Project Reality Forums

IMO the ticket penality discourages a combined arms approach. Rather than supporting infantery Tank squads duke it out with each other. Cant blame them, unless they see the chance to use the armor to cap out the enemy you would have to kill 12 infantery to offset a lost tank ticketwise. On the other hand if you take down 2 tanks because you circumvented everything that happened on the battlefield and sneaked in the back of enemy armor, you set back the enem team 24 (28?) Tickets if you get the crew as well.

So tactically it makes sense for armor to play it safe, seek out enemy armor and NOT support the infantery.

On the other hand if just the crew is lost ticketwise the team that finds the balance between keeping their own armor alive, taking out enemy armor to keep it from inflicting damage and engaging enemy infantery and objectives will win. With the high respawn times there is already an healthy penality attatched to catastrophizing your vehicles, not to mention the advantage a team gains by being able to employ assets unopposed by enemy assets.

As it is now for a tank platoon or even an APC keeping itself alife and to maneuver in a way that is exclusively dedicated to hunt down enemy armor while staying away from friendly and enemy infantery is the best way to use their armor if they are not confident they can cap out the enemy, which is the case in half of the games averaged by map.

I'm approving this suggestion topic as there has been some talk in the dev forums about tweaking the ticket penalty for loosing a vehicle, although its unlikely we will totally remove it but carry on discussing it anyways

What are he current ticket loses for types of vehicles, armor, air etc

It's a good idea. I actually made a thread with a somewhat similar premise a long while ago, but I like the thinking here.

The rationale behind destroying enemy vehicles should be preemptive action to protect your own assets rather than scoring a 10x multiplier.
In my experience it's not unusual to see a good tank, chopper, or APC gunner kill 10-15 enemies during a round, so it doesn't seem like there would be any less desire to hunt enemy vehicles just because their ticket value is lowered.

That being said, the fact that the vehicles would still retain their high level of lethality while losing one of their main vulnerabilities (the fact that a team is taking a risk putting assets of such high value in the field) might mean less tactical gameplay on the part of the crews/pilots.

I like the concept, though. I can see it working pretty well.

For insurgents could be a problem.

i don' t know if the asset rules can be applied depending on the game mode selected.

Here's a list of the current ticket loss for vehicles as shown on page 16 of the manual:
(https://www.realitymod.com/manual/pr_manual.pdf)

(Without Crew)

• Jeep or Truck: 2
• Transport Helicopter: 5
• APC: 5
• Tank or IFV: 10
• Jet or Attack Helicopter: 10

(With Crew/Passengers)

• Jeep or Truck: 4-10
• Transport Helicopter: 6-13
• APC: 7-13
• Tank or IFV: 12/13
• Jet or Attack Helicopter: 11/12

Getting killed in a vehicle only takes away 1 ticket per player as you go from living to dead without being wounded..

I think the number of tickets lost when a vehicle is fine as it is right now, the problem with people not supporting Infantry is most likely because they don't like waiting 20 minutes when they get killed.

It's down to the SL of the Armour Squad if he wants to hunt down enemy tanks or help the infantry. I know most Squad Leaders will hunt down the tanks because the enemy will probably do the same. Maybe the tanks need some sort of bonus when they stay next to Infantry say 6 players or more, don't know what that bonus should be though.

Being a tank squadleader myself quite often I don't have much to add except for that the OP is right. Right now, 3/4th of the rounds flag wise end in a stalemate and in the end only the heavy asset squads make the team lose or win.

Keeping the huge ticket penalties in mind I always tell my tanks to stay defensive, to play safe and never to attack unless it's a massed assault and the infantry has already advanced. ''Do whatever it takes to prevent losing the tank.''

A removed or lowered penalty system would mean tank squads could be more daring, and even better could actually start supporting infantry more.


However, a new system would have to be introduced to prevent the rounds from being far too long. Maybe something like a ticket bleed based on the amount of flags a team has. Like 10-20 tickets per flag every 30 minutes. The team which continuously holds most of the territory eventually wins. This presses both teams to cap as much flags as possible and prevents stalemates with the asset squads fighting their own war.

i do not think it should be removed, but tweaked as mentioned. perhaps halving the ticket loss halved per vehicle would be a good idea.

