Project Reality Forums

As always, I've searched for this and obviously found nothing. If this had been suggested before, then I apologize for wasting the reader's time.
Another vehicle suggestion from me... You know when you have well thought out plan for your squad that presumes getting a transport vehicle, the driver from your squad gets in but it fills up with other people leaving your squad divided as your awesome plan goes down the drain?
The suggestion is that the driver's squad members have priority over players that are not from your squad when entering a vehicle. For example, if someone that is not in your squad gets the last position in a HMMWV and the driver is in your squad, then you can enter the vehicle, kicking out that someone.
I don't know if this is possible and you've probably thought of it, but how do bots automatically exit the vehicle when you try to get in it in single player?
If this is possible...
It might sound harsh but this way that squad that already has a driver in get to attempt their plan without having to rush for the vehicle with no support, DM, heavy AT or even officer's kit. And people never actually have the time, nor can they be arsed to send a message over teamchat to the bothersome player.

I'd rather make it, so you can't drive a transport alone...you need to have at least one more guy in the vehicle, then you can actually move. They made it for the driver position, so you cnat drive the APCs for example, without Crewman kit...so I presume its possible to code..
So no more taking humvees to Basrah, getting killed, and the humvee stays there and gives the insurgents ammunition for free...
Or the self-driven tanks and APCs or Cobras...

Frankly no one gives a shit if you really need the vehicle for a "real" purpose other than race to the nearest flag by yourself.

Therefore it would be a good idea, but with good ideas come the disadvantages.

I like the idea, hate the blue guys stealing spots from my squad!

Outlawz wrote:I'd rather make it, so you can't drive a transport alone...you need to have at least one more guy in the vehicle, then you can actually move.

Dont like that idea, yeah it would stop people from using vehicles as one man taxis to the nearest flag but it would also stop teamwork such as grabbing a humwee to pick up your squad who are somewhere else etc.

I don't follow you Viking. What do you mean?

I think that both suggestions are good, and the problems they are solving are pretty important and could really decide the outcome of a battle. If you can't get a cohesive assault together, then you are screwed no matter what way you look at it. With mixed squad assaults, people get mixed up and friendly fire occurs, plus it's difficult to communicate enemy positions quickly with someone not in your squad. PLUS they make commander orders basically void.

El_Vikingo wrote:Therefore it would be a good idea, but with good ideas come the disadvantages.

Disadvantages as in the devs coding a workaround for the next 2 years postponing all future releases by 3 months? I, for one, couldn't think of any exception where this idea would be a drawback, but you can think of one, then , by all means, post it.

Outlawz wrote:I'd rather make it, so you can't drive a transport alone...you need to have at least one more guy in the vehicle, then you can actually move. They made it for the driver position, so you cnat drive the APCs for example, without Crewman kit...so I presume its possible to code..
So no more taking humvees to Basrah, getting killed, and the humvee stays there and gives the insurgents ammunition for free...
Or the self-driven tanks and APCs or Cobras...

I agree. I thought of any would be exceptions where this would somehow prevent teamwork or realism but none are actually desirable so it's all good for what I can tell.

Outlawz wrote:I'd rather make it, so you can't drive a transport alone...you need to have at least one more guy in the vehicle, then you can actually move. They made it for the driver position, so you cnat drive the APCs for example, without Crewman kit...so I presume its possible to code..
So no more taking humvees to Basrah, getting killed, and the humvee stays there and gives the insurgents ammunition for free...
Or the self-driven tanks and APCs or Cobras...

I think that's a bad idea. Nothing would stop people from driving to the battle and abandoning the vehicle. However, it would stop people from retrieving the vehicle and driving back home so that they can drive others to the front. You'd have to needlessly tie up another person - they'd have to be there for no other reason besides making the car run.

I'll post dissies some later if I have time.

bouble post

Double post, Vikingo

Well, ok, so my idea wouldnt work...

Got any other suggestions?

I still don't see arguments on the original idea... though it may be hard coded (please God no).

Down side would be thus:

Humvee comes at you at full speed. You hold E, you get in.

Full humvee comes at you with your SL driving at full speed. You hold E, get on, some poor chump gets dumped out and dies because of the speed.

