Mnam

and the nanjing also

__________________

On Google type "Find Chuck Norris" and hit "Im Feeling Lucky"...
My Spec Opzor L33tness

google

A Humvee with a mounted MK 19 would be pretty sweet. A great way to clear out targets under cover and or firebases/bunkers.

__________________
|TG-6th|Google

TheSkudDestroyer

New factions may be coming through the interweb tubes.

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud

Pwn3ge

Series of tubes!

I really, to be honest, new factions would be nice, but i think it would be better if they expand on the existing ones and implement alot of new vehicles. I'd rather 1 full cup of orange juice then 1 half full of orange juice and the other 1 half full of chocolate milk. Ew.

__________________

Fenian420

Good analogy.. and also agree and disagree, its only going to be the .8 patch, so their will be room for improvement, will just take time.. Up to the devs to decide whether they would rather have the community have more factions to play with or more vehicles to mess around in.. I'd imagine making more factions would be more fun while making more vehicles/maps would just be more time dedicating work.. To keep devs on their toes I'd rather have them having a little bit of relaxing work time than hard work,

imnotacanadian

I see it as more of a plate of all you can eat pancakes vs. a plate of three pancakes, sausage, eggs, and biscuits.

You will get tired of pankcakes eventually, while you can change it up...take a bite of eggs, then go back to your pancakes. Variety for the win.

I mean...yeah, new vehicles are great...but only a slight variation from what is already in use. A new faction will bring new weapons, new vehicles, new maps, new play styles, etc. So either way vehicles will come into the mix the way I see it. One direction is quicker than the other, but one is more rewarding.

__________________

Pwn3ge

I don't really see any army that could extremely vary the play styles. We have then conventional armys, the rebels, guerrilla warfare, and the insurgents, run down the street shooting at anything that moves. I dont see any other play styles that could be really effective that changing game play without over-loading your mind with too many maps, vehicles, and weapons to get a grasp on really being able to play a single faction well. I like single pancakes better. Not too much complexity, but add a little syrup and butter, and you have a perfect breakfast.

__________________

Rafterman1987

This calls for an alien invasion!

I think that the new factions would just add some variety to the game. Especially the IDF because they use fairly different equipment than the other factions. Just look at the Merkava, a main battle tank that can carry two or so troops in the back. That'd make for some interesting spec ops runs. Or maybe a vehicle will actually be used to rescue downed squadmates! (Maybe that's hoping for too much)

Unfortunatly, many of the factions would involve us seeing similar equipment as what's already there. Even the Canadian Forces mod, which I'm pullin for as a Canadian player

__________________

imnotacanadian

Do you not play the USMC different than the PLA on? I do. As the USMC I will do my best to avoid fights ranging from 20 to 40 meters or so. The automatic fire from the PLA rifle is still effective at that range, while the M16 only has the burst and single shot. I will try to lure them into longer ranged fights, or very close in-your-face types of fights. Also, there are the maps such as Qwai that are assymetrical. These require completely different tactics to win. I could go on and on, but I will stop here

__________________

thegreatnardini

I understand what you mean, but the difference in tactics you describe are much more menial compared to, say, choosing between either British or Insurgent. Despite the fact it's PR many of the weapons are fairly balanced for game-play's sake (Russian-made tanks/jets/soldiers vs. American tanks/jets/soldiers just wouldn't be a contest in real life, where in game everything is practically even.) The exception being of course Militia and Insurgents, who have to change their tactics due to a disadvantage in firepower/armored weaponry, etc. In real life the PLA would probably have much different tactics than the Marines, wave tactics being one example and something which the Marines would never consider. In-game, however, this is not put to use as teams are even numerically and player skill level and training does not depend on the side they are on. I don't think there is really another faction worth putting in the game that would allow for a "serious" change in tactics. We have three types of armies in-game, terrible (insurgent), crummy (Militia), and professional (MEC/PLA/USMC) and there's really nothing you can add to that. Unless of course people from the future decide to invade, or the Amazon Warrior Tribe faction decided to make their way out of the jungle and invade Kuwait for their oil, but that might not be too realistic .