There are two punishments for losing an asset. Losing tickets and having a respawn time for the asset. The respawn time only affects those using the assets. If you lower the ticket punishment you will get those issues:

-If you play a map with a lot of assets (e.g. Burning Sands) and only few players using them, they won?t run out of asset even if they play aggressive. If there is no ticket penalty you will see them go kamikaze with the tanks, then with the IFV, then with the APC and meanwhile the tanks respawned. If they managed to lose all assets before the first respawns, asset squad tend to a. leave the server or b. taking limited kits (mostly sniper or hat) and fool around. Yes, I?ve seen asset squads using the respawn time to do something for the team, but most of the time...

- On Insurgency maps or asymmetrical AAS maps (like Dragon Fly or Fools Road) bluefor has less assets, but those can have a great impact on the game. Redfor should get - in my opinion - a much higher reward for destroying an asset. Having a lesser or no ticket penalty for losing assets would strongly favor bluefor teams on these maps.


I think the balance of the ticket system is tricky. In AAS you need balance between Inf, Flags and Assets. This balance depends on the map. Changing one side has influence on the other.

Vehicles
The ticket differences between the different vehicles aren?t reflecting their combat value. Right now you should never take those weak APCs (don?t know the name but I guess you all know those week armored 50cal APCs) out of base. Two of them have the same ticket price of a full battle tank.
The most common debate is about the APC. Is it a battle taxi, combat support for infantry or support for the tanks. Right now the stronger APCs are used as tank support (if tanks are available on the map), while the weak APCs stay in base. I would suggest splitting the APC group into two. Weaker and cheaper APCs as infantry support/battle taxi and stronger APCs as tank support. I guess there has to be more tweaking than just their ticket value (e.g. weak APCs only 2 tickets). The combat abilities (damage on heavy armored targets) and roles (eg. no ammo boxes of tank support and supply crate for inf support APCs) could be adapted.

The light ground transport and supply vehicles, jeeps and trucks are worth 2 tickets. Seems like most players don?t care (or don?t know) about these tickets. While a chopper trans squad is usual, I barely see a ground transport squad. I guess it?s just not interesting to play bus driver. That?s why you have to take those and abandon them at your destination - losing the 2 ticket sooner or later. If the team destroys their own truck instead of abandon them, you - at least - don?t run out of vehicles. I would suggest making the unarmed jeeps and trucks ticket free. The two tickets are not enough incentive to bring it back to base and a higher ticket value wouldn?t be a solution.

The heavy assets
All those heavy assets (Tanks, attack choppers, jets) do first of all battle each other if it is a symmetrical map. On a symmetrical map 10 tickets is fine, on asymmetrical 10 tickets are too low.

Flags:
A flag is 30 tickets worth if it was in enemy hands before and you fully captured it. 30 tickets are not much if the enemy team does defend properly. Getting all flags - ticket bleed - does win the round. However, against a good team, you won?t manage to get all flags. Getting a lot of neutral flags in the beginning only makes you vulnerable to lose those flags.

Example: Some clans do fight against mixed teams in public for training. Easiest strategy is to play Dragon Fly as GB. You only cap train station, get your inf and assets there and wait for the enemy. Since the enemy team is not that coordinated and people wanna have action, part of redfor will attack train station. Having all those assets GB can easily defend train station and redfor will lose a lot of tickets. After several fruitless attempts redfor team will be shattered, lingering around the map. Bluefor team just keeps on waiting, having a high ticket advantage. After bluefor made sure redfor team is bored and demoralized, bluefore will start attacking and easily win the round.

What I want to show is, that AAS is biased towards defending. Since the last flag is always the closed to your base, map control is irrelevant. Having more flags than the enemy is a disadvantage. Spawning at, capping and defending the tower of the airfield on Operation Barracuda as PLA can be fun. If you want to win tickets, wait outside the cap range for US to cap the flag and then attack. Or even better forget about the neutral flags at all. Shall US have the burden to defend them.

Suggestion:
I know that [WGP] experimented - and failed - implementing an slow ticket bleed depending on the numbers of flags you control. This would make map control important and if the bleed is really slow, you could still compensate missing map control. I really like the idea.


Infantry
In a normal round it is the infantry losing most of the tickets. One soldier being worth up to 2 tickets (meaning 5 soldiers equal one tank and 15 equal one flag) is a high price. In my opinion the ticket lost for being critical wounded does give the wrong incentives. Even if you play in a coordinated squad and don?t get killed you still loose tickets. A lone wolf (we all love them) surprises you and does critical wound 3 of your squad mates before you manage to kill him. Even if you can revive all of your mates, the lone wolf still won ticket wise. In a normal inf vs. inf confrontation it is the SLs responsible you order the medic to revive mates or not. Since you already lost a ticket for the critical wounded, you have to decide between risking more tickets to revive him or letting on more ticket go. As SL I play "no one gets left behind" more often that I should ticket wise.
I think critical wounded shouldn?t cost your team tickets, because I don?t see any good incentive.

