Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 - Page 2

TeflonDon · 11-02-2007, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernout

Of all the comments that were made this was the one I felt the biggest desire to comment on. When you already have games which implement both sides of the spectrum, why on Earth would there be a necessity to have to commit to one direction or the other? What's wrong with having the happy medium other than the difficulty in finding that sweet spot and maintaining it?

Another way of looking at it...

Why are the vanilla BF2 and POE players attracted to PR?
Why are the people desiring realism not off playing ArmA?

For me personally, I'm in the faster action type camp. Been that way ever since I played through 2 years of WWIIOL and then Planetside enlightened me.

I love to play PR because IMO it took away the gamiest of the BF2 elements while still retaining the core BF2 game play. The extra teamwork requirement is there but not to the degree of overwhelming a public server where the amount of teamwork that can be expected is uncertain.

I will of course approach 0.7 with an open mind but I'm concerned because I love the current game play but even with 0.6 I leave when certain maps show up which for my own tastes slow things down too much or are simply not as much fun. I fear that for me 0.7 will be the end and what out there is in any position to replace its unique style of play? Sure the diehards will mutter "this mod is obviously not for you". But that line of thinking IMO ultimately leads to servers which are not full and a shrinking community.

Bernout

Here here!

And you beat my post with your last line while i was busy trying to compose my short treatise...

Catraphact · 11-02-2007, 02:23 AM

I have read all the posts here, and I'd like to voice my opinion in a few words:

In a public server, random squads that do not know each other are kept together by the SL spawn point. It allows the SL to co ordinate his efforts. All this talk of structured spawning is, in my opinion, over thinking the GAME.

Project Reality is a "realistic game." It all depends on which of the 2 words have more of a bearing in your opinion. The word game is more important to me. This is not ArmA. It is hard enough for new players as it is. Leave it be.

I think Bernout said it best when he said:

Quote:

But that line of thinking IMO ultimately leads to servers which are not full and a shrinking community.

PR would be a lot less fun without the SL spawn point. I play PR for fun, and granted, some realism is more fun than BF2's Free-For-all-nade'O'spam-fest, this is going too far. It needs to stop at some point, and I'm of the opinion that it should stop here.

IMI-50AE · 11-02-2007, 03:07 AM

Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with Catraphact, Teflon, Bernout, and others that say this is a really bad idea. Why? Because while it sounds great in concept, so does Communism.

What does that mean? Well, in theory, both are perfect ideas. In reality, they fall flat on their faces.

If they continue to change PR like this in their pursuit for utopian 'Reality', I'll just go play ArmA. That's closer reality-wise, in my opinion, and really, why try to match it? Why can't they be happy with how it is and just let us who like it how it is be? I love the "taking away SL spawns means people will defend more". Guess what smart guy: No it won't. Those that want to attack will still Attack, attack, attack. The people who recognize the need for defense will still do that, but of course with most of the team off being lemmings, they are on their own, with no way to get reinforcements. It seems like you're adding realism, but its the 'bad' kind of realism, the kind that is just realism for realism's sake, and gameplay be damned! If this were reality, the US wouldn't assault prepared defenses without a thorough preparatory air bombardment, but you don't see that in the game, do you? Do you see on-call artillery fire support from mortar or 155 batteries, or maybe 5inch naval gunfire from Destroyers off-shore? Nope, none of that to be had. It must not be realistic.

fuzzhead · 11-02-2007, 04:38 AM

Rafterman - my hope is that eventually a new game mode will increase the RTS/FPS combination to a great degree where AAS will be looked upon as the 'fast action' gameplay and the RTS gamemode (tenatively cnc) would be played as the 'serious tactical realism' game mode. So for action players like Bernout, he would have no desire for the cnc mode and continue playing AAS, essentially keeping the core BF2 gameplay. For gamers like myself who enjoy longer, more involved gameplay we would have that option, as well as the option to play AAS when we dont have the time or desire to play a long game. Imagine if you will, multiple huge maps (at least the size of kashan) on dedicated servers. Each map is part of a 'campaign' where the outcome of one map decides where you fight and what equipment you fight with. This technology IS possible with ABR, and its a possible route PR could take if the playerbase has enough interest. Campaigns that could last for days, and you could jump in the fight at any time. Almost like a realistic MMOFPS using the BF2 engine. I know for players like Bernout this is not interesting as they have limited time and attention spans, but Im sure there is a portion of the playerbase that wants to see a more involved battlefield that goes beyond the simplistic game modes that the battlefield series has always presented.

