Project Reality Forums

I'm a bit rushed for time, so this will be brief but I'll attempt to give as much detail as needed.

Problem:
Losing vehicles = losing tickets = losing game.
Single crewed vehicles are often lost quickly and needlessly.
Assets are spread across x amount of squads attempting to complete y tactic which doesn't work.
Assets are consolidated into 1/2 squads attempting to complete z tactic which doesn't work.

Solution:
Give the commander the ability to spawn in vehicles from the current "pool" of vehicles available, within 100m of the vehicles current spawn point. This way the commander can "assign" vehicles to squads. This allows the commander to:
1. Add a mechanism to decrease the amount of single crewed vehicles.
2. Add a mechanism to disperse assets across the required battle space to ensure a maneuver can be completed with the maximum possible success rate.

If there is no commander, the vehicles spawn as per normal.

Cons:
Someone's mate may apply to be a commander, guarentee them use of an asset and then leave the role.

Sounds like a bad idea and would probably be abused. One manning isn't much of a problem if you play in the right servers.

na mate like nick20404 said if you work properly you wont have this problem... Bad idea unrealistic

Sounds good, even better would be to have the Kits coded in the same way.... But thats an old and failed discussion...


Anyway, i completly agree with this, and i will not rant if this gets implemented, i promise... (ok maybe abit )

[R-CON]tonnie15 wrote:na mate like nick20404 said if you work properly you wont have this problem... Bad idea unrealistic

It's a mediocre idea in isolation; but if worked into a broader concept of a "ticket economy"; then it adds a lot of tactics to the gameplay, makes the commander useful, and adds realism, as people actually protect assets for fear of being denied them, because they have an actual value and don't just magically respawn on their own. Also, a commander requisitioning assets strikes me as more realistic than them "just being there built into the terrain."

Very very easy to abuse on many levels.

In fact, the team without a commander will end up having better success tbh.

Its a nice idea, but many of these things are "project reality tournament minimod" style things.

If you can´t trust someone not to one man, how can you trust someone to designate assets our nice and fairly?

Haha i can imagine a screnario of that happening,

Player X tries to be a commander.
Player X: Oh boy this is going to be exiciting, i'm gonna spawn 10 abrams and a ubber lot of humvee to pwn the MECs!
Player X enters command post, Reading carefully of the instructions.....
Player X: oops its dinner time! my favourite time of day!
Player X presses escape but forgot to disconnect.

If this happens, the team can say goodbye to all forms of transports and say hello to Mogadishu mile!

All those arguments can be levelled against a commander refusing to issue build orders; it doesn't fly if the servers allow mutineering or have active admins.

There's only one commander slot, and to make the commander fun and useful he needs to have things to do - making those things to do trivial and unimportant just because there's only one commander per team and it thus centralises power is not really a valid argument. The alternative is what we have now - no commanders because commanders are boring and redundant.

Player X: Oh boy this is going to be exiciting, i'm gonna spawn 10 abrams and a ubber lot of humvee to pwn the MECs!

How I see it being implemented is regular but long spawn times on some basic vehicles; IE the team starts with one humvee, one supply truck, one troop-transport truck - and these have MASSIVE respawn times, say 10 mins each. They'll respawn on their own with or without a commander, making the team not impotent; just like the team can build assets without a commander. However, a commander is needed to requisition better vehicles / assets, AND TO RESPAWN LOST ASSETS QUICKER. IE the commander spawns an additional humvee, or an APC, etc etc. There would naturally need to be limits / timers on these to prevent "tanks for all!", but the general rule of thumb would be that if a commander wants to risk lots of expensive assets (tickets), that is an option to a degree; but if it doesn't pay-off, you'll lose.

Ace42 wrote:All those arguments can be levelled against a commander refusing to issue build orders; it doesn't fly if the servers allow mutineering or have active admins.

Not really. Refusing to give you build orders doesn´t do much on most maps. You still have rallies, equal ability to engage the enemy etc.

In a pub game I would 100% rather play on the team without a commander and steamroll the opponents because their commander thinks the best thing to do is save the big asset as it costs tickets, give his friend the important other asset or kit who promptly losses it etc.


Ok great, so by not using those tanks you won´t lose 10 tickets each time. Fair dos, good tactic. Except the enmy is going to come rolling in with 4 tanks and watchagonna do about it?

Yeah, you just lost 50 tickets worth of people, trucks and other stuff because you held back your tanks. See the flaw there? By removing big ticket costing assets from play you save tickets by them not dying, and lose them by other things dying more.

