Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RTS!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RTS!

    After reading Tom King’s post and talking to some old Tactical Gamer member that used to play on the server way back in the old-days of PR0.5 I came to the conclusion that most of the problems that we see in are community are not coming form the players but from the mod it’s self.

    People used to love the “more forgiving PR". At lease then they would not get martyrized if they had the misfortune of losing a jet or a tank because assets would spawn in regularly and it did not affect to much the outcome of the round.

    I’ve been playing PR for almost 5 years now, and I never had a problem with people camping (on TG) until this instalment. Actually, IMO, they cause more stupid deaths (people playing in my squads know that I am great for getting them all killed trying to flank a base with a dome around them :P) than they could save lives since people still snipe and try to launch LATs and HATs at them. Also, why did people start camping main bases: probably because those dam assets (which are worth lots of points now ) spawn near the mains and the domes of death.

    I remember playing the spec-ops class and loving it. Going deep into enemy territory and blowing up commander assets to deny the enemy that advantage. If PR is trying to strive for realism this should be put back in.

    “So what the hell Nixon, what should we do?” and here comes the interesting part of the post that I wish to submit to you guys before I post this to the R-Dev.

    So here are my suggestions and ideas to fix all theses annoying problems and improve PR.


    We need to add a hint of real time strategy to PR to fix the problems. People that played Company of Heroes will see the parallels that I am trying to draw here.

    1) Deploying buildings to have access to specific assets:

    Basically, when the round starts, all vehicles spawn in like they do now. My idea is if you want to “rebuild” theses assets after they are lost you will need to construct specific buildings. Height new deployable assets will be added to the game and they will be needed to have access to special weapons, vehicles and support. Their will be also “expansions” of each one of theses building so you can tier up. For example, Armour depot Lv1 gets LAVs and APCs and Lv2 gets Tanks, etc. Theses building will also reduce the time between spawn. (See example bellow)

    Level 1:
    • Barracks will give access to normal infantry
    • Light vehicle depots will give access to trucks, hummvees
    • Armour depots will give access to LAVs, APCs, etc.
    • Logistic centers will give access to light helicopters and UAVs

    Level 2:
    • Lv2 Barrack give access to speciality weapons (request kits)
    • Lv2 Light vehicle depots will give access to TOW hummvees, FAVs, AAVs, etc.
    • Lv2 Armour depots will give access to tanks and other big guns
    • Lv2 Logistic centers will give access to attack helicopters, planes and area attacks

    2) Building:

    In the best of worlds, theses new assets could be only deployed by the commander (more fun for him also!). In case there is no commander, theses could be deployed by the squad leaders. This could be achieved the same way as markers work: commanders say yes/no and if there is no CMD they will be put down anyways. Moreover, excluding the first barrack, the buildings are destructible (here comes in the new role for the spec-ops) so the team will need to defend them or place them out of harms way. Furthermore, since there will be no more “dome of death” the team could decide to put them in and around the main base (all the eggs in the same basket) or put them on different points on the map (harder to defend). When the structure is built, assets will spawn in the normal place they do (like in this version) or, if it’s possible to code, next to the building it self (minus the jets and helicopters that will still spawn on helipads and runways at main).

    Level 2 buildings will be deployed next to the level 1 building and will give access to the tier 2 weapons. For example: Lv1 logistic centers would be the actual commander’s tent and the Lv2 logistic center will be a satellite uplink (similar to the one in vBF2) next to that tent.

    Each team will have a maximum of 5 of theses assets. Thus, the team could decide a “doctrine” for a round.

    Here is an example to illustrate:

    My team wants to for an “air superiority doctrine” on Kashan Desert:

    1) Barrack (obligatory on all maps and it spawns in already built)
    2) Barrack Lv2
    3) Light vehicle depots
    4) Logistic center Lv1
    5) Logistic center Lv2

    Ok. We have access to normal infantry and all the special kits (Hat, Lat, Sniper, etc.). We also have access to trucks and humvees to move people around and build FOBs. Finally, we have helicopters, attack helicopters, jets and area attacks. SWEET…BUT! No tank, APC, LAV, AAV support.