Expendable Grunt wrote:Down side would be thus:

Humvee comes at you at full speed. You hold E, you get in.

Full humvee comes at you with your SL driving at full speed. You hold E, get on, some poor chump gets dumped out and dies because of the speed.

Driver should get negative points for that although that may not be possible. How 'bout you take damage if you try to mount a fast moving vehicle, sort of like exiting one?
Thanks for pointing that out tough.

You are driving along in a humvee with someone on the MG. Your gunner gets killed and rather than being able to drive away from a dangerous situation, your engine cuts out and you have to bail...*ouch*

Perhaps only prevent people from taking the vehicle from its spawn point with a single occupant? Something like the system that prevents you getting a crewman kit froma vehicle when the vehicle has been moved from its spawnpoint. That would also allow only one man to salvage an abandoned vehicle on the battlefield.

Ooh, good point, Neph. I hadn't considered the dead gunner scenario.

Other titles out there have vehicle models take damage if abandoned behind enemy lines, such as the option of flag-rushing with a HMMWV. I dont know if PR/BF2 can support that notion, but would that do anything to counter the issues of a vehicle falling into enemy hands because of some carelessness on the spawning side? Just thinking aloud here.

Outlawz wrote:I'd rather make it, so you can't drive a transport alone...you need to have at least one more guy in the vehicle, then you can actually move. They made it for the driver position, so you cnat drive the APCs for example, without Crewman kit...so I presume its possible to code..
So no more taking humvees to Basrah, getting killed, and the humvee stays there and gives the insurgents ammunition for free...
Or the self-driven tanks and APCs or Cobras...

Bad idea.

Let's say you have taken it upon yourself to shuttle people from point A, to point B. You would not be able to drive the vehicle unless someone else is in it? Dumb. I spent a whole round of Jabal last night just flying people around and dropping them off. By what your saying, when I drop everyone off.... not everyone can get out of the vehicle, otherwise I won't be able to operate it to go back and pick up more troops. Bad idea. Also, you don't have to request a kit to drive a damn Humvee.... horrible idea. Christ, all you need to do is turn the starter switch.

This is another post that involves trying to program stupidity out of the game. All it does is hinder the people doing the right thing. Dumb people are going to do dumb things. Also, there are times I hop in a Cobra and nobody sticks around to gun..... so I'm not supposed to be able to use that? I know IRL that you are never flying an attack heli into battle alone, and a Blackhawk crew consists of about 3 people IRL. With maps only getting larger, the demand for boots on the ground is only going to get worse. Hardcoding all vehicles so they HAVE to have the exact amount of operators as they do IRL is going to take away from gameplay.

Outlawz stated that his idea wouldn't work upon deeper thought so unless anyone sees something that might make it worth wile, can we stop talking about it?
The whole point of this thread has hardly been discussed. Is it or is it not possible in the engine, and if it is, will it have the desired effect?

I suggested this in another thread: Have the SL be able to request a vehicle drop, only from the main base. Make it a Humvee that drops rapidly (say 15 seconds). This vehicle is your squads vehicle, or you can jump in any of the other vehicles that are standard to the map but not another squads vehicle. This would ensure your squad has transportation, if you ditch your Humvee or get it blown up set the time between requests to 5-10 min to place a value on the vehicle.

- No need to auto kick non squad mates
- ensures squad teamwork
- flexible enough to have one person drive if needed i.e. SL drive to set RP.

The draw back to this system, besides the work required to create it , would be that if you are in the field and see some poor guy in the middle of the desert he can't jump into your squad vehicle. You would basically have to determine if the compromise is worth it. It creates better squad cohesion but takes away from teamwork as a whole

Long Bow, it might work but there should be a limit. Imagine 8 squads requesting a squad vehicle. The map would be flooded with them.
Stuff I would change in your suggestion: maybe a different kind of officer kit in limited supply that can request this vehicle. Maybe replace that squad's rally point with this sort of vehicle. Just throwing ideas in.
I also wasn't referring only to light and medium wheeled transports. I'm also aiming at helicopters and APCs.
Talking about the original idea:
While in my version, the fact that some may be left behind is true, but the number of those players is actually the same as in the current system. The only thing different is what squad those players are in. And it only makes squad pre-battle planning more important.