Project Reality Forums

(Foreword: I'm not sure what forum would be appropriate for this, so I understand if it needs to be moved. Appreciated!)

Hey all!

Now that I'm clear of college for the summer (well, as of a month ago, but I've been busy doing a mental vacation), I'm going to be dipping my feet into some modding for the community.

One of the elements we haven't had a big opportunity to examine in the 128 player (and more) server tests is how to rebalance vehicle assets with the increase in players. Given the event nature the tests have taken recently, I feel it would be fun (pending necessary permissions from the team) to experiment with altered GPO's during some of the tests.

This thread will be where I post my ideas (as well as those of the community) for modified GPO's of existing PR maps for the purposes of testing in event fashion on SISU.

The first idea I'm toying with is Operation Barracuda:

USMC- All assets spawn on 10 minute timer, not available at start of round (consequently, will spawn 5 minutes after round start).
-8 AAVP's
-6 Huey Transports (1 is on a 7 minute timer, I.E. spawns 2 minutes into the round)
-2 Cobras
(AT FIRST CONTROL POINT):
-1 Logi Truck (5 minute timer, available on cap)
-1 M1 tank (20 minute timer, not available immediately)

PLA- All assets spawn on 10 minute timer, not available at start of round; unless otherwise noted. (consequently, will spawn 5 minutes after round start).
NO BEGINNING SPAWN POINTS FOR PLA besides their main base.
-2 Transport trucks (5 minute timer, spawns at start)
-4 Heavy APC's
-2 50 cal APC's
-4 VN-3's
-1 Anti-aircraft vehicle (20 minute timer)
-4 Logi trucks

The 10 minute warm-up time allows both sides to complete their planning and execute their offensive/defensive deployment at approximately the same time. Early (LIGHT) transport for the USMC allows them to get a recon element on land before the main invasion force. Early light transport for the PLA allows them to get early manpower to the beaches most likely to be attacked based on the flag layout. This layout is designed to simulate a short-notice amphibious assault.

More to come. Comments? Ideas?

IMO the asset count itself shouldn't be increased radically.
Taking Op. Barracuda as example:
On the normal 64 layout there are 2 CAS Hueys, 3 Trans Hueys and 2 AAVPs. Taken all my rounds played on Sisu into consideration, even doubling the amount of armor is impracticable, not to talk about 8 AAVPs. Adding heavy armor like an M1 could dangerously tip the balance of the map towards the USMC faction, so you/we have to think a bit more about it.

As seen during many rounds armor, or overall all assets (especially those bloody flying tanks) rule the battlefield. Infantry has few to no defense against them as the AT weaponry is very limited. Basically armor dies always at the same ration, they just have much more stuff to shoot at. The biggest issue on the Sisu server right now is the lack of light transport (Humvees, M35s, Helicpoters of all kind, ...).

Otherwise most of the gameplay is for me more than balanced. If you are careful you can survive very long in tanks and on the other hand get anally raped if you don't behave in a proper manner. Same goes for the infantry.

If we want to increase vehicle count at all for the SISU server, it should be very slightly. There should be a lot of infantry. For example Beirut already has six (!) transport helicopters which is madness, even for the 128 server, while other maps have one or two which could be raised to three. I think the most important part is increasing transport och logistics where it is lacking. Why not a few IFVs on maps that have the space and won't suffer in infantry numbers.

Op. Barracuda is not a good exemple. The island is quite small and there's like only 2 roads.

Work on the 4K maps first. Barracuda's too small and too scenario-based. Same thing goes for Jabal and Qwai, etc.

Think of all the asset wars that would go on in such a small environment like barracuda, haha, infantry wouldnt have a chance!

Which 4km map should I work on first?

whichever one you like

OP, what you are suggesting is over kill, I think that assets shouldn't be changed except transport assets, like trans choppers, transport and logi trucks, unarmed vehicles etc.

Just so you know we are working on these now

however I think the general theme will be extra dedicated transport vehicles, and very little change in combat assets.

e.g. Kashan on 128 players played very well with the current armour layout but just needs more transport.

rudd how about adding more vehicles such as humvee's and not adding any extra transport helicopters etc.
It would mean we have less people sitting in trans heli's during the middle of the round.

