Project Reality Forums

(And the 0.98 system wasnt perfect. Most of the time the team with better trans/FOB organization won. Not the team with the better tactics.)

Trans and FOB is also a part of the tactics, so if the other team lacks it it's their fault.

viirusiiseli wrote:The current system (1.0 beta) is very good. It's a great tool for squadleaders who know where to place them. Comes in handy as a flanking option for when your whole team is spawning from 1 FOB.

Agreed!!!!!! 200% Makes the game fun again! I miss the old PR!

but good logistics ARE good tactics...

biscuit123 wrote:Don't revert rallies back to how they were in 0.98. Defending a FOB for three hours is mind numbingly boring, as is walking for half an hour back to the front line. If you want to be bored out of your skull go and play ARMA. In the past (before 0.98 ) PR was an amazingly fun, well paced teamwork based game, not a military simulator. It needs to be this way again, otherwise the game will continue to lose players.

Keep the new rally system, don't go back to slow as molasses FOB based gameplay.

I couldn't agree more...I miss the OLD PR days. Leave rally points up 24/7! Bring back the fun and you bring back the players.

Old rally system: APCs used for transport. Transport helo squads dropping logistics where you need them. Actual supply lines and teamwork.

New rally system: What's the inside of an APC look like?
Logistics? Call UPS, we're busy giving up and respawning every 3 minutes!
Teamwork? We don't need no stinking medics! Give up and get back in the fight man!


You now have enough people on each team to have actual logistics and support for the front line without sacrificing your effectiveness AND still be able to defend objectives. If you don't build FOBs that is your fault, but they add to the tactics and strategy that make PR a one-of-a-kind gaming experience. If you don't then it's just another shooter. You can still have fast-paced action without spamming endless hordes of zombies at the other team's defenses.

More importantly, the old rally system rewards teamwork and tactics. That, in my humble opinion, is the type of player that this mod is made for, NOT the other way around. So if you think people should get away from PR to play slower paced games and that PR should be fast-paced zerg fighting, I think that perhaps you are in the wrong game and not the other way around.

Again, my humble opinion.

d1sp0sabl3H3r0 wrote:Old rally system: APCs used for transport. Transport helo squads dropping logistics where you need them. Actual supply lines and teamwork.

New rally system: What's the inside of an APC look like?
Logistics? Call UPS, we're busy giving up and respawning every 3 minutes!
Teamwork? We don't need no stinking medics! Give up and get back in the fight man!


You now have enough people on each team to have actual logistics and support for the front line without sacrificing your effectiveness AND still be able to defend objectives. If you don't build FOBs that is your fault, but they add to the tactics and strategy that make PR a one-of-a-kind gaming experience. If you don't then it's just another shooter. You can still have fast-paced action without spamming endless hordes of zombies at the other team's defenses.

More importantly, the old rally system rewards teamwork and tactics. That, in my humble opinion, is the type of player that this mod is made for, NOT the other way around. So if you think people should get away from PR to play slower paced games and that PR should be fast-paced zerg fighting, I think that perhaps you are in the wrong game and not the other way around.

Again, my humble opinion.

Not only yours my friend.


If you want action driven game play, why don't you play an action shooter as opposed to a combat/strategy/teamwork driven simulation?

I definitely wont be playing if it reverts, this "bring back the players" mentality is BS

And absolutely yes @disposablehero

Bluedrake42 wrote:but good logistics ARE good tactics...

Having 5 FOBs while the enemy has 2 has nothing to do with tactics...

But keep in mind that in PR 0.98 logistics simply means that your team can lemming the enemy team faster. 1 team losing some fobs at important locations will be pushed back.
Not because the advancing enemy destroyed it at its assault, but because of the 2 man squad that knifed those fobs while you where busy fighting on the frontline. And that is not "good tactics" its simply lame and hard to counter (you cant/want defend all your FOBs all the time)

In 1.0 ATM if you manage to break through the enemy lines you will most likely overun their RPs or force them to fall back (sadly people never want to retreat, i know)

FOBs are also much stronger now because they are way harder to destroy completely. So they are more of a Fortress then just a spawnpoint.

And please dont just say things like this:

Bluedrake42 wrote:but good logistics ARE good tactics...

without explaining why.

dude Im on a damned iphone but if you want me to explain why I will

also I never talked shit about the fobs, the fobs being harder to destroy is fine, the rallies are not

Not really a fan of the new system....just last night i was maybe like 50-60m away from a rally set in the middle of the road on ramiel just watching the enemy spawn. The over run zone needs to be made bigger. Its WAY too small now.

Also making them expire maybe after 5 mins in a good compromise.

MADsqirrel wrote:Having 5 FOBs while the enemy has 2 has nothing to do with tactics...

Except you could place them with a strategy in mind, opting for both defensive and offensive options or either of the two, depending on the needs.

But keep in mind that in PR 0.98 logistics simply means that your team can lemming the enemy team faster. 1 team losing some fobs at important locations will be pushed back.
Not because the advancing enemy destroyed it at its assault, but because of the 2 man squad that knifed those fobs while you where busy fighting on the frontline. And that is not "good tactics" its simply lame and hard to counter (you cant/want defend all your FOBs all the time).

Ofc sabotage has never ever been an effective tactic in any war ever.
I mean, you explain the strategical impact of Fobs and why they're important to the game play, yet there are no tactics involved in their construction/the methods of destroying them are "lame"? Uh what?