Quote:

I love the current game play but even with 0.6 I leave when certain maps show up which for my own tastes slow things down too much or are simply not as much fun.

When I see certain maps pop up I too leave the server (mainly: helmand, phoenix and street).

Quote:

What's wrong with having the happy medium other than the difficulty in finding that sweet spot and maintaining it?

The problem with trying to keep both camps happy is that inevitably you have to make compromises, and these compromises can cloud the direction of the mod and instead of appealing to a specific type of player, your not really appealing to anyone in particular and the gameplay is just watered down and uninteresting. Project Reality's original design goal (and to an extent still is) to make the most realistic FPS within the confines of the engine, while still maintaining enjoyable gameplay and relying on a strong element of teamwork. To appeal to realism fans the game has progressively evolved from a simple mini mod to full blown features that have drastically steered away from the gameplay dynamics of vanilla BF2. We encounter kind of a 'wall' in that in order to keep evolving the realism concept, certain vanilla features have to be dropped. A portion of the playerbase says 'NO! these features keep the game fun' while another portion of the playerbase says 'YES! finally PR will be leaving the constaints of BF2 features and moving into new territory'.
By sitting on the fence it will only further segregate these 2 different mindsets. I myself did not bring that up to the Lead Devs that was brought up by atlantafalcons, but I agree with him, a decision needs to be made on which way the mod should focus. By 'keeping it the way it is' it will be impossible to evolve the mod, as the direction we want to go would be unclear.
Project Reality is prety unique in its current form, its constantly evolving and creating new challenges for the players and devs alike. Of course there will eventually be a 1.0 where its considered 'finished', but until that time the gameplay will continue to be refined and tuned. Where most (if not all) other BF2 mods are not looking for much different gameplay from stock BF2, instead focusing on new content, factions, weapons, vehicles etc, PR is focusing on gameplay. PR has ALWAYS primarily focused on creating a unique gameplay experience and in the recent releases (0.5 and 0.6 especially) has finally been departing from the vanilla game style. I'm not a 'decision' maker for PR, Im just a player like yourselves who pays attention to details and understands the process of building gameplay features. I don't know which direction PR will take yet, it is very much is in the combined hands of the community and Lead Dev's decisions.

Quote:

The main problem I see is that with each new attempt to tweak a feature to make the game more "realistic", the learning curve for new players just gets bigger and bigger. This in turn will increase player alienation and decrease the new player base.

This is true. However it is also a filtering process. Undesireables (smacktards,greifers, etc) will consequently not 'get' the game and PR community will not miss them. Of course new players will be very much disadvantaged when they first start playing and many will feel completely overwhelmed. However I think your painting a prety grim picture that just isn't so. PR is a mod with the highest retained veteran population in BF2. If I had to guess, probably many other games as well. The veterans play this mod, and keep coming back, release after release. New players who are keen on tactical FPS will join and see such a strong mature community and will be intrigued to learn the game. By joining a veteran squad and being taken under the wing of one of the vets, this new player is usually instantly hooked. He will go on to play PR for a long time and in turn will become himself a veteran. OF course this happens in other games but in PR I find this especially the case. This is the primary Promotional Tool PR has used since the very beginning. First hand experience of the great teamwork and realistic fighting environment. Many players will download the mod just to try the new guns and toys. Many will get tired of it and leave quickly, these are the 'window shoppers' as eggman likes to call them. The players that stay after release are usually the ones that you wanted all along.

Now this is an important point I'd like to bring up. By creating a fighting environment that REWARDS players for using real life tactics, does this not actually HELP new players (to BF2) who are already well versed tactical gamers? They already know about battle formations, how to react under fire, how to communicate properly and how to follow orders. Does it not make sense that by making PR more realistic, that these new players would already be heavily advantaged? As opposed to right now, where for example players who are new to BF2 do not understand that no matter how careful you are in a CQB and how coordinated you move, the best possible tactic is to rush around corners blindly, spraying and praying and prone diving because no matter if you die, you can come right back on your squad leader who is tucked away in the corner. Now as you respawn you know exactly where the enemy is located and can exploit his position. After playing for several weeks, these new PR players who are tactical veterans will either learn the ropes and adopt simular tactics, or get disgusted and leave the mod because for all their tactics and coordination, it dont mean a hill of beans versus the 'veterans' who know all too well how to exploit the weaknesses in the gameplay dynamics.

