Project Reality Forums

Mantak08 wrote: personally id just do kamikaze runs against known FOB positions, as long as i wounded even one person, i broke even, and shooting 120mm shells or even 25mm shells, wounding one guy isent exactly hard. personally i have no wish to see this game take a step back towards vanilla.

I think that's the point of the suggestion. As of now, killing an entire infantry squad is very rare, and trying to do so will probably get you into HAT range. It also gives about as many tickets as killing one single tank, which are somewhat more common than full inf squads.

And like you said, if at least heavy vehicles costed 0 tickets, then it would become much more profitable for tanks to focus more on infantry and assaulting objectives shared with the infantry. Or that's how it's supposed to work.

The real question here is just what is the primary motive for AFV crews to prioritize enemy AFVs as opposed to enemy infantry on the "strategic" level*? Is it to cause the enemy greater ticket loss, or to preemptively eliminate a threat to your own infantry?


*As in specifically move to a part of the map because that's where they expect the enemy tanks to be too.

Arnoldio wrote:Stop with this fucking PRT this clan battle that bullshit! We want to change the game so it encourages people to stick to gether ON PUBLIC SERVERS. Not punish, but encourage.
You are saying that PR is completely obsolete because if you wanted a realistic gaming, you would just need vanilla BF2, on a clan level with likeminded people. Well yeah, it would work, but thats not the point. And thats what PR is made for. Or any game really. Show its full potential in the basic public version, clans just make it that 10 percent better.

You mad?

Public squads have no cohesion, I agree it needs to be addressed somehow. I know players will not give two shits about how the team is doing on a public server, join an organized match and you will find players who care about supporting their infantry. Otherwise quit your bitching about it, they are a bunch of players who have never played together and will likely not play with the same squad/team ever again. Deal with it, it's the nature of online gaming communities, and as far as those go we have been VERY VERY fortunate.

You can throw all these hypothetical scenarios around but you cannot control a player, there only hope is to impede stupidity. The devs have obviously put a lot of consideration into the system in place now and I believe it works as intended, probably not to the extent that was intended but it is sufficient to keep people acting somewhat intelligent. These suggestions for re-balancing the way assets lose/gain superiority on the battlefield are ill backed, and poorly conceived.

I mean now you want it so that I LOSE TICKETS FOR BEING A BETTER CREW THEN MY OPPONENT? Sorry that is simply retarded. Why punish the player who comes out on top? You obviously just typed what you thought made sense without putting any actual thought into it. If you guys are angry at the way games play out try to find a real solution instead of trying to compartmentalizing the way battles are won/loss.

Murphy wrote: I mean now you want it so that I LOSE TICKETS FOR BEING A BETTER CREW THEN MY OPPONENT? Sorry that is simply retarded. Why punish the player who comes out on top? You obviously just typed what you thought made sense without putting any actual thought into it. If you guys are angry at the way games play out try to find a real solution instead of trying to compartmentalizing the way battles are won/loss.

+1, that was the dumbest thing i read in the entire thread. a main problem is infantry does not need armor support. an AR is often more effective than a mounted coax, and hats (unless you are rus, idf or germans) can kill ANYTHING ANYWHERE! helicopters are not a problem either, in the last 3 days my friends and i have racked up 4 attack helis and 3 kiowas with manpads. then you have a grenadier, which can clear out neighboring sniper roosts easily. there is no need to build emplacements when you have weapons that are often just as effective, and mobile with a very low profile.

when i inf i never call cas because i never NEED it, i make sure we have a medic, sl and a hat and i am set for anything.

Murphy wrote:I mean now you want it so that I LOSE TICKETS FOR BEING A BETTER CREW THEN MY OPPONENT? Sorry that is simply retarded. Why punish the player who comes out on top? You obviously just typed what you thought made sense without putting any actual thought into it. If you guys are angry at the way games play out try to find a real solution instead of trying to compartmentalizing the way battles are won/loss.

Better? You're a better crewman because you're a faster shot and you play the map more precisely? You're more valuable to the team because you can get to A1 and engage the enemy faster, while the infantry struggle to hold the point? How about we try rewarding thought instead of instinct?