If a good commander got in the seat with this, then what would happen is either:

1) All his mates get good stuff because he trusts them making the game suck for others alot of the time and not necessarily improving the situation.

2) He carefully designates and spawns assets for people that get promptly destroyed anyway because these people will one man/drive into the enemy etc whether the asset spawns normally or by commander.

3) He doesn´t spawn anything in total fear of losing tickets/them getting wasted that the enemy team rapes them.

It gives PR a new depth, comon why is there always negative people towards these stuff? I mean comon guys.

Its like you live in a box of negativ force. Can you see the positive things this will bring?

If this was implemented into PR, imagine actually having a commander, people being on mumble. And communications going both ways. You cant say this will be exploited or misused. Unless we try it, i think its a good idea, since it promotes the Commander having a better job. But i dont know if it sucks yet. Maybe its horrible. But i still think its a good idea. Lets think this through, before we say, no this sucks.

Alex6714 wrote:Not really. Refusing to give you build orders doesn´t do much on most maps.

I'll take that assertion under advisement.

In a pub game I would 100% rather play on the team without a commander and steamroll the opponents because their commander thinks the best thing to do is save the big asset as it costs tickets, give his friend the important other asset or kit who promptly losses it etc.

Except, as I said, if you had no commander you'd still have no assets at all apart from those that spawn as a matter of course. And how's it any different from his friend naming a squad "APC" and grabbing an asset and wasting it now? It's no different except under my system the CO could say "well, you wasted that one, I'm not gonna give you another one to waste" OR could go "bad luck, I'll spawn you up another one straight away, get back in the action and try to do better".

Ok great, so by not using those tanks you won´t lose 10 tickets each time. Fair dos, good tactic. Except the enmy is going to come rolling in with 4 tanks and watchagonna do about it?

So you're questioning your CO's tactics? By that argument there should be no COs in the game ever under any circumstances because their commands might be counter-productive.

See the flaw there? By removing big ticket costing assets from play you save tickets by them not dying, and lose them by other things dying more.

So the flaw is that commanders' tactical decisions have an actual significant and realistic effect on gameplay? Well shucks, ain't that a shame!

If a good commander got in the seat with this, then what would happen is either:

1) All his mates get good stuff because he trusts them making the game suck for others alot of the time and not necessarily improving the situation.

No different from admins kicking people who beat their pals to naming a squad "APC!" etc etc. People are going to fight over assets under any system; this one just tastes different and adds other perks.

2) He carefully designates and spawns assets for people that get promptly destroyed anyway because these people will one man/drive into the enemy etc whether the asset spawns normally or by commander.

Irrelevant - you said it yourself "people will do it whether the assets spawn normally or not", so may as well use this system and have the CO do something interesting and useful.

3) He doesn´t spawn anything in total fear of losing tickets/them getting wasted that the enemy team rapes them.

You could say the same about no-one on the team jumping in a tank at main and it getting taken out for the same reason.

There are going to be bad commanders, making commanders totally useless just on the off chance you get a bad one is no solution. Be a good commander, show people how it's done, problem solved - these issues won't occur.

We don't remove powerful assets from the game just because one or two individuals can mess up, lose them, and hurt the team - I don't see this being an argument for keeping useful commanders out.

Seriously, I want to call the umpire in on this one:
Is the reason COs are boring and sucky ATM because the devs fear putting real game-changing power in the hands of one player who may bite? If so, fine, I'll drop the whole suggestion. If not, then we can put that argument to rest, kthnxbye.

Because not everyone is a perfect lovable bunny teamwork PR 4 life player....


Seriously, I can totally see how this would be an awesome thing, but only in the tournament and controlled play...

I don´t mind if it is introduced to public play, not my decision etc but I can tell you now it doesn´t take a monkey to know that it won´t quite end up with the chocolate coated lovable result you think.

I mean, if I said remove flares on aircraft what do you think would happen?

1) People suddenly start hugging each other and work effortlessly in a team to counter the difficulty.

2) Everything airborne becomes entirely useless and gets shot down before it can say AA after exiting the main base.

Edit:

So you're questioning your CO's tactics? By that argument there should be no COs in the game ever under any circumstances because their commands might be counter-productive.

Well, if the CO told you to head to A1 and defend that square what would you think?

So the flaw is that commanders' tactical decisions have an actual significant and realistic effect on gameplay? Well shucks, ain't that a shame!

It already does make a big difference.... If you have a good commander and SLs. No need to force commander upon people to be able to play properly. The reason there aren´t many is because it is incredibly boring and oly a few want to do it, not because it doesn´t matter.

There are going to be bad commanders, making commanders totally useless just on the off chance you get a bad one is no solution. Be a good commander, show people how it's done, problem solved - these issues won't occur.