My point is: yes making the game more realistic means it will make it more challenging. But it DOES NOT mean you will be alienating new players because WE ALREADY ARE ALIENATING NEW PLAYERS WITH THE CURRENT GAMEPLAY DYNAMICS. I've adopted stupid tactics that I am not proud of at all thanks to the current gameplay dynamics, they are not enjoyable tactics and are very much unrealistic and cheap, but when I know the enemy will use these same tactics against me, I must adapt and learn (unless the tactics are against server rules

) I can honestly say I have seen at least 10 PR veterans stop playing the mod because they have had enough of the 'cheap tactics' used that work so well. So trying to keep the gameplay dynamics the same might just kill the mod the same way people are proclaiming that a new system will kill it.

Quote:

It's free now, but Im sure they are hoping it will eventually get picked up and bought by a studio

Yeap your wrong

The mod will NEVER be a viable financial endeavor, unless the game design is severely dumbed down and gameplay completely altered to mimic the current games on the market (ala Crysis, CoD4, etc). The mod has always been about a niche audience for which there was no game out there that had the proper features and community. I can safely say that PR will NEVER sell out to make a buck and as long as the dev team is active they will be striving to fill that niche which is Tactical Realism. If that day ever comes you can guarantee you would be hearing about it from me as an exRDEV lol

That being said the mod is a VERY excellent starting point to get into the gaming industry and many of the DEVs have built a very extensive porfolio for future employers and have developed the skills necesary to begin developing professionally. Not to mention the networking opportunities as well as the unique once in a lifetime opportunities like the trip to the Military Base in Bovington.

Quote:

But if there are newbies placed anywhere on a team then stuff would break down.

Players need to start somewhere. We were all newbies at one point, and we learned. As long as there are still veterans playing alongside the newbies, there will always be learning experiences and the community will always grow. Saying that just because we introduce new challenges means the newbies will just ruin the gameplay, I dont get it. Some of my best experiences in PR have been with BRAND NEW players to PR. And I mean BRAND NEW. I have played with players who had just bought BF2 the week before, fresh off the boat so to speak. After playing with them for several rounds, some of these new players had become better team players than veterans I had knwon that have been playing for well over a year!!! That is the great thing about the PR design. To be a grunt, under the command of a good squad leader, the game is VERY simple and easy to pick up and play. Run over here! Get in this car! Shoot at that guy! Flank with this man! Assault that bunker! Players can use their real life abilities and knowledge of military tactics to overcome obstacles in the game. You dont have to be a pro counterstrike player to play PR. Hell, I have played with a disabled veteran with a hook for an arm that was as fine a player as I ever seen! This argument IMO has no merit, new players are the lifeblood of PR and everyday new players are finding out about it and getting hooked. If you love tactical shooters and have never experienced PR, you will be in for a real treat and adding MORE realism features is not going to change that!

PR design is to keep it really simple at first and let the more experiened players use the more complex features. To be a squad member is quite simple. To be a squad leader, there is a large jump up in the knowledge you need to play the game. However, with prior military knowledge jumping into this role is quite smooth. Another large jump comes when deciding to commander, as the factor of map knowledge, strategy and overall game situational awareness becomes a huge factor in success (in addition to having a strong team). This is why PR has been so succesful IMO, because the design of the game starts you out with a very fun and interesting experience and enables a huge potential for learning all the different roles and strategies of the game, for which you can spend hundreds of hours discovering.

Quote:

For many new players, the first time this happens would very possibly be their last.

You are absolutely right here. Literally the first 5 minutes of playing probably determines if a player will become a hardcore fan of the mod or never play it again. I know myself personally I have probably got at least fifty or so players hooked on PR, some of them post here

Its all about that first squad you join, and the first time you experience that high degree of teamwork that you cannot see in any other Open Community Game.
For example if a new player joins the server and happens to join a great squad. He gets his radio checked out, the SL gets his kit loadout, and gets him in line to make an organised assault on an enemy base with the rest of the squad. If that player is a fan of tactical games he will probably become a long time player of PR from that moment onward. On the other hand, if the same player joins the server, joins a no name/no voip spec ops squad, and then for the next 5 minutes is consistently teamkilled and spawncamped on kashan, he will probably never come back to PR and will be highly negative about it. So it really is up to the playerbase to introduce new players and get them playing in the right mindset, which I'm grateful to TG as y'all have done a fantastic job of giving new players a chance.