Silver bullets for this problem don't exist, and to accuse new ideas of "compartmentalizing" the battles speaks to a lack of experience, because right now, the battles are compartmentalized. Armor fights armor. IFVs fight IFVs. Attack Helicopters fight Attack Helicopters. All of those assets stay the hell away from infantry unless they are so far out ahead numerically that there's no need for them to be there in the first place.

mat552 wrote: Silver bullets for this problem don't exist, and to accuse new ideas of "compartmentalizing" the battles speaks to a lack of experience, because right now, the battles are compartmentalized. Armor fights armor. IFVs fight IFVs. Attack Helicopters fight Attack Helicopters. All of those assets stay the hell away from infantry unless they are so far out ahead numerically that there's no need for them to be there in the first place.

because those are the only fair match-ups. as you said, no body wants to tangle with inf, the knowledge that you will get one shot by a HAT makes engaging inf to dangerous. if you want armor to engage inf, they need to have there survivability increased.

Apcs, IFVs, tanks, etc in PR are at substantial disadvantage compared to real life counterparts for various reasons, but are still incredibly useful and powerful tools in their own right in their current state. Armour pieces, and air assets in PR are incredibly passive in how they play if they wish to stay alive longer than a minute.

Changing the ticket penalties wont fix that. I could not care less if my tank was worth 10 or 0 tickets, I care about whether I kill or be killed while operating, and attacking assertively with no commander to insure that infantry are attack simultaneously means dying. Defending or flanking does not.

Murphy wrote:
Public squads have no cohesion, I agree it needs to be addressed somehow. I know players will not give two shits about how the team is doing on a public server, join an organized match and you will find players who care about supporting their infantry. Otherwise quit your bitching about it, they are a bunch of players who have never played together and will likely not play with the same squad/team ever again. Deal with it, it's the nature of online gaming communities, and as far as those go we have been VERY VERY fortunate.

I contest this by saying if you play the game enough, eventually youll familiarize yourself with who is willing to listen to what you say, who isnt, who is a good leader, who isnt, etc.

Once you know enough people who are competent it doesnt become challenging to put a competent squad.

Although if PR had a good tutorial system it would certainly improve percentage of players who are "competent"

40mmrain wrote:Changing the ticket penalties wont fix that. I could not care less if my tank was worth 10 or 0 tickets, I care about whether I kill or be killed while operating, and attacking assertively with no commander to insure that infantry are attack simultaneously means dying. Defending or flanking does not.

this is what ive been trying to say ^

I think that reckless use of vehicles is something that needs to be solved server side. If you hold a one week ban over someones head for charging into the enemy main with a tank and getting blown up, odds are they wont do it. The only issue is that too many people will think you suck because you got killed, and demand you get banned for losing a heavy asset. So in reality, there is no way to fix this problem. It is a community issue, and perfect tactical game play will never be a regular thing on public servers, its sad, but true.

Murphy wrote:There is no proof that any of these suggestions would further us towards the goal of having assets fight alongside infantry.

That might be true, that players will still choose to not expose their assets. However with the current system, assets hunting assets and staying away from low reward targets that can take them out and cost the team 10 plus tickets, is in many situations the best option, therefore, with the current system, even teamplay oriented players are discouraged from using their assets in a way that helps the main effort, such as attacking or defending a flag.

Also lets face it, its an exploit. You dont have to use the armor in a way, that is beneficial to reach an objective. All you have to do is circumvent the flags with your armor the enemy infantery and try to get in the rear of enemy armor to take it out and repeat, all the while doing nothing to help the team directly. However you still knocked off over 30 Tickets off the enemy team if you took out a tank squad. That is a built in exploit that people use and not using this built in exploit, exposing your armor to risk by making it part of the main effort, just exposes your team.

The team does not have to find a balance between using the armor to knock out enemy assets and contributing torwards the game objective, such as using most tanks to kill armor, but deploying one tank or an apc in direct support of the infantery. All they have to do is kill off enemy armor in the safest way possible away from the dangerzones such as flags and enemy infantery.