    3) Spawn times:
    for each speciality building you deploy you divide by 2 (ratio could be different) the actual spawn times. Ex: Lv1 Logistic center: Jets (30min/2 =15 mins); Lv2 Logistic center: Jets (30/4=7.5 mins)

    4) Stopping smarktards:
    a) CMD decides which ones to build according to the team’s plan.
    b) Each SL can build 1 special asset (so 2 cooperating SL will be needed to go for this “air superiority doctrine”)
    c) Some type of voting system could be created and people would vote before the round start.
    d) If there is to much camping around the special buildings the doom of death could be placed back over the main and theses assets would be deployable under it.
    e) I need your opinion!
    f) Wasting to many tickets with crashing jets each 7.5 minutes! (See next point)

    5) Flags become “Control Points”:

    Each control point will give “CP points” (AKA tickets) to the team controlling the area. Points will be added to the bank on each minute of play. For examples: Marines capture docks on Muttra City they get 100 CP points for each minutes of the round until they lose that CP. The amount of points will vary depending on the area. Logically, the harder the CP is to defend the more points it should give. In contrast to reality this is also quite true, since if your army controls a greater portion of the battle field they should get a better supply of fuel, ammunition, reinforcement, etc. Points will be critical since they will affect the number of asset you will have in a round. Furthermore, building FOBs, speciality building and other assets will require CP points. Thus, more your team works together more assets they could field. At the start of the round you will have X number of CP points. Each time a vehicle, an infantry unit or a building spawns it will draw from your CP point bank. You can replenish your bank when you control CP points, but the flow of points will vary depending on the number of CP you control and there value (Go for the hard ones to have high points or try to control the cheaper ones that are easy to defend).

    Also, to prevent “smaktard” players will be kick according to the number of CP points in an amount of time. For example: Mr.X crashes a jet (-100 cp), destroys a humvee (-50cp) and suicides 5 times (-5cp) in the laps of 5 minutes = total of 155 cp sever will kick at 150. I am throwing numbers like that, but if this system is developed each value will be studied and kicks will reflect the actions of the players.

    That’s all for now… still having 1 page to go, but I’ll do that tomorrow!

    Constructive comments please!

    Cheers.

    Nix


  • #2
    Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

    These sounds like very cool and well thought out ideas. I'm afraid they're simply for a totally different game. The first have, about all the buldings and tiers, sounds too much like a Strategy game. There is more than enough building in PR as it is, I don't think many people would be keen on the idea of having to shovel something to get their next humvee (although it was pretty awesome back in the days when FOB's would spawn Humvees every 5 min... *sigh...*)

    Where was I? Oh yes. As for the CP idea taken from the Company of Heroes / Dawn of War 40K series. It's a cool idea, but PR matches already last upwards of 2 hours sometimes. The last thing you want to do is give the team a way to earn more tickets. (Come to think of it, FOB's used to give the team 10 tickets every couple of minutes back in the day too...)

    The moral of this story is that both of your ideas, while interesting, have actually been tried before, to some degree. And the end result was that they just don't fit the kind of game that the DEV's want to create. Remember one thing above all else: It's up to us to build our community based on the game the DEV's choose to create, not the other way around.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

      I've been playing since at least .5 and I oppose this idea completely.

      There's only 32 players on a team, dedicating some of them to logistics and vehicle support takes enough men off the battlefield. With the increased map size the spec ops being behind enemy lines is something that would work better in coop, and I would say that your overall ideas for spec ops would be something to suggest to add to coop, so that a few players could get together and do that kind of thing. The rest is something that would work if we had 128 players, but not in the current game.

