Project Reality Forums

Without top down command structure there is no accountability or even a thought of what plan B is. A more demanding or dominant squad leader does not suffice the commander role. I hear alot of this in mumble.

"i'm taking [enter fun asset here]"

So how do the "we don't need a commander" consensus deal with that, that is better than how a commander would?

The CO is there for a reason and it has (imho) been quashed by the ignoramus run n' gun attitudes. In the absence of a CO the squad leaders can make decisions should be the exception not the rule. We've turned it upside down so that we don't have to be slowed down by the process of teamwork.

Wicca wrote:I think making some events with no flags, and removing mumble out of the equation. Would be interesting.

You mean SLs mumble channel, right? Why should the mumble be removed?

Wicca wrote:And having one death per battle is unrealistic cause people dont want to play like that. Do you honestly think people go to war for fun? If they risk getting killed? Sure its exciting, but when your dead, your dead. And i dont think anyone even wants to "mimic" that

And I don't like to see so much of unrealistic, hazardous and stupid behaviour, no commanding officer, independent squads not minding working together, people hunting for kills, and all that stuff. I can make big long list of examples just during a one round of PR. I don't want to put that solution in normal PR, but as I said, I will be trying to organise that tournament as soon as the 128 players update comes out.

Wicca wrote:So playing a game, where you can try again, is better. Than on try, and your out kinda apporach to it. Complicating it with "strikes" or similar. Makes games very frustrating, cause you end up hearing how pissed people get over getting killed, or retarded mistakes etc. Its a game, its to be enjoyed not raged over.

I would enjoy it more if it was more realistic. By the way the war is relatively safe, a lot more than some of you might think, and far more safe than PR portrays.

[R-DEV]AFsoccer wrote:I tried this on Shijia Valley, where there were only two flags (Supply Line and Uranium Mine). My thought was that it would open possibilities and require more realistic coordination and teamwork... but 99% of the people that posted about it either didn't like it or thought it was a bug, so I removed that AAS "route".

That was probably the worst way to test this out, cause it really looked like a bug and confused people very much. You really shouldn't do the testing like that. And don't expect commander, team coordination and all that stuff popping out of nowhere on average server as soon as everyone notice that flag route.

You want people to use teamwork on servers without mumble too lugi.

Wicca wrote:You want people to use teamwork on servers without mumble too lugi.

Lol no I don't.

Then as matrox told me before, you are arrogant.

And dont think that PR is just there for everyone on the forum and on mumble. That is not true. If you want to make a valid attempt to make this game better, it has to include servers Without mumble.

I didn't get what you said, I got it like that.

Wicca wrote:You want people to use teamwork ... without mumble too lugi.

I was a little confused cause I thought you want to remove mumble.

Commanders change a game, but it is a hell of a job doing.

Weather its on a mumble or non mumble server. So using the FOB ideas, and the possible flag layout of no fags, the CO might be more required to be an engineer and a coordinator.

I am suggesting that you only allow 1-2 fobs when there is no CO. and 5 Fobs when the CO is on, but he must approve the build order.

// Wicca out

I am suggesting that you only allow 1-2 fobs when there is no CO. and 5 Fobs when the CO is on, but he must approve the build order.

That is so incredibly simple yet logical...

Why do people keep insisting that kills aren't important?

Some basic math of tickets:

1 kill = car/truck
3 kills = apc
5 kills = tank
15 kills = flag

So tell me, is it easier to get 15 kills or cap a well defended flag?

Edit: Wicca you are the man. Totally agree with that idea.

Not to mention that a good k\d will make you a man. Good players always have good k/d.
Trolololol

The 2 FOB's vs 5 with CO would be worth a try. It don't work out well. Change it back.

I'd like an elaboration though on the no flag concept pls. What do you figure gameplay would be like?

To be honest, I'm not sure handicapping everyone else is the best way to make the commander useful.
The crates are presumably there, the squad leader is going to place the FOB anyway, and squad members are still going to build it. Having the commander order it does not inherently mean it's going to be better positioned, as much as we all like to think of the commander as being a veteran, strategically minded player. Though it's still one of the mildest, and better ideas here.

The way I see it, the commander should be the most informed person on the team, but all the commander function in game gives is a UAV which, tbh, doesn't quite cut it.
Now I do as the commander says but I can't help feeling at least a little annoyed "obeying" someone who knows just as much as I do, sometimes even less, about the situation. I hear all other squad leaders, and see all the markers they place, in addition to having a vastly better POV on my local area.
How am I* less competent in determining how my squad is to benefit the team than the commander?

Either the commander needs to become better informed or we'll just have to face the fact that he is purely a support guy that signs in to drop a JDAM where other people point once per game, or put some mildly useful markers on the map.

*not me personally, I'm judging by function and access to information.

TheComedian wrote:Why do people keep insisting that kills aren't important?

Some basic math of tickets:

1 kill = car/truck
3 kills = apc
5 kills = tank
15 kills = flag

So tell me, is it easier to get 15 kills or cap a well defended flag?

everything is relative.... of course in the case of a well defended flag 15 tickets are easier taken from the enemy by kills, than to capture his flag.
But many times the case is the opposite and the flag are not well defended because everyone likes to attack and then 30 tickets is easier burnt than to go for 15 confirmed kills (or wounding 30 players)

I do think though that the people forget the relationship between 1 lost apc and 1 lost squad when the apc teams deny a request to drive a squad across open field because it is a "waste"........
well all apc's cost 5 tickets and the crew 2x2 if they don't make it back to base. It respawns in 10 min. 1 suppressed inf squad that eventually is annihilated is MIN. 12 tickets....its often much more since the medic desperately tried to revive everyone.

of-course if a full apc hit a mine or ied everything is lost.....but that's that's the idea of the rock paper scissor system, that by gaining Armour you also make yourself more vulnerable to high explosives.