In 1.0 ATM if you manage to break through the enemy lines you will most likely overun their RPs or force them to fall back (sadly people never want to retreat, i know)

I don't see how this has never happened in 0.98 and before with Fobs.

MADsqirrel wrote: but because of the 2 man squad that knifed those fobs while you where busy fighting on the frontline. And that is not "good tactics" its simply lame and hard to counter (you cant/want defend all your FOBs all the time)

You can't knife fobs anymore so it's not a valid argument, you need a c4 stick and it's actually takes quite a lot of time to take out a FOB now. 2 man squad still can do it(btw if devs will make a specialist avaibable only if you have 4 men it will be great), but it takes a lot of time to plant a c4, and after it detonates you have to wait some time before fob will be destroyed. So I doubt a 2 man squad who is good enough to do it is using "lame" tactics.
The New C4 / FOB / Cache Gameplay Changes - Project Reality Forums

MADsqirrel wrote:Having 5 FOBs while the enemy has 2 has nothing to do with tactics...

You're right. It has to do with strategy.

I remember years ago in .8 when the rallies system got permanently (at least we thought) nerfed to a very time limited and less user friendly version we've had up until just now. You'd have thought the DEV's had set an orphanage full of kids on fire. Everybody lost their minds and argued how teamplay was forever ruined and the population was going to dwindle.

But eventually everyone got over it and became accustomed to it and adapted. And yes PR did take on a LOT slower groove than the .6 and .7ish days

To paraphrase what the oldschool permanent rally system was supposed to represent in the words of the DEVs.

"Rallies exist to overcome the squad size limitations and server player limits to help represent larger company versus company sized conventional engagements."

Now we've tacked on another 36 players into maps of the same size, fighting over the same sized objectives of course it's going to feel more like a high action engagement with mounting casualties. Sorry kids but in reality which this mod aims to achieve, battles aren't sterile tacticool 6vs6 infantry shootouts where everybody mans a defensive emplacement while a couple of assets roll around. The rally changes really upsize the team and capture a larger scale chaos that is combat.

I say bravo to the DEV's stick to your guns. The community uproar will settle like it always does.

The rallies are broken. They're promoting non stop constant action from any and all directions because of the speed with which reinforcement can occur and the lack of need for a crate to place them.

In my opinion rallies should last for 40 seconds and have a cooldown of 60 seconds.

This makes rallies useful for squads to get themselves properly together for when new squadjoins occur or instances that heavily split a group up. Making them disappear quickly means a squad leader won't be able to respawn on his own rallypoint, but having a quick cooldown will ensure that squad leaders are never stuck in those frustrating situations where they can't unite their squad because of a series of new joins and re-uses of the rally.

Permanent reinforcement locations should always require the supply line. There was nothing wrong with the old system, squads would get helicopters out and drop crates at their location, resulting in a fob. FOBs work better as they're (when unglitched) much easier to find and the proximity limits of placing fobs in relation to other fobs stopped lots of them in a small area from being placed which is the cause of the meatgrinder effect the current rallies are causing.

As for the rising argument of FOBs being taken down by 2 man squads - make specialist require a 4 man squad. I see no problem with this.

'= wrote:H[=TangFiend;1909779']
The community uproar will settle like it always does.

Just becouse the roar will settle doesn't mean that everyone will become happy.
You are talking about players limitation - but we don't have it now, if you forgot we have 100p servers. Yeah 64 servers are still gonna exist in 1.0, well for them maybe we should have the current rallypoint system, but not for 100p servers.

'= wrote:H[=TangFiend;1909779']I remember years ago in .8 when the rallies system got permanently (at least we thought) nerfed to a very time limited and less user friendly version we've had up until just now. You'd have thought the DEV's had set an orphanage full of kids on fire. Everybody lost their minds and argued how teamplay was forever ruined and the population was going to dwindle.

But eventually everyone got over it and became accustomed to it and adapted. And yes PR did take on a LOT slower groove than the .6 and .7ish days

To paraphrase what the oldschool permanent rally system was supposed to represent in the words of the DEVs.

"Rallies exist to overcome the squad size limitations and server player limits to help represent larger company versus company sized conventional engagements."

Now we've tacked on another 36 players into maps of the same size, fighting over the same sized objectives of course it's going to feel more like a high action engagement with mounting casualties. Sorry kids but in reality which this mod aims to achieve, battles aren't sterile tacticool 6vs6 infantry shootouts where everybody mans a defensive emplacement while a couple of assets roll around. The rally changes really upsize the team and capture a larger scale chaos that is combat.

I say bravo to the DEV's stick to your guns. The community uproar will settle like it always does.

Yeah I was there, and the change was made for good reasons. This system doesn't simulate larger forces, its just an unrealistic meatgrinder tool. 30 troops that emerge from a previously secured flank is an unrealistic simulation of troop movement... how the fuck would an opposing force get that many infantry behind enemy lines unnoticed? It wouldnt... even in a large scale operation. The system is unbalanced, and we've proven that again and again... we removed permanent rallies for good reason after years of testing. I never thought Id have to talk about this again, cant we just refer to the previous threads that ultimately decided against permanent rallies in the first place? The logic is still the same, its a bad feature all around...

I thought dbazo mod was loved by a lot of players?

This is probably the hardest thing to get right, if you want realism than this is a bad idea, if you want constant action than this is a good idea...obviously. I understand what your saying QRF, but i cant help think that the majority of players would favor "constant action mod".

I for one, will rather stick to old rally system.