currently no better then a player taken off the field to fire some Arty every hour.

It seems you just dont get it. Of course a CO is benefical, but that is just it, he should be a benefit, not be reliant upon. He BENEFITS the team by being there, but at the same time, the team SHOULDN'T BE RELIANT UPON HIM TO WIN. There should be other ways because as I said and you can't seem to get, is that a CO isn't going to be there most of the time.

The loss of inter-squad reliance will allow the commander to perform his job.

:Facepalm:

And how many times when there was a CO in 0.7, did the SLs follow his commands? Where his commands even good at that...........

Just because you make someone more reliant on someone else, doesn't mean it will happen.

And, if it weren't only for that, it would also add a new level of immersion into the game. You'll still be aware of your surroundings, if not more, because you'll actually use your environment to get a sense of where you are going rather than a HUD based map in front of your face that's open half the time.If anything, this will make squads more aware of their surroundings, because there are many things that you can miss in your environment currently because you might be using the HUD map for navigation, rather than your surroundings.

Dude, everyone knows the maps and their "surroundings". You aren't going to magically get lost and most of us already know the best spots to attack or hold. We aren't missing anything. What, are we missing a special bush or building or something?

And someone isn't going to magically walk into a flag with their minimap up instead of their weapon.

/End rant.

As to my posts, about getting "lost", you can get lost if you are not following a marked path, such as a road, or a landmark say. You won't be getting "lost" in the sense that you'll have no idea of where you are going, but without landmarks and a map, you can't know your exact location.

On IDing targets. Of course the minimap stops TKing. Are you suggesting we put it back? Taking friendly fire off also stops TKing. So does playing with name tags, as you've said. But none of these work as realistically as actually IDing your targets. AS to your point about the collaborator not being IDed, it's a completely different situation. Why? Because the coalition doesn't have any incentive to stop and ID their targets as soon as they've figured out (quite easily) that they're not friendlies.

COs shouldn't be worried about having to ID targets unless an SL has seen movement somewhere, but they couldn't properly ID them, so they put a marker on their last known position and ask. What's wrong with that?

You've also completely misread my 5th point. "An expanded hierarchy providing each higher level (SM, SL, Commander) with better tools to be situationally aware. (from no map, to topographical map, to satellite map with friendly positions)." means that each level up has has better tools for an overall awareness. I didn't know your average squad irl had tools to real time location of friendly troops. Please post a link showing it is common place.

You won't be relying on one man to win the game, but a lot should depend on it. COs should be more valuable than any other player on the field, There is a mutiny function if you have an inept commander, but I'm sure the role of commander would be much more alluring if you can actually command.

My other point was partly my fault, but also partly a miss. It would still be possible to use 3d markers (the ones on the screen), simply for squad coordination. I did not intend for it to be indicative of one placing the marker on the map as it is now.

Currently, the CO may actually be less beneficial than any of the players on the ground, because he can try to communicate, but often to little or no avail. He launches a JDAM, yea, but only once an hour. meanwhile he's a man off the field who can't help capture flags, support infantry, provide transports, heal friendlies, blockade roads, recon, or anything else. THis is especially apparent when you've just taken out anywhere between 3 and 10 % of your team's force.

For my last point, of course people don't have their maps up at all times. But it's often the case that they'll set themselves an artificial goal on the map and ignore most other things in a concentrated effort to reach that point. It's not a big point, but it is one nonetheless.

All in all, the way you keep talking about this, it almost seems as if we should include UAV radars because you don't know where the enemy is and it's too bothersome to try and find them

00SoldierofFortune00 you must really hate the new changes to .85, relying on APCs and logistics squads? Nobody drives APCs for transport now, and nobody runs logistics squads for anything other then farming jeeps, it should be an epic fail then?

I've read all your posts, and i don't really feel like replying to all of your comments. But, i disagree with all of them, and its clear you're not going to even try to see it the way we do. You hear what you want to hear, and ignore the IDEA behind this. Why must you search for a detail in this system that might fail? It's a suggestion, it's not a perfect system set in stone. Can you give me one GOOD reason why infantry troops need to know the locations, names & squads of every other player on the battlefield, at all times? And TK'ing isn't a reason. It will happen no matter what. We could have huge blue names above heads that you can see from the other side of the map, if theres friendly fire people will TK.

As far as this not being realistic. I'm not in the military, but I'm pretty sure they don't issue a nice color display to every infantry soldier, to carry around and keep tabs on everyone's whereabouts. It's more likely that they(or even groups) would be issued a device that tracks them. And the displays would be used in vehicles and command centers. Where massive TK'ing can happen without it.

In fact i think a great idea would be to add a chair to the firebases, so a squad leader could sit down at the radio and look at the full map. Someone suggested this for the commander, but it would be better suited to SLs if these changes happened. Maybe even put extra "seats" for squad members to come in and see what the SL is seeing.

Ok, so to reiterate, I just want to know your reason the infantry units(not in vehicle) should keep their wrist watch blue force tracking systems. Having no commander and incompetent players aside. A real reason game-play would be so much better with it.

If SOF doesn't like an idea, he will flame it and will not change his argument no matter what you say, even if you prove him wrong, so don't waste your breath (figuratively speaking).

Badmojo: Nice idea at first about the map at the firebase but dont forget its a game and people abuse gameplay elements. You will get squads that go on defense and the SL man that map all the time so the squad has a good intel.

I kinda get what SOF means though. We cant be a 100% sure we will get a CO every game when he is almost required to win. If we had than I would fully support this. Now Im only 75% for and 25% against. Theres still some things that Im doubting about

I fully agree the CO needs to be the all knowing and by changing this we can have the CO's we need. Than the CO can actually command because they know where the rest is and can instruct the rest accordingly.

But still. When theres no CO player, or the feel like your out there on the field with other squads. It might be just a bit more like you and your squads against the other team. Wandering in a friendly squad every once in a while.

cyberzomby wrote:Badmojo: Nice idea at first about the map at the firebase but dont forget its a game and people abuse gameplay elements. You will get squads that go on defense and the SL man that map all the time so the squad has a good intel.

I kinda get what SOF means though. We cant be a 100% sure we will get a CO every game when he is almost required to win. If we had than I would fully support this. Now Im only 75% for and 25% against. Theres still some things that Im doubting about

I fully agree the CO needs to be the all knowing and by changing this we can have the CO's we need. Than the CO can actually command because they know where the rest is and can instruct the rest accordingly.

But still. When theres no CO player, or the feel like your out there on the field with other squads. It might be just a bit more like you and your squads against the other team. Wandering in a friendly squad every once in a while.

SL couldn't sit on the map the whole round or you'd never be able to set rallypoints or other firebases. It's just a suggestion so when no vehicles are around you still have access to the map. If nobody goes commander, sure you can act as commander sitting on a firebase. But you lack the area attack, and SL voip, so why not just go commander?

Your concerns sound like there will be no maps except for the commanders. All vehicles from the M1A2 to the insurgent dirt bike would still need to have the full map and mini map. So when nobody is commander it would be an easy task to jump in a vehicle, look at the map, and decide where to attack or defend based on what others are doing. 90% of the time you use a vehicle to get to the flag. The rest of the time you should either be focused on that objective, or have already built a firebase in the area. Sure, there would be times when you are without a vehicle, or firebase, spawning on a rallypoint. With no idea if the other squads are doing what they should. But you'll know what your current objective is and how that is going. And it's as easy as texting 'Anyone attacking docks?' and you'll have a few people at least with map access at the time.

I don't think a commander would be required to win.