Project Reality Forums

Lugi wrote:How about setting up a training event for commanders? ...

I like this idea. Perhaps a Leader training event. Some folks are getting trained as Commanders and others are being trained as Squad Leaders.

Flags is just an exscuse for people who doesnt know what situational awarness is.

FOBs are hardly defended anyway, and what makes you think people doesnt want to defend a fob? Its all situational and map related, IE a fob on yamalia is often quite useless to defend unless it has some aggressive or defensive weapons, and the enemy is nearby.

Mostly in PR FOBS are used as spawn points and left to just keep that pressure on the enemy flags. Why this is even an argument i dont get?

As for no flags, ive had so many games were most of the time, i had to yell down the necks of SLs leaving the defend flags, and us loosing due to peopls " agressiveness". We lose cause a gamemechanic forces us to be at certain areas, rather than searching for, and engaging the enemy.

CnC is not the same as what i am trying to say.

To make the ingame coordination better, you dont want a gameplay go around a flag, and basically cause the flags are so important, people just focus on the flags.

You want it to go around the players, and make them decide what to do, cause that promotes communication and gameplay. And doesnt make you loose flags cause the enemy has put 3 people on the two next flags in the AAS.

What I meant to say was that without any flags or important FOBs (like in CnC), there's noone defending anything, both teams will be very aggressive. I'd imagine this'd result in very random and partially boring games, as both teams try to sneak around eachother with noone ever being forced to stay anywhere. Interesting if both have a strong commander, but without, that would simply mean that squads would be working together even less than they usually do, simply because they forget their common goal when noone tells them what to do.

I disagree, i mean u usually have 2 squads on a flag that is capable in a game with no CO. and one defending. If your lucky.

Then you have someone building FOBs and others just roaming behind enemy lines or flipping APCs/Trucks.

32vs32 is such a small number that the only thing the flags do, is just to make the small "firefights" occur at the same places all the time, cause of the flags.

Spec wrote:...that would simply mean that squads would be working together even less than they usually do, simply because they forget their common goal when noone tells them what to do.

This is pretty much it.

Sorry Wicca, I completely disagree with your assessment of how players would play with no flags.

What is the military there to do? Basically, without getting into politics and abstract stuff, they're there to accomplish missions. At the level we play at it means occupying territory.

Now, if we were only dealing with Tanks, Aircraft, etc, then yea your idea could work, maybe. But in reality infantry are never used for anything other than taking and holding ground. Even in terms of patrols and sweeps, so called 'Search and Destroy' like in Vietnam, is all relative to an objective.

"We're holding *here*, enemy is *here*, we're gonna go try and kill him as he tries to attack our position.

Without a front line you end up with meandering game play. Without an objective theres no reason for soldiers to be fighting. Rarely do soldiers fight for the sole purpose of killing each other. But lets say its one of those situations where they are, then what? Why would I go around trying to find an enemy to kill that I know is looking for me? Why wouldn't I just take the best piece of defensible terrain and just sit there and wait for the enemy to attack, bleed his numbers? If its all a ticket battle with no flags then attack is wasteful without a clear objective. Fact is that without a point of reference you're just wandering.

If I was Commanding a battle like this I wouldn't fight in large groups. I'd fight it guerrilla style because large formations make for easy targets. In the end then all the squads are spread out barely working together except in small groups.

If there are assets involved then infantry MUST MUST MUST sit tight and hide until someone wins the asset battle, otherwise they're just gonna die for what? Finding an enemy with air superiority?

In the case of battles with no objectives other than to kill the enemy you'd sit still and ambush, move around, ambush, find the best positions, ambush.

The best way to win is to be the first one to spot the enemy, and movement is the one thing that triggers our eyes most of all. So I'd sit in a hole and wait, then 40 minutes later we'd see someone, shoot at them, they'd retreat or take casualties, and we'd redeploy and wait for another indecisive and irrelevant battle.

The whole point of games like PR is to elevate the gameplay ABOVE deathmatch. Otherwise there are better games to play if you just wanna kill people.

If I can compare PR to Poker, Flags are like the Blinds and Antes. They serve to generate action, because without them theres no mathematical reason to put your money into a pot without the absolute best hand. Maps with no flags would be boring and lead to impatience and people would end up going after a firefight and getting themselves killed. Its hard enough to keep people on a flag radius NOW, but telling them to sit tight is hard to explain when theres no flag to justify it.

As for training commanders, it would be a lesson in organizing your thoughts, using a loud voice over a good mic and a whole lot of understanding the maps you play. Most SLs who are a cut above are just waiting to be COs. If you suck at SLing or don't even know the maps enough to do well as an SL then being a CO is like the blind leading the impatient.

