Project Reality Forums

Hey


Please correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember two things used to work differently long ago.


One thing was that we had some maps where you could capture all flags of the enemy team and situations where just like in BF2 the team bleeds out tickets while having nowhere to spawn, instead of bleeding them while having somewhere to spawn.

I also seem to remember a lot fewer maps with protective "you're outside of combat" shields and assets actually intended to be used for those last stands like Anti Tank guns for Militia maps.

I loved those guns.



Anyway, what is the reason for removing these two concepts that IMO added a nice dimension of a last stand and total massive destruction when the opposing team has you completely surrounded?

Also, why were so many base defense assets removed. I know i've noticed this elsewhere too but I guess my biggest issue is that I can't find any of the old manual AT-guns anywhere anymore. If anything it was cool decoration.

Exploiting mainly I suppose. Its rather gamebreaking and unrealistic. We want to focus the fight in more interesting areas.

Well Mineral, please don?t go banzai again and lock this thread too. I'll keep it civil just like I did in the other one.

Like I wrote elsewhere everyone are whining about insurgency being unbalanced and boring for the insurgents.
Clans like O-DC are not even playing insurgency maps because of this.

You developers have lowered the threshold for caches and I think that you have changed it so that the first cache is detectable sooner.

All these things instead of having the insurgents do the *most* realistic and fun thing they can:


*Phase 1.

Insurgent onslaught.
- The coalition is lacking intelligence and is under heavy attack by insurgent forces, the main base is under a heavy attack.

*Phase 2.
Coalition counter attack
- Having grouped and moved out the coalition is now beating back the insurgents, the first intelligence points (people, info, etc) are gathered. The insurgents are being beaten back to their bases while the coalition is conducting Recon in Force.

*Phase 3.
Cache destruction
- The coalition is now roaming the city or countryside in search of the insurgency, it has established FOBs .
The insurgency is on the defensive, trying to protect their weapons caches.



Concerning AAS I think it's FAR more realistic that the final objective should be the main base and not some random village in-front of it.

The Main Base does not represent the final objective in most maps. It is beyond the most ludicrous fever dream ever had by a madman for F-16s to operate from an airbase that's less than 3km away from forward edge of battle area (F-16s may be operating from airfields that are longer than 3km!). Even A-10s were never envisioned operating that close. I feel pretty confident in saying that even forward air resupply points for helicopters wouldn't be that close under anything less than emergency circumstances. Map design is pretty standardized in that by the time your final flag is under assault you've lost the game (and indeed probably lost thirty minutes ago), capping the last point is more of a mercy killing than an opportunity for a serious last stand. The main base therefor represents a depot of equipment and personnel well outside the battle area, beyond the reach of the enemy unless total control of the battle area has been established.

The big difference, the primary difference, the reason main base assaults have been disallowed since days of yore is that players don't enter into the fight. They spawn. While you spawn you are vulnerable. There are only a few places you can do it and you don't have any situational awareness or ability to ready yourself for a fight. Allowing people to assault the main base directly means that if the defenders fail the game is over because the attackers can stand behind the magic people fountain and shoot them once in the base of the skull as soon as they wink into existence and there is literally nothing the spawning players can do about it. There are already plenty of examples about how problematic this is, you can see the effects any time an APC or Tank happens upon an FOB and the crew decides to farm some kills.

Silent Eagle has (or had in past? I cant remember) playable main bases. And it was really good, when the German team was bad and where loosing you can conquer their main base and finish the job, without waiting for 30 minutes for they run out of tickets. Or giving the enemy the opportunity to recover, if your enemy is bleeding in the ground you kill him, you don't give the opportunity to stand up and fight again.

Even in Silent Eagle you're not forced to spawn in and immediately be mowed down if you lose what is ostensibly the main lynchpin of your presence on the battlefield. Your commander's post, vehicle repair point, and a not insignificant quantity and quality of vehicle spawns are inside a protected dome of death in either corner of the map.

I disagree with your assessment.

While the main base in terms of aircraft contingencies may not be realistically represented, the concept of the forward operating base is. Not to mention the fact that both the Vietcong and the Taliband and now the Syrian resistance is hitting main bases continuously in raids.

Most large battles in Afghanistan tend to be the result of insurgent attacks on bases where assets such as vehicles are situated (or their observation posts) and then counter attacks from these bases.


I feel it's a bit sad that people will not be able to experience the epic nature of this game that once existed.
The need to continuously update the flavor of content while diminishing the scope of gameplay does not help to improve the quality of the game each month.

It becomes like a choice between Coke and Pepsi. Who really cares if they are driving a M1A2 or a T90?
But I do care about all the tactical options. Even if they are a bit unrealistic.

I still fondly remember when me and a buddy swimming to a US carrier and sniping personnel.
A *Completely* unrealistic proposal that I can't defend unlike the ones mentioned here which I believe you are clearly in the wrong.

But non the less, it is still the one moment I remember most fondly in all my years of playing the game. A moment you have ripped from every future player forever. By YOU I mean anyone who wishes to force the tactics they believe are reasonable onto others who see it from an other view.

From my perspective all of this is easily handled by the servers and should not have been forced upon the whole community by a majority of developers while silencing the dissenting minority.

Nothing will change, we are far too deep in this already. See this as an oldtimers rant.
I've been around longer than my account suggests.

I wish there was a game like PR with more lighthearted people who still love serious squad-based-tactics.
A real simulation with unreal options!

And that could have easily been left to the server administrators...

Its unrealistic and completely breaks the game. Mains are off-battle zones which are not supposed to be in reach for the enemy. Its already a pain in the *** to control the base-dilemma on silent eagle so that it doesnt get raped until its capable.

I for once wouldnt find it funny to guard my mainbase for 2 hours straight to make sure that not some taliban jumps on a hill nearby and RPGs every vehicle. Cause thats how it is in RL, hundreds of guards are securing bases 24/7 so that something like this cannot even happen. Also mainbases are not build so close to the frontline that a normal insurgent can reach it from his hideout after a 5minute walk.

The game was designed by the devs, and they made sure its played how it was designed on every server. Feel free to create an event on a passworded server were DODs are removed and mainbases are allowed to be attacked. Nobody forbids that.