I thought about that Kill, the problem is that this isn't generation kill, so we aint taking humvees against tanks

Especially without a MK19 grenade launcher haha

think of it this way

1) larger population means larger squads - which will probably require more than 1 dedicated transport to move them, meaning twice as many choppers for one drop.

2) if we kept choppers the same and one was shot down...then the remaining chopper will have to make 2 trips for one squad.

whereas, if we add extra choppers

everyone gets a ride

it looks more realistic anyway seeing multiple choppers in the air together

having more Dedicated transports means its more probable to get a ride in the first place.

I considered adding a few humvees in, but they would get slaughtered outside of layer 16.

you'd drive them to teh bunker, and thats it, whereas a blackhawk or cow will be used again and again.

it will also give extra logistical support to our larger team

For the non combined arms maps that don't feature choppers, I'm open to suggestions as always.

Depends on the map. Muttrah city mid-late game there is sparse air traffic. Everybody spawns on a FOB in the city.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rudd;1611940']I thought about that Kill, the problem is that this isn't generation kill, so we aint taking humvees against tanks

Especially without a MK19 grenade launcher haha

think of it this way

1) larger population means larger squads - which will probably require more than 1 dedicated transport to move them, meaning twice as many choppers for one drop.

2) if we kept choppers the same and one was shot down...then the remaining chopper will have to make 2 trips for one squad.

whereas, if we add extra choppers

everyone gets a ride

it looks more realistic anyway seeing multiple choppers in the air together

having more Dedicated transports means its more probable to get a ride in the first place.

I considered adding a few humvees in, but they would get slaughtered outside of layer 16.

you'd drive them to teh bunker, and thats it, whereas a blackhawk or cow will be used again and again.

it will also give extra logistical support to our larger team

For the non combined arms maps that don't feature choppers, I'm open to suggestions as always.

LIES! Y ya lying to us dawg

my suggestion on kashan:
-increase the amount of transport choppers to 4 each team
-add 2 apc and 2 tanks for each team
-i think 4 anti-air-vehicles are enough for a team
-add one cas depending on layout(one F16 - one Mig/1 Apache - 1 Havoc)
-keep the amount of supply trucks

Ron-Schultz wrote:-add one cas depending on layout(one F16 - one Mig/1 Apache - 1 Havoc)

Perhaps the 3rd jets could be two-seaters, vanilla F-15E and SU-34 altered for PR use?

On kashan, we have 1 (or is it 2?) humvee already. Unless paired up with TOW-humvee it will be near useless in 128 combined arms-layer. Having the 2 humvees together will fit a 10 man squad. They would be fast moving and be able to adequately defend themselves.
Sure, easily wasted with wrong crew, butt then again; what asset isn't?

I'm in favor for a tag-team humvee unit mostly because of the diversity it will give to map.
And if you create the mk-19 humvee, hey, toss it in the mix

With that said, I agree with others on NOT to increase armoured assets/Jets etc. Slightly more transports would be nice. However, would be nice if the increased amount of trans did not spawn at start. Rather that they respawn faster/more frequently. This because I don't want 8 transtruck abandoned in the desert.

Maybe this would encourage more active transquads. Shuttling soldiers from bases to frontlines. This also securing their survival, and with that also comes more ammoboxes to the troops (more runs means more reloading of trucks at main). Win win.

My 2 cents.

I have never seen any transport demand in the 128p game greater than normal 64p. Once the first 10 minutes of round are over there are plenty of FOBs and people mostly spawn off them. There are always some 6-7 random dudes in base running around or waiting for the air assets to spawn back but not much content for whining that "there is not enough transport". On kashan desert for example, each team has FOUR supply trucks and two helicopters. Thats a 6 man squad right there, if there is a proper transport squad there would be no more complaints.

I think we should increase APC's *not IFV's, since larger servers could better simulate mechanized INF, especially on INS maps. However, transport helo increase is good for 4km, since APC's would get raped by tanks.

I think PR should use this opportunity to utilize more MECH infantry squads. They are sooo efficient even if the APC never fires a round.

OP, just so you know the PR team are working on this layer type internally. Not locking this though as suggestions are obviously welcome, but I think I'll move to the suggestions section of the forums.