PFunk wrote: What is the military there to do? Basically, without getting into politics and abstract stuff, they're there to accomplish missions. At the level we play at it means occupying territory.

In PR, the whole idea is to cooperate in squad and platoon level combat with assets. Teamwork and communication and having fun is one of the key elements of a game.

PFunk wrote: Now, if we were only dealing with Tanks, Aircraft, etc, then yea your idea could work, maybe. But in reality infantry are never used for anything other than taking and holding ground. Even in terms of patrols and sweeps, so called 'Search and Destroy' like in Vietnam, is all relative to an objective.

Infantry is used for everything. How it is used is different from unit to unit. And i dont know how vietnam went down, i wasnt there.

PFunk wrote: "We're holding *here*, enemy is *here*, we're gonna go try and kill him as he tries to attack our position.

Y u no flank? If you think its fun to sit tight and shoot at people then fine. I like to manouver. Ill play PR that way. You can sit in your hole and shoot.

PFunk wrote: Without a front line you end up with meandering game play. Without an objective theres no reason for soldiers to be fighting. Rarely do soldiers fight for the sole purpose of killing each other. But lets say its one of those situations where they are, then what? Why would I go around trying to find an enemy to kill that I know is looking for me? Why wouldn't I just take the best piece of defensible terrain and just sit there and wait for the enemy to attack, bleed his numbers? If its all a ticket battle with no flags then attack is wasteful without a clear objective. Fact is that without a point of reference you're just wandering.

With no objective, IE flags. We would wander around aimlessly and shoot at trees we thought were enemies, only to realise it was part of the local fauna. I mean seriously funk, people arent retards, im pretty sure if they have nothing better to do, they would just look for enemies, and try to kill them. Frontlines in PR arent real, as they are not coverd by a long line of infantry and units on both sides, but just flag after flag being capped, which is a flawed system. Cause people can just rush cap and block the enemy from capping in the first place.

Also what tactic you use to win firefights is your call, i dont suppose alot of people would be in a squad with you, if it ment sitting still for 40 min. Flags mean that you need to go there, now you are free to make more tacical decisions, or no tactical decisions. The only reference you need is where your at, and where your enemy is at.

PFunk wrote: If I was Commanding a battle like this I wouldn't fight in large groups. I'd fight it guerrilla style because large formations make for easy targets. In the end then all the squads are spread out barely working together except in small groups.

That sounds like an interesting tactic, bet i can beat you

PFunk wrote: If there are assets involved then infantry MUST MUST MUST sit tight and hide until someone wins the asset battle, otherwise they're just gonna die for what? Finding an enemy with air superiority?

I think finding enemies at a flag, is easier than looking for him on a larger map. And using air superiority and assets to just rape the hell out of the flags is a easy way to get kills. Now you actually have to put effort in to find the enemy.

PFunk wrote: In the case of battles with no objectives other than to kill the enemy you'd sit still and ambush, move around, ambush, find the best positions, ambush.

The best way to win is to be the first one to spot the enemy, and movement is the one thing that triggers our eyes most of all. So I'd sit in a hole and wait, then 40 minutes later we'd see someone, shoot at them, they'd retreat or take casualties, and we'd redeploy and wait for another indecisive and irrelevant battle.

Well now in PR, we move, sit still wait for flag to cap. Then repeat, or find the enemy and kill him/ get killed. All the difference is more space to do so.

PFunk wrote: The whole point of games like PR is to elevate the gameplay ABOVE deathmatch. Otherwise there are better games to play if you just wanna kill people.

No, the whole point of PR, is to bring a mod as close to reality as possible with as much teamwork and cooperation and communication as possible. If we wanted to ensure PR was faaar above deathmatch and that was the "whole" point. We could make a gamemode that promoted selling icecream to people, and whoever sold the most icecream, WON.

PFunk wrote: If I can compare PR to Poker, Flags are like the Blinds and Antes. They serve to generate action, because without them theres no mathematical reason to put your money into a pot without the absolute best hand. Maps with no flags would be boring and lead to impatience and people would end up going after a firefight and getting themselves killed. Its hard enough to keep people on a flag radius NOW, but telling them to sit tight is hard to explain when theres no flag to justify it.

You cant compare a war game to a card game. Argument invalid. And where are your sources on this?

PFunk wrote: As for training commanders, it would be a lesson in organizing your thoughts, using a loud voice over a good mic and a whole lot of understanding the maps you play. Most SLs who are a cut above are just waiting to be COs. If you suck at SLing or don't even know the maps enough to do well as an SL then being a CO is like the blind leading the impatient.