PS I agree that 2 outposts without commander should be tried out, as long as it is supported by something else so people dont just become commander and leave the seat again when it is done.

The no flag gameplay, would make the players more reliant on communicating with eachother to find the enemy. As opposed to attacking them on their own. Not to mention coordinating different weapon systems to take out appropriate enemy assets.

The thing is hunting the enemy, looking for the enemy, would be a bigger part of the gameplay. And that is an element, i sometimes have found missing. Cause all i have to do, is open my map and go to the flag.

Communication, and hunting. Those two things will be required for the teams to be able to find and engage the enemy.

To win over the enemy, they need to coordinate their assets to get to the enemy with as much force as quick as possible.

This would perhaps make games that might feel extremly fast paced due to flag caps. To slightly slower paced, as one would be more inclined to being ready before attacking, rather than just attacking at any cost to get the flag.

To sum up:

- No flag
- 2 fobs no CO 5 Fobs with CO and CO has god rights over them.
- Complete removal of live map, just a map.
- Friendly contact markers INF APC ETC.

Those changes, or some of them could be implemented to create more teamwork oriented and CO friendly atmopshere.

But the BOB builder, would be far more respecting. IMO.

// Wicca out

Instead of removing fobs, how about you add 2 extra fobs that the commander can deploy? It's supposed to be incentive, I don't agree with arbitrarily removing the ability to deploy X amount of fobs unless we have a commander.

I believe giving the UAV the freedom to stay active and mobile would give the commander the ability to actually support his troops with constant up to the second intel. The other night I played Natural Selection as a marine commander and that mod really gives you the NEED for a solid, experienced commander (YouTube Vid as example). The overhead view provides an instant RTS feel, and I believe if you could replicate/induce some sort of "fog of war" other then severely limiting the UAV this one asset could help breathe life into the commander role.

I realize for INS maps it could be quite unbalanced versus the need for an insurgent commander, so as a possible balance you could allow the INS commander to grant his team more deployable FOBS then a blufor team would get (maybe 2-3 extra). Another perk might be to make the marker intel system informative enough to be used routinely, very seldom do I see markers on the odd chance someone goes commander.

Murphy wrote:Instead of removing fobs, how about you add 2 extra fobs that the commander can deploy? It's supposed to be incentive, I don't agree with arbitrarily removing the ability to deploy X amount of fobs unless we have a commander.

Noone will build 7 fobs. And its not about incentive, it is about the team feeling like they need him, rather then him just wanting to command. Thats how people become leaders.

Murphy wrote: I believe giving the UAV the freedom to stay active and mobile would give the commander the ability to actually support his troops with constant up to the second intel. The other night I played Natural Selection as a marine commander and that mod really gives you the NEED for a solid, experienced commander (YouTube Vid as example). The overhead view provides an instant RTS feel, and I believe if you could replicate/induce some sort of "fog of war" other then severely limiting the UAV this one asset could help breathe life into the commander role.

I dont really think the UAV IRL is run by a CO, it is used by the air force, and to some extent ground forces using mini cameras on RC planes. Unless i am mistaken ofc. When i CO, i never use the UAV, i would rather someone else used it.

Murphy wrote: I realize for INS maps it could be quite unbalanced versus the need for an insurgent commander, so as a possible balance you could allow the INS commander to grant his team more deployable FOBS then a blufor team would get (maybe 2-3 extra). Another perk might be to make the marker intel system informative enough to be used routinely, very seldom do I see markers on the odd chance someone goes commander.

Insurgency is always hard, FOBs arent as required, but the UAV is very required in this gamemode. Not to mention the Mortars. It would be nice if when there was a commander of the insurgents, it would mimic more economic help to the area. And give the insurgent team more kits, or more veichles. I am sure it is easily codable with python.

The idea here guys, isnt to make people want to command, it is to make the team want someone to command. Peer pressure is far more effective, than one dude wanting to command. Cause if a majority already asks you to command, then it will be easier to give orders.

// Wicca out

Wicca wrote:The idea here guys, isnt to make people want to command, it is to make the team want someone to command. Peer pressure is far more effective, than one dude wanting to command. Cause if a majority already asks you to command, then it will be easier to give orders.

The trick is to make the team want someone to command, not make the team want someone to only hold the commander seat, cause they are not going to listen to him anyway. I'm afraid those suggestions punishing the team when there is no commander are that second option. So removing the live map and optionally removing the flags should be the priority if we want to make commander as useful as it should be.

Lugi wrote:...removing the live map and optionally removing the flags should be the priority if we want to make commander as useful as it should be.

I thoroughly disagree with these statements, I think removing live maps would diminish team work thanks to TKS and all that. As for removing the objectives that keep the team united in their push towards victory...something tells me if we remove that we will be left with something very similar to death match mod in a standard FPS. These ideas are not thought through enough, and would serve to go against the goals you seem to put forth.

Maybe remove the live map all except vehicles and squad leader markers and the commander marker. with the ability to add friendly markers on the map by using and "ALT + T" commo rose or similar.

They should add the ability to control the UAV from FOBs. It would make the commander role much more enjoyable. The 10 min (13 min) time between UAVs isn't enough to actually get your *** out of base, go across the map (and be back on the 10 min mark) and do something useful, except maybe transport some crates in a logi.
Controlling the UAV from a FOB would get you closer to the action during downtime.