Quote:

I have a couple hard core gaming friends who have only played PR once and gave it up because of the marathon, even as it is played now with the available spawning abilities.

I too have a couple of hard core gaming friends who have only played PR once or twice and gave up, but not because it was a 'marathon'. They decided PR was a complete spamfest and 'like watching a room full of ADD kids break stuff'. These same friends love playing Arma and ghost recon games but just cannot believe the extremely fast paced and twitchy action of PR, for which I cant really blame them. theres two sides to a coin.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMI-50AE

Why can't they be happy with how it is and just let us who like it how it is be?

Were you happy with v0.3? v0.4? v0.5? would you have been content for developement to stop at v0.3? I think its safe to say that when the developement of a mod stops, the playerbase stops growing as well. PoE for example has had the same approximate (and slightly shrinking) playerbase and I dont think its a coincidence that releases have becoming less and less. Now PoE is still in development and I really think (and hope) theyre next version is going to revitalize their playerbase quite a bit, you cant honestly believe that by stopping developement on a mod is a good thing for a mod community?

Quote:

Originally Posted by IMI-50AE

the kind that is just realism for realism's sake, and gameplay be damned!

I dont think youve read much of my or anybody elses replies in this thread. If we really wanted to just add realism for the sake of realism, why would we even be having this discussion? I believe I have prety clearly spelled out why I think squad leader spawn removal is an important gameplay change, as it affects the gameplay as whole including teamwork, skill level and tactical knowledge. What you've stated here is kind of insulting considering the depth of which I get into the issue, only for you to rebute that the Dev's are not giving any consideration to the gameplay, yet on the contrary the change has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE GAMEPLAY!

And this is why the Devs rarely post on public forums about fundamental design plans and things not set in stone. Getting responses like that really kills the desire to produce and release unique piece of software FOR FREE... but I think TG community is mature enough to handle this kind of dialougue, even if its just between myself (a lowly RDEV) and some of you guys, I feel you guys have earned a right to have an insight and a discussion about the future of this mod as you have helped make it what it is today.

**Dirtboy** · 11-02-2007, 05:15 AM

Well, My response won't be nearly as long as Fuzz's.

My opinion: Leave it the way it is. I just think its convenient and is an essential part of PR.

I told you it wasn't going to be long

**Terminal Boy** · 11-02-2007, 07:30 AM

Mmm.. The spawn changes are either going to force extremely tight teamwork between squads with realistic use of transport to deploy forces across the maps and enhance PRM or make it ArmA Lite (pun intended) with the larger maps becoming endurance sessions.

Interesting times..

**Dick Blonov** · 11-02-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

Project Reality's original design goal (and to an extent still is) to make the most realistic FPS within the confines of the engine, while still maintaining enjoyable gameplay and relying on a strong element of teamwork.

Good enough for me

DB

**Bernout** · 11-02-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzhead

And this is why the Devs rarely post on public forums about fundamental design plans and things not set in stone. Getting responses like that really kills the desire to produce and release unique piece of software FOR FREE... but I think TG community is mature enough to handle this kind of dialougue, even if its just between myself (a lowly RDEV) and some of you guys, I feel you guys have earned a right to have an insight and a discussion about the future of this mod as you have helped make it what it is today.

Fuzz, I think I can safely speak for everyone that your participation in these discussions is greatly appreciated.

And yes I did read all of your post and Teflon's as well.

I'll cross my fingers for 0.7 and hope that the dev team continues on what has been a successful course so far. We'll see how removing SL spawning affects squad cohesion.

The new gameplay mode (cnc) you mentioned is interesting. I wonder however how long it'll be until servers will be placed in a situation to specialize and host one game mode or the other?

Bernout

**I.Nathayut** · 11-02-2007, 12:46 PM

Just remove weird SL, RP, APC, Bunker, Firebase spawn. Give SL and truck to build firebase (no respawn). Main base spawn only!!! (can not acess by enemy) Amen.

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 11-02-2007, 01:01 PM

Fuzz - thanks for taking so much time to address this.

Here are some thoughts. I apologize in advance for not presenting them in a more organized fashion - I'm at work and don't have much time to spend on this post, but I want to get it out while the thoughts are still "fresh".