Everyone has their own way of learning things. And we cant all be leaders, there would be noone left to lead.

All in all, ive played PR with no flags, weather it was CnC or my own map. And cause i was lucky enough to play it with the right crowd, i had a blast. No feeling of frustration when noone defended flags, just pure infantry and armor coordination and pwning. Huge explosions, contacts and suppressive fire, calling mortars. Coordinating with other infantry squads etc etc etc.

Now i dont have to worry about flags, and i cant start thinking about the team. Cause the game isnt thinking for me.

// Wicca out

I may have missed something here... how would your side 'win' without any objectives (ie flags), Wicca? Best KDR after 2 hrs? Counterstrike last man standing?

I play to achieve objectives as a team, not just to win firefights without any benefit of it (eg capturing or defending a flag/FOB/cache etc).

Deathmatch. Fighting until everyone is dead. Perhaps making the main base theoretically cappable on both teams could help giving some other objective, however hard to achieve that would be, so that it doesn't end up being a pure hunt for other players. If the losing side consists mostly of cowards, I fear that they would not seek contact at all and the round would drag on for ages. SOME sort of objective other than the enemy soldiers should be there, at least the main base. 'Cause just hunting down the last enemy standing isn't exactly realistic either. Right now, in PR, you can lose without being utterly slaughtered. Real ends when one sides surrenders, not when one side is completely removed from the face of earth. Some equivalent to losing without losing every single man would imo be better for the game - even if that element is highly unlikely to achieve, like a main base with 20 minutes cap time (and even then, you'd still need to hunt down any FOBs until the enemy have no spawnpoint at all anymore, then they'd auto lose without you being forced to hunt down the last 5 players for another hour).

THEN I'd actually play it. I'm not convinced it'd be great, but I'd gladly let Wicca command and convince me

You said you already did that on an own map, Wicca? Do you plan on repeating that any time soon, as a PRTA event or something?

As far as I am allowed to contribute to that particular topic, I must say that I agree with many things Wicca is pointing out. In the current state of the game, flags force players to act in a pretty limited and repetitive way according to my opinion. The sole reason to have something to fight for shouldnt be the only purpose for flags being in. So you either could increase the reward for capturing and holding a certain area or point in a logical way by giving access to certain assets (e.g. capturing the abandoned airfield in Silent Eagle enables the Germans to have access to CAS), or get rid of them completely and let the players decide which area of a map is actually worth fighting over out of tactical reasons. Furthermore we have already seen that it worked out pretty well regarding the 128p event on Karez Offensive as the map didn't have any flags whatsoever at that time. Although I have to admit that it was a bit of a mess, I think it was mainly because of the players not being used to it.

I think a game i had on Kashan CnC where me and my squad just completly ignored fobs, all we did was hunt enemies. And it was SO much fun. And killing people is so much fun! Especially with CAS

CAS and coordinating a suprise attack coordinating tanks and APCs just to kill shit loads of people THAT IS FUN!

I dont smile when a flag slowly turns blue, i smile when i get kills, and i smile when i see how awesome my team is. What has flags got to do with that?

Wicca wrote:I smile when I get kills

You don't smile that often, do you?

I think, the "clan-tensity" needs to be relieved. If you are in a different clan then someone else you first meet, it's feels like this:




Basically we're all players. If we all break down that barrier (like I try to do ) then imo servers would just go about better.

Clans whose players all cooperate to go SL. instead of locking a squad, should get a medal. Like some Wicked Clan Medal thing!

Joe McQuay wrote:A tad over-organizing the groups dont you think? There are only two: people that help make the mod and people that hold out it and complain

Giving feedback = / = complaining



Most of the time anyway

tbh i agree with wicca, flags and fobs arn't important together, however if you removed flags and it was just a team death match then people would place FOBs in strategic postions such as hills and bunkers. That is the reason why i think wiccas map on 128 was really great, it had no flags and people set-up FOBs on top of hills and defended and attacked. Although it would be interesting if FOBs were given ticket values (eg. 50) like flag do and then i think it'd make an epic alternative to CnC.
/rambling

I like simple stupid, just killing people is all i want, i can complicate that ALOT without changing the gamecode. Tactics, communications, chain of command coordination and blowing shit up.

Love it.

In my oppinion, Community driven gaming, where the players organize, coordinate and execute events and promote gaming. Is better than having it all rest on the shoulders of the poor devs. Plus players get more a sence of being part of something, and that is something PR has alot of, cause the game require alot from you, you have strong feelings because of it.