If a team chooses to employ their armor soley to take out enemy armor, and let the infantery worry about the flags, thats a valid strategy, but just by taking out enemy assets the team shouldnt get the huge advantage in tickets it currently does. Right now the assets can do well and the infantery quite badly and despite doing badly and the team not using the fact that they have all their assets and the enemies assets have been knocked down, to employ their assets torwards the game objective, the team can still win through the lead the armor built up knocking out enemy armor and I dont think thats right.

Mantak08 wrote:and making armor free is going to make people on pub servers stick together.... how? personally id just do kamikaze runs against known FOB positions, as long as i wounded even one person, i broke even, and shooting 120mm shells or even 25mm shells, wounding one guy isent exactly hard. personally i have no wish to see this game take a step back towards vanilla.

Well try that and see how it works out for your team, when the other side is more carefull with their armor and wounds and kills more than just one guy, before their armor is blown up. You like many others focus too much on punishing nubs, while losing out of sight how the current system affects the game of teamplayers who want to use their assets in the best possible way to help the team.

mat552 wrote:Better? You're a better crewman because you're a faster shot and you play the map more precisely? You're more valuable to the team because you can get to A1 and engage the enemy faster, while the infantry struggle to hold the point? How about we try rewarding thought instead of instinct?

I'm part of a better crew because I survived contact with the enemy and he did not, penalizing my team for this is beyond comprehension.

Yes 40mm there are players that begin to know each other's play-styles and so on, but you can't expect the same from someone you have pubbed with a handful of time as you would a clan mate. In the end that is neither here nor there, as I'm sure you know many asset whores who assist infantry as often as possible all things considered (even though it might end in disaster).

Murphy wrote:I'm part of a better crew because I survived contact with the enemy and he did not, penalizing my team for this is beyond comprehension.

Surviving contact is something you do when the contact is surprising, defenders survive. Asset players don't survive, they seek and engage contact with the enemy at the cost of supporting the infantry.

I don't suppose you and I will come to an agreement though, I learned a long time ago that proponants of league play nearly never care about the public matches, and want the game balanced around their much less widespread way of doing things.

Perhaps tournament players and public matches need different data tables for everything

here the issue i see with that statement Mat552. this is PR, this is a nitch game, its not MEANT to played by everyone. if we keep nerfing things to make it fair to everyone well end up with battlefield 3.

I have barely read any of this thread, so don't mind me too much. I run assets with a few simple priorities, and similar to my gamestyle on foot. I go for maximum effect on the enemy and doing what I can, preferbly not dieing. But fuck guys its an online game, lose your vehicle on an attack, chase 3 squads down and get HATed, its a game you get another asset soon and in that time you do help your team.

Anyone that plays with me understands what I mean by that gamestyle and how I play, I rarely end a round with 0 deaths, but thats never my goal. Hate me, all you want but I play for kills, you beat the enemy by killing the enemy more than he kills you so that is my aim. When you kill the enemy off an important objective(a flag in play) not only do you just take tickets, but you also push them back and give your team more room. Anyone can sit there vehicle in the rear in a perfect hull down and wait, or go ambush the other team as they leave their main. You guys just play differently than me, a gamestyle I will never use, just because it doesn't suit me and I know when I'm inf I rage at those guys.(BTW, I'm not saying don't defend, or that I don't, I'm talking about the times that that 0 in the deaths column is more important than saving a flag, or saving your team)

How players use the asset is all their personal play style, sure I am careful with my 10 ticket asset, but I also know you need to take some hits to do any amount of damage. The players that play conservative now, will still do it with a 0 ticket asset, and I will still play the same aggressive game.

Anyways off to class. To those that I play with regularly and have that conservative style, this is nothing against you, you make me rage when I'm on your team at times, but at the same time I have been killed just as many times by your tactic.

Murphy, you keep bringing up PRT and clans... Im not mad, but i told you that that is different, and you refuse to listen and live in your own perfect world.