__________________

kilroy0097

There is a fundamental issue with using RTS types of strategy and balance techniques within a FPS game. First and foremost the players themselves usually can not grasp the concept of weakness and strengths in an FPS. They expect everyone, regardless of side, to be basically balanced. They do however understand the differences of strength between kits on each side. But the moment Faction 1 has a better default infantry soldier than Faction 2 in some way the cries of "Foul!" come loudly and in large quantities. It will not matter that Faction 2's default infantry soldier variant number two has strength within it that can eliminate the strengths of Faction 1's default soldier. Most FPS players can not look past the most directly line of comparison. Do I think FPS players are less bright than RTS players? No I don't think they are but they are so used to it being this way for so long that it is hard coded into their heads. This is the same issue that most Vanilla BF2 players face when they first come to PR. Because PR is different from BF2 these players choose to complain that PR does not fit into their programing the same way and therefore must be flawed and unfair. Instead Vanilla BF2 players should attempt to unlearn their habits that gained them success in Vanilla BF2 and start learning the habits that gain them benefit in PR. This is called adaptation and is the key skill needed not only in video games but life in general as well as the real battlefield. Adapt and Overcome. Sadly this skill is quite lacking in the modern pre-adult population that are found in the video game community. Such required work is simply too difficult and time consuming for most of this ADD generation.

So even if a game is balanced via the RTS model the FPS community will not accept that sort of complicated solution.

The RTS model can be seen as unit 1A can be countered by unit 2C and that unit 2C can be countered by unit 1F and then coming full circle unit 1F can be countered by 2G which is then countered by 1A.

The FPS model can be seen as unit 1A has the same potential as unit 2A. Unit 1G can take out unit 2G and vice versa. Tank A can take out Tank B who can take out Tank C. This is the supported theory in the British/MEC/US/PLA tank models. The only difference that was not intended was error in model creation which then made Britsh Tank stronger than MEC tank or similar human made errors. The theory is sound but human error in creation of said models contributed to unfair balance according to the FPS unit balance theory. However such an error might have been intentional if looking at the RTS unit balance theory. Especially if you look at the MEC BMP APC that is stronger than the British APC. Perhaps there is a balance there after all but such an extension of looking at overall unit strength together is normally beyond FPS players in general.

Once again it seems as if I'm showing that FPS players are dumber than RTS players and that is not true. What I am showing is that FPS players are hard coded to think in this way and RTS players are not. There are many other differences including the ability to Micro is not needed in a FPS game but is extremely important in an RTS game. Fast reflexes and aim is not needed as much in an RTS game while its extremely important in a FPS game.

So in short, units of variable levels of strength on difference factions that share the same basic unit description will not be accepted by the FPS community due to the FPS community's lack of adaptation in the short term. If said change is made by a game and if that game survives with enough players for a while then the hard coded thinking of the player will begin to break down and new ways of thinking will develop. Case in point is the transition of BF2 Vanilla to BF2 Mod Project Reality.

Cheers.

P.S. - This obviously implies that I am also included in the FPS community and therefore am just as much at fault in being hard wired in certain ways.

__________________

TheSkudDestroyer

The problem with PR community faction mods is that they need to create TONS of maps for each new faction to make the faction play out realistically. For example, who will Germany fight? Why does anyone care about Poland? We would need entire new maps for IDF style fighting... Canada would only fit in some maps, like Afghanistan based maps (cough cough Archer)..

Really, you guys are too hooked on the idea that the factions will be in the way you envisioned. The factions will be added when they can be fully implemented to the game with maps, all the weapons, all the vehicles, all the necessary gameplay changes...

__________________
|TG-6th|Skud

Sabre_Tooth_Tigger

In the end gameplay changes make the most difference to variety in the game I think. Objective mode and anything similar that will break up the team deathmatch scoring style is pr's next best hope imo

__________________

imnotacanadian

Actually, I am fine with what we have now. I was just expressing that if I were given the choice, I would choose to have the long wait and more material put into the game rather than less time and less material.

__________________

Mix0lydian

skud-->USAF?

good decision