Desert maps will become stand-off fights between tanks, and once one team's tanks are gone, so are their chances of winning.

If the gameplay is changed as you describe for .7, any jeeps or apcs attempting to cross the open desert to reinforce a flag under assault or counter-attack a flag are going to be massacred by enemy armor. Especially when playing with pubbies, where coordination and discipline are going to be iffy at best. On maps with plenty of cover for infantry, such as Mestia, OGT, etc., the changes will slow down the action, but it will still be playable, and an initial defeat for a squad or squads at a point will not equate to the end of the round. However, on a map such as Al Kufrah or Kashan Desert, forget about it. Once you're done at a CP that requires travel across the open desert, it's over IMHO.

Will there be changes to the map layouts on the desert maps to provide more areas of cover near the 100m "ring" near a CP to help balance the dominance that armor is going to have on these maps? Or perhaps there may have to be a change in H-AT availability on these maps or some other way to counter the armor while you're waiting for your next wave of tanks to spawn in. During those 20 minutes your tanks are out, the other team is going to overrun the map - at least that's my fear.

Additionally, on a map like 7 Gates, what changes will be made to that map with regard to the Chinese spawn points? A very obvious and common strategy is for the British to eliminate as many RPs as possible in the Citadel complex. If the 100m radius is not eliminated, then this will cripple the Chinese defenses by eliminating SL respawn and forcing the reinforcements through a predictable path where they will be slaughtered en route to defend the CP. Also, if the radius is reduced, then locking 2 squads in the Citadel, each with a RP hidden in back will be the same result as allowing SL spawning, and it will also make it darn near impossible to take that point.

If you can hide a RP close to a CP, then what is the difference between that and hiding a SL near a CP and having his squad spawn back in to continue the fight?

Regardless, I too will approach this next release with an open mind. I must admit that the potential for these changes is quite intriguing and there is potential there for this really taking PR forward a huge step. It's just all about balancing the fun and the realism.

Thanks!

**d1sp0sabl3H3r0** · 11-02-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I.Nathayut

Just remove weird SL, RP, APC, Bunker, Firebase spawn. Give SL and truck to build firebase (no respawn). Main base spawn only!!! (can not acess by enemy) Amen.

Nathayut, you're describing ArmA.

IMI-50AE · 11-02-2007, 02:54 PM

Sorry if I came off insulting Fuzzhead, it just seems odd to me. For instance, does it make any more sense to spawn on an RP than it does to spawn on your SL? So instead of crawling out of your squad leader's ass, you're magically appearing next to a pile of rucks? I just seems to me that you are dropping some unrealistic aspects but keeping others. How about reviving a soldier who just got lit up by an HMG? I seriously doubt anyone in the real world could be rescued after he get pummeled by 12.7mm rounds, but it happens in PR.

Now I realize I'm nitpicking, but IN MY OPINION, discarding some unrealistic aspects while embracing others is just plain silly. Now obviously the devs can't do everything they want because of the limits of the engine.

Of course, I have another bone to pick about tactics and how they work in PR. Let's say your squad, which is sticking together and has all those 'squady' aspects about it (Which happens how often? Yeah, exactly), walks into an ambush. What does the average PR player do? (Besides die, of course) He takes cover, just like a real soldier would do. Well, I don't know personally, but I'm pretty sure counter-ambush drills follow something along these lines: CHARGE STRAIGHT AT THE MOTHER****ERS AND RUN THEM OVER. Basically, get out of the killzone. Unfortunately, it seems that everytime this valid tactics is tried, it fails utterly. So what do we do? Just accept the fact that we get bushwacked and couldn't do anything about it, and spawn back at our base? That just seems ridiculous.

I'm not going to cover all my grievences, because that's not the point of this topic, but can you at least understand what I'm saying and not adopt the "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about because you didn't read everything I said, so therefore you can be ignored and belittled" approach that seems so kneejerk? I did in fact read your post, and I respect your opinion. Can you respect mine, or is that too much?

**Rafterman1987** · 11-02-2007, 03:14 PM

Well I'm quite ready to see how it plays out in a server. I guess it's a leap of faith thing. Sometimes you just have to take that leap of faith, push to the temple, and hope squad 2 captures the fishing village <- to use a relevant analogy

cnc mode sounds interesting. I've always wondered what PR would be like as a campaign type game. However that style of play would be entirely restricted to tournament style structured play. It would never keep people interested in a pub and you would really want the structure to extend outside the game itself anyways. I'd go into all my wonderful ideas you've stirred up but we can save that for another time.