Killing a civie is also a nice punishemnt to you and your team, yet i dont see you complaining. There is alternatives to kill them and if situation calls for it, you kill him the standard way and risk the lost intel.
Same could be done for armour.

Ive posted a suggestion about tweaking the kit request system so that there would be very little insta kit switches, therefore making armour more feared and making the game have some sense regarding kits. But as usual, didnt get approved.

ChallengerCC wrote:Man i dont say that this a good behavior.
And no i dont mean antiterror shit.
Infantry is only for beeing a target, spotting, clearing and holding.
For seriours buisness are in modern warfare scenarios Jets, Helis, Tanks and Rockets(final solution).

Seriously? being a target? I'd like to think you'd have the balls to say that to someone in person in the military but I know better.

Ok, lets get back to the discussion relating to a VIDEO GAME Modification.

Too bad you can't win without spotting, clearing areas or holding them, just saying...

chrisweb89 wrote:
How players use the asset is all their personal play style, sure I am careful with my 10 ticket asset, but I also no you need to take some hits to do any amount of damage. The players that play conservative now, will still do it with a 0 ticket asset, and I will still play the same aggressive game.

Anyways off to class. To those that I play with regularly and have that conservative style, this is nothing against you, you make me rage when I'm on your team at times, but at the same time I have been killed just as many times by your tactic.

I dont think its entierly true. A lot of people who keep the team aspect in mind, keep their costly asset away from enemy infantery fobs and flags and try to take down enemy armor instead, where a squad is oftentimes well over 30 tickets worth. Oftentimes the players on the opposite team do the same and so armor dukes it out away from friendly or enemy infantery and objectives. Its as if they each play different games, they might as well.

The second issue with the current system is, that the infantery can do badly, but the team can still win out because the asset war is going well, WITHOUT the friendly assets directly interfearing with the main objectives. Taking out enemy armor and keeping your armor save and letting the infantery fight without friendly armor support and without enemy armor threat either is a valid strategy, BUT the team that chooses to apply this tactic shouldnt get the high lead in tickets merely by taking out enemy assets. I feel if the armor does well on its own, the infantery however does badly and friendly armor assets choose not to interfere, by supporting the infantery or attacking/defending an objective, the team should not win out just because the ticket lead they built up taking down enemy assets overrides everything else.

Friendly assets should give the team and edge because they are used torwards the game objective, not because taking out enemy assets is such a big reward in itself. If a team is unable to employ its own assets to support infantery or pursue the map objective, the edge they gain by merely having an superiority in assets should be drastically reduced. If they want an edge out of their assets beyond having neutrlized the threat of enemy armor to their infantery and the tickets the lost crewmembers cost the enemy team, they should employ their armor torwards the game objective, killing enemy infantery, suspressing an objective, so friendly troops can move into close combat without sustaining casualities on the way there, or by defending an objective.

I'd like to point out when I spend ten minutes sneaking up behind a BMP-3 with an RPG-7 and blasting it, I'd like to know I've accomplished something more than simply killing two crewmen who will promptly respawn with a new vehicle.

You cost their team a valuable asset for 20 minutes, and gave your team time to push up and take more tickets and more flags away.

Do you shoot someone because they cost a ticket, or because it then means they aren't a threat for a little while?

Kilgore if they were truely 100% keeping the team in mind, they would realise that they are more usefull helping out on the flags, not in some far far away land, if you can't support a flag and stay alive most of the time doing it, maybe you should rethink your tactics. Again this is just my personal opinion but it takes more skill(vehicle skill, not just shooting) to fight around an objective, take out the enemy while not taking hits(you WILL take a hit, and you WILL die at some point, accept it and you can do more), and support the team than ambush, and fight only where you want to.

There is a time and place for fighting on your turf, so that you can gain superiority, but that time shouldn't be the whole game.

i wrote a whole long paragraph on this, but then i boiled it down to this: ive been in plenty of game where the armor was doing there job supporting the inf, but we lost anyways because the inf couldn't hold it together. does this mean i can start a thread for removing the ticket penalty on wound?