Wow, full circle on this one, I wondered if it would happen.

I'll say now what I said when ticket penalties shot up to their current levels; The costs of losing a vehicle are intense enough without tacking on an arbitrary ticket penalty. You feel the lack of armored or airborne support a great deal more than you feel the sting of what equates to 30 simultaneous deaths. Those tickets are an imaginary number that have no basis in anything except the abstract concepts of a game, and as such, cannot factor into active decision making on the part of a driver or pilot.

They're a haunting secondary consequence, sure, but really all it has done is stigmatize the use of vehicles. The ticket cost is the reason jets started circling at 3000ft on Kashan way back when, and the reason tanks only advance AFTER they're sure there's no AT in the area. Players (opinions and baseless facts lol) became aware there was a huge penalty and altered their behavior radically to try and avoid that penalty, nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, vehicle use is more reckless without such a cost, but not by much. You still have to wait for them to respawn, and that really, really hurts.

Perhaps the ones responsible for losing high value assets can be penalized by not being able to request limited kits for a determined length of time or having their personal points severely reduced.

However, as that goes as a separate suggestion, I would remind you that being unpunished for the loss of valuable assets will only encourage recklessness.

The effect that losing a powerful asset has on the team is probably a punishment in itself, so perhaps the team itself shouldn't necessarily be held accountable for it by losing team tickets (or as many as before).

Hannes_Sbg wrote: -If you play a map with a lot of assets (e.g. Burning Sands) and only few players using them, they won?t run out of asset even if they play aggressive. If there is no ticket penalty you will see them go kamikaze with the tanks, then with the IFV, then with the APC and meanwhile the tanks respawned. If they managed to lose all assets before the first respawns, asset squad tend to a. leave the server or b. taking limited kits (mostly sniper or hat) and fool around. Yes, I?ve seen asset squads using the respawn time to do something for the team, but most of the time...

This is not entirely true, and moreover more of a player based issue than game based. No one in their good mind will start kamikazing vehicles (at least not more than now) when punishment is removed because it will severely set back you (; because most professional servers will apply strict asset rules and you can't simply take other assets when you run out of yours), and your team (; because they lose important assets they need to turn the battle into their favour).

The people who would kamikaze vehicles when the penalty is removed are the same people who would do it now anyway. However, altering the system would give the real players more opportunities and options (For example, I would personally go help out the infantry more often instead of purely staying defensive.) and give the team as a whole more chance to win, instead of having to rely on heavy asset squads (which very often perform poorly and cause the team to lose).

A fine example of this is Muttrah; MEC often pushes the USMC back into North City or even Docks, and will generally come out on top in the infantry combat. However, they still can (and often do) lose when there's an APC squad losing one vehicle after another. I've seen this very often: a good team which should win, loses because of people wasting the assets.

-------------

What must be kept in mind though are the possible changes the 128 players limit could bring, as it could have a huge effect on infantry-armor gameplay. With the same amount of assets but with way more infantry to protect it, relations could improve dramatically. I've already read stories about succesfull combined assaults with a platoon sized (20-40 people) infantry force attacking with APCs advancing along them and tanks providing long range cover.

I agree with the OP. It suggests that hunting down enemy assets with the least possible risk doesn't give a reward.

HELL NO KEEP IT AS IT IS
I can't believe this is even being considered

Bluedrake42 wrote:HELL NO KEEP IT AS IT IS
I can't believe this is even being considered

Would you mind backing your belief with facts?

I feel it should be done away with. IMO assets should give a team an edge, because the team is able to employ the asset torwards a goal, such as capping a flag, killing inf that is a threat to your own inf and not because eliminating the enemy tank with your tank is a big ticket reward in its own right. As it is assets can heavily impact the game by doing their own thing. Both armor squads stay away from the flags (ZOMG ! TOWS) and infantery (ZOMG Hats!) and duke it out in a quite seperate area away from everybody else.
There is already a penality for losing your asset, up to 20 min spawntime during which the enemy armor or cas can rain dead on your own troops.

I can see the point in adding a cost to tickets, to discourage players from wasting the asset. However if you play on a teamplay oriented server, of which there are a handful right now, the system works too well. Players who want to use the asset soley to benefit their team seek out the high ticket reward of hunting down enemy assets, while exposing their armor to as little risk as possible, even if it means being down a flag or 2. So unless the team is about to be capped out, or down by several flags on the one map that has tons (Yamalia) the approach lined out in my above paragpraph is sadly often the best approach to employ armor to help the team win the game. So I see it the way that an attempt to penalize players who dont care impacts the gameplay for all players who do care. And the players who could care less and go kamikaze will do so regardless of ticket cost.