To sum up my stance after Fuzz's very helpful posts, Im reluctant to say I'm for it all... But even if it turns out to be a nightmare there's always tweaking, plan B, or a patch

And of course the community thing is 100% true, there's a reason I only play on TG (if I wasn't so po I'd donate) Here's hoping 0.7 is another smash hit.

11-02-2007, 03:07 AM	#18 (permalink)
IMI-50AE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 19 Posts: 463	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Yeah, I'm pretty much in agreement with Catraphact, Teflon, Bernout, and others that say this is a really bad idea. Why? Because while it sounds great in concept, so does Communism. What does that mean? Well, in theory, both are perfect ideas. In reality, they fall flat on their faces. If they continue to change PR like this in their pursuit for utopian 'Reality', I'll just go play ArmA. That's closer reality-wise, in my opinion, and really, why try to match it? Why can't they be happy with how it is and just let us who like it how it is be? I love the "taking away SL spawns means people will defend more". Guess what smart guy: No it won't. Those that want to attack will still Attack, attack, attack. The people who recognize the need for defense will still do that, but of course with most of the team off being lemmings, they are on their own, with no way to get reinforcements. It seems like you're adding realism, but its the 'bad' kind of realism, the kind that is just realism for realism's sake, and gameplay be damned! If this were reality, the US wouldn't assault prepared defenses without a thorough preparatory air bombardment, but you don't see that in the game, do you? Do you see on-call artillery fire support from mortar or 155 batteries, or maybe 5inch naval gunfire from Destroyers off-shore? Nope, none of that to be had. It must not be realistic. __________________ playing off the TG server feels like we're playing 2142 on easy mode~Fehmart I'm going to close my eyes until it's over~Experiment, commenting on my driving "Get it up quickly and beat it hard."~Jonan I don't get a bonus DVD? My life has lost all meaning.~Zoopy_T

11-02-2007, 05:15 AM	#20 (permalink)
Dirtboy Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Las Vegas! Age: 24 Posts: 3,178	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Well, My response won't be nearly as long as Fuzz's. My opinion: Leave it the way it is. I just think its convenient and is an essential part of PR. I told you it wasn't going to be long __________________ \|TG-6th\| Dirtboy Need an Admin? \| Want to help TG? \| The 6th Devil's Brigade Jump on it!

11-02-2007, 07:30 AM	#21 (permalink)
Terminal Boy Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: London, England Posts: 283	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Mmm.. The spawn changes are either going to force extremely tight teamwork between squads with realistic use of transport to deploy forces across the maps and enhance PRM or make it ArmA Lite (pun intended) with the larger maps becoming endurance sessions. Interesting times..

11-02-2007, 12:46 PM	#24 (permalink)
I.Nathayut Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: St.Thomas, Ontario, Canada Posts: 20	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Just remove weird SL, RP, APC, Bunker, Firebase spawn. Give SL and truck to build firebase (no respawn). Main base spawn only!!! (can not acess by enemy) Amen.