Except they aren´t useless... You are assuming we are playing with 63 people we know intimately to just show them how its done and magic will happen.

Except, as I said, if you had no commander you'd still have no assets at all apart from those that spawn as a matter of course. And how's it any different from his friend naming a squad "APC" and grabbing an asset and wasting it now? It's no different except under my system the CO could say "well, you wasted that one, I'm not gonna give you another one to waste" OR could go "bad luck, I'll spawn you up another one straight away, get back in the action and try to do better".

Who decides whether the asset was lost by bad luck, unfair advantage, lack of intel or pure stupidity? Who is to blame, the guys who died in it, the guy who forgot to give them vital intel or the squad that didn´t report said intel?

The current system is fair to everyone, new players, experienced players etc...

I have seenhow it works on some servers that enforce strictly CO rules and named squads, and unless your a regular don´t bother playing there. If you are a regular chances are you are somewhat decent at playing the game and following orders anyway, so the whole system isn´t needed.


The point about the build order thing is that it hinders the team when there is a commander, ¡unless he is an alert good one.

Want to make the commander necessary? Make him necessary to build firebases with build orders. I have a feeling this would have already been done if it was wanted, seeing as it was somewhat like that before.

Well Alex, i get what you say, that pubbies will suffer under this system, and they wont have any fun at all, cause all the big toys will either be taken by those who are trusted by the commander, like vets and people who know the commander. And the new guys, the guys who havent played that much, are left with the trucks and the boring assets and infantry...

WAIT! OMG!!!!

That would be great! leave the veichles to those who know how to drive them... its brilliant, thank you Alex for such a great input

Well, then its final, commanders decide veichles for the excperienced people, the teamwork people.

New people sticks to Infantry until they know the game.

Horrible idea.
This would just be abused by vehicle hor*ng clans.
Plus how are new players ment to learn if the commander wont give them an asset

Hope this never finds its way into the mod

Very bad idea..

That would be great! leave the veichles to those who know how to drive them... its brilliant, thank you Alex for such a great input

aha, random guy jumps into commander seat, deploy assets to players who are his friends, nobody knows how to drive them... it's brilliant idea for nubs to jump into tank cuz its 1337
or remember those, who join servers and start wasting assets on purpose, how many new ways of wasting you will give them

You guys are really starting to make me frustrated....

How is a commander giving out assets to noobs, going to be different from the system we have now, that the veichles is availible to everyone.

If the commander sees fit to give you a veichle, then he thinks you will have a positive ticket ratio before you destroy, then he has made a good choice. You guys really dont see further than the shit on the side of the toilet do you?

What makes you reason this way?

What makes a tank 1337? What makes a "1337" person take a tank now? As opposed to be given by the commander.

New players can start up a local server to train on veichles, this has always been said, dont go around on Public servers and make everyones day miserable.

And if a clan is veichle whoring... Erm... Like say iGi or DM, or any other clan took alot of veichles, i think they would do alot better than the standard pubber.

Wicca what they are saying is if no ones in the CO spot and some random guy jumps into the commander spot, starts giving assets to all his friends, but what happens if they cant use assets properly and just get them killed within the first minute? Isnt it better if everyone can grab them apart from only a small group designated?

New players can start up a local server to train on veichles, this has always been said, dont go around on Public servers and make everyones day miserable.

problem is they dont do it, they enter server 1sst time and "oh, cobra, now i'll show them my seat swithing skills with tv guided missiles" or "I can fly, dont argue with me, its just helicopter bugged, once i try to take off it flips over" and etc.

you(Wicca)

And if a clan is veichle whoring... Erm... Like say iGi or DM, or any other clan took alot of veichles, i think they would do alot better than the standard pubber.

Alex

Because not everyone is a perfect lovable bunny teamwork PR 4 life player....
Seriously, I can totally see how this would be an awesome thing, but only in the tournament and controlled play...

makes sense, isn't it?

How is a commander giving out assets to noobs, going to be different from the system we have now, that the veichles is availible to everyone.

now, everybody got a chance to take vehicle, both noobs and experienced player, add here ingame admin and asset wasting becomes not a big problem
but if you have commander with his own r-tard squad of friends you owned, because he issued all vehicles to his friends, and others gain nothing

Yes, chances are clan folk will do better, but this is a game we are playing here and everyone should have equal rights to have fun.





You are forgetting one big thing:

No one is the perfect person you think. Who are these perfect commanders? Yeah I know some good ones, but you are assuming everyone are fluffy bunnies going to play exactly like you want them too.