Id like the use of armor as an combined arms approach, supporting the team torwards the goal layed out by the game mode, to be one of the strategically most viable uses of the armor. Right now the approach lined out in my first paragpraph is the best approach for teamplay oriented players. As a result it is hard to get armored support, because why should a tanker risk up to 14 tickets against a tow or hat worth 2 tickets? Even if the infantery loses quite a bit of tickets in taking a flag, it is still better than losing even more tickets because one or 2 assets get knocked out.

fabioxxxx wrote:For insurgents could be a problem.

i don' t know if the asset rules can be applied depending on the game mode selected.

Obviously you would have to tweak the overall ticket count. Also as it is, ive seen a lot of times the blueforce just not using those expensive assets, or just one of them at a time. The result is that the extra tickets given to the blueforce, to compensate for the high vehicle ticket cost was kind of "free" in a way. If they dont use the armor they get the extra tickets. However if armor is free and they dont get the extra tickets to compensate for the expensive armor, they will gain no advantage from not using the armored assets.

Burning Sands, leading a Challanger squad. Our team had Arar Village, and some squads were moving south to the airport when they got pinned down. They requested tank support ASAP and I immediately went there on full speed.

We arrived, deployed smoke for the troops to heal themselves and provided covering fire, as well as mobile cover using the tank itself to shield the infantry from bullets. Being the longest 200 meter of their lifes, the infantry squads eventually made it to the safety of the fences under direct tank cover as we moved up along side them. The assault went perfectly untill an enemy tank pulled up. We saw him first, and we had a little brawl. Eventually we killed him, but he hit us two times and our tank was smoking lightly.

We could have pushed on into the airport and help the infantry even further. We could have won the round right there. But we couldn't. Keeping the ticket loss in mind, I didn't want to risk the tank being killed and pulled out of there.

Needless to say the infantry all died a few minutes later.


In the end, we won the round because my tank squad scored 8-10 kills on enemy heavy armor while only losing three tanks (on due to a bugged friendly foss) ourselves.

Gameplay could have been much better, and cooler without the ticket loss. Giving that CQC support to infantry was one of the coolest things I've experienced in PR but these opportunities are very rare. Ajusted or removed ticket loss could mean armor squads can do this way more often and it could drastically improve gameplay.

i dont like it.
i really would like to ticket loss increased a little.

[quote=""'Xander[nl"];1719290']Burning Sands, leading a Challanger squad. Our team had Arar Village, and some squads were moving south to the airport when they got pinned down. They requested tank support ASAP and I immediately went there on full speed.

We arrived, deployed smoke for the troops to heal themselves and provided covering fire, as well as mobile cover using the tank itself to shield the infantry from bullets. Being the longest 200 meter of their lifes, the infantry squads eventually made it to the safety of the fences under direct tank cover as we moved up along side them. The assault went perfectly untill an enemy tank pulled up. We saw him first, and we had a little brawl. Eventually we killed him, but he hit us two times and our tank was smoking lightly.

We could have pushed on into the airport and help the infantry even further. We could have won the round right there. But we couldn't. Keeping the ticket loss in mind, I didn't want to risk the tank being killed and pulled out of there.

Needless to say the infantry all died a few minutes later.


In the end, we won the round because my tank squad scored 8-10 kills on enemy heavy armor while only losing three tanks (on due to a bugged friendly foss) ourselves.

Gameplay could have been much better, and cooler without the ticket loss. Giving that CQC support to infantry was one of the coolest things I've experienced in PR but these opportunities are very rare. Ajusted or removed ticket loss could mean armor squads can do this way more often and it could drastically improve gameplay.[/quote]

See, thats a teamplayer right there who with the benefit of the team in mind does NOT teamplay.

[quote="maarit""]i dont like it.
i really would like to ticket loss increased a little.[/quote]

I see there is a devide of faith. We should settle this the way mature and reasonable adults settled fundamental questions of faith and principle before us. I think I could organize some fuses and sturdy shells, but I am gonna need somebody to help me get explosives. Anybody on here good with handling ordenance ?

maarit wrote:i dont like it.
i really would like to ticket loss increased a little.

You don't like what? The ticket penalty or the idea of removing it? Your statement isn't very clear...