11-02-2007, 01:01 PM	#25 (permalink)
d1sp0sabl3H3r0 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Suburban Chicago Age: 42 Posts: 1,809	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Fuzz - thanks for taking so much time to address this. Here are some thoughts. I apologize in advance for not presenting them in a more organized fashion - I'm at work and don't have much time to spend on this post, but I want to get it out while the thoughts are still "fresh". Desert maps will become stand-off fights between tanks, and once one team's tanks are gone, so are their chances of winning. If the gameplay is changed as you describe for .7, any jeeps or apcs attempting to cross the open desert to reinforce a flag under assault or counter-attack a flag are going to be massacred by enemy armor. Especially when playing with pubbies, where coordination and discipline are going to be iffy at best. On maps with plenty of cover for infantry, such as Mestia, OGT, etc., the changes will slow down the action, but it will still be playable, and an initial defeat for a squad or squads at a point will not equate to the end of the round. However, on a map such as Al Kufrah or Kashan Desert, forget about it. Once you're done at a CP that requires travel across the open desert, it's over IMHO. Will there be changes to the map layouts on the desert maps to provide more areas of cover near the 100m "ring" near a CP to help balance the dominance that armor is going to have on these maps? Or perhaps there may have to be a change in H-AT availability on these maps or some other way to counter the armor while you're waiting for your next wave of tanks to spawn in. During those 20 minutes your tanks are out, the other team is going to overrun the map - at least that's my fear. Additionally, on a map like 7 Gates, what changes will be made to that map with regard to the Chinese spawn points? A very obvious and common strategy is for the British to eliminate as many RPs as possible in the Citadel complex. If the 100m radius is not eliminated, then this will cripple the Chinese defenses by eliminating SL respawn and forcing the reinforcements through a predictable path where they will be slaughtered en route to defend the CP. Also, if the radius is reduced, then locking 2 squads in the Citadel, each with a RP hidden in back will be the same result as allowing SL spawning, and it will also make it darn near impossible to take that point. If you can hide a RP close to a CP, then what is the difference between that and hiding a SL near a CP and having his squad spawn back in to continue the fight? Regardless, I too will approach this next release with an open mind. I must admit that the potential for these changes is quite intriguing and there is potential there for this really taking PR forward a huge step. It's just all about balancing the fun and the realism. Thanks! __________________ \|TG-X\|d1sp0sabl3 An Admin of One 10th Tactical Guard \| PR Server Rules \| The TG Primer \| Kicked? Banned? READ THIS FIRST! \| Contact an Admin \| Nominate someone for a ribbon here Bypassing the ambush is just what the ambushers expected us to do.

11-02-2007, 02:54 PM	#27 (permalink)
IMI-50AE Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 19 Posts: 463	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Sorry if I came off insulting Fuzzhead, it just seems odd to me. For instance, does it make any more sense to spawn on an RP than it does to spawn on your SL? So instead of crawling out of your squad leader's ass, you're magically appearing next to a pile of rucks? I just seems to me that you are dropping some unrealistic aspects but keeping others. How about reviving a soldier who just got lit up by an HMG? I seriously doubt anyone in the real world could be rescued after he get pummeled by 12.7mm rounds, but it happens in PR. Now I realize I'm nitpicking, but IN MY OPINION, discarding some unrealistic aspects while embracing others is just plain silly. Now obviously the devs can't do everything they want because of the limits of the engine. Of course, I have another bone to pick about tactics and how they work in PR. Let's say your squad, which is sticking together and has all those 'squady' aspects about it (Which happens how often? Yeah, exactly), walks into an ambush. What does the average PR player do? (Besides die, of course) He takes cover, just like a real soldier would do. Well, I don't know personally, but I'm pretty sure counter-ambush drills follow something along these lines: CHARGE STRAIGHT AT THE MOTHER****ERS AND RUN THEM OVER. Basically, get out of the killzone. Unfortunately, it seems that everytime this valid tactics is tried, it fails utterly. So what do we do? Just accept the fact that we get bushwacked and couldn't do anything about it, and spawn back at our base? That just seems ridiculous. I'm not going to cover all my grievences, because that's not the point of this topic, but can you at least understand what I'm saying and not adopt the "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about because you didn't read everything I said, so therefore you can be ignored and belittled" approach that seems so kneejerk? I did in fact read your post, and I respect your opinion. Can you respect mine, or is that too much? __________________ playing off the TG server feels like we're playing 2142 on easy mode~Fehmart I'm going to close my eyes until it's over~Experiment, commenting on my driving "Get it up quickly and beat it hard."~Jonan I don't get a bonus DVD? My life has lost all meaning.~Zoopy_T

11-02-2007, 03:14 PM	#28 (permalink)
Rafterman1987 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Ottawa, Canada Age: 21 Posts: 169	Re: Discussion: Loss of SL and APC spawn points in .7 Well I'm quite ready to see how it plays out in a server. I guess it's a leap of faith thing. Sometimes you just have to take that leap of faith, push to the temple, and hope squad 2 captures the fishing village <- to use a relevant analogy cnc mode sounds interesting. I've always wondered what PR would be like as a campaign type game. However that style of play would be entirely restricted to tournament style structured play. It would never keep people interested in a pub and you would really want the structure to extend outside the game itself anyways. I'd go into all my wonderful ideas you've stirred up but we can save that for another time. To sum up my stance after Fuzz's very helpful posts, Im reluctant to say I'm for it all... But even if it turns out to be a nightmare there's always tweaking, plan B, or a patch And of course the community thing is 100% true, there's a reason I only play on TG (if I wasn't so po I'd donate) Here's hoping 0.7 is another smash hit.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links