      It isn't the game that causes the poor behavior, it really is the influx of new players who need direction in focusing on the objectives instead of farming kills when that isn't the objective.
      |TG-6th|Snooggums

      Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

        Not to be rude or shoot your ideas out of the water, but this is my response to your ideas: http://www.arma2.com

        It's been done. PR isn't ArmA, can't be and doesn't want to be.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

          while i think this is a cool idea, i would rather see it as a game mode (like aas) rather than a game-wide change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

            @ Redd_Wiggler : I was also thinking about this seeing that I am getting lots of negative feedback up to now. I guess it would be better that way.

            @ Startrekern : If I remember right (I used to play Arma I) what I am proposing here isn’t in the vanilla version, it’s actually a modification. Furthermore, I am not trying to create a new Arma. The reason that I play PR is that the Arma II’s controls are horrible and the engine as to many bugs and it lags the f*** out of PC even though I have a pretty decent rig.

            @ DiscoJedi & snooggums: O.K. Then try to explain to me (in a pm and not here please) why are we loosing good players like Ash, Jeepo, Sonic, I am not a Canadian, Charity Case, Liquid Watch, etc? I do understand that changes in PR are not the only reason that they decided to leave the TG-PR community (or play less PR), but some the issues I pointed at the start of my last post are keeping good people away from the game, thus brining down the quality of the player pool that join the server.

            The reason why I created this post was to collect ideas to present to the R-Devs to try to fix the annoying problems that I stated in the last post, to promote team play and to make the game play more interesting. It’s OK to post your opinions about my Ideas, but what I really wanted is you to add YOUR ideas to make this post a sort of think-tank for PR1.0. Consequently, if you do want to help me out try to ask your self “What do I dislike of PR.0.9 and what could we do to fix this?”


            My personal issues with PR.0.9

            1) Playing commander is long and boring. Proof of this is that people only join the commander role to drop the arty then leave the position. I wanted the Cmd job to be more fun. He could join up with the Logi squad and build and maintain theses new assets. Also, if the CMD is the only one that can drop theses assets the team will actually NEED a Cmd to be an effective army like in reality. This also means that each round someone will go Cmd and this will help with smaktards since (according to TG rules) they will be a better allocation of assets.

            2) I hate to know that every time on Kashan 32 at 3h43 two Havoks and two Apaches will spawn and probably annihilate each other in the next five minutes. After that, infantry squads will be saying “F**** pilots we lost our CAS now we are doomed!” even thought the pilots tried the best to help but bad intel coming from theses same squads are the reason that they lost the chopper. With my idea each new round will be different because the team could vary the “doctrine” and even adapt it in the middle of the round if they see that it’s not working.

            3) Having to wait 27 minutes for an asset because a puby lost it and left the round three minutes before I join the server. I ratter help my Cmd build theses building and wait 15 or 7.5 minutes instead.

            4) Having to wait on the carrier 10 minutes because all hueys are down. (Same as point 3)

            5) Having to play on a map with bad asset choices from the R-dev. Ex: on Silent Eagle why do the Russian have a Havock when they get 2 perfect runways and the US is stuck with 2 jets with a ****ty runway that is almost impossible to land on? I would love to see hydra hueys and Apaches on the US side!

            6) Being stuck with normal kits with the server is not populated enough. My idea would take care of this.

            Ok guys it’s up to you now. So try to find issues you have with PR.09 and post your ideas on how you would fix them!

            Cheers,

            Nix


            MOD: Please refrain from using inappropriate language in your posts as this violates TG standards and usage policy.
            Last edited by disposableHero; 03-10-2010, 09:46 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

              Seriously. your game sounds awesome, but it doesn't sound feasable without a huge huge huge overhaul.
              But without getting hung up on that! The insight early on in your post needs to be discussed more.
              Why did people start camping main bases: probably because those dam assets (which are worth lots of points now ) spawn near the mains and the domes of death.
              So it's the assets fault for being worth more?
              You cannot blame an inanimate object for doing something wrong.
              Dispos post about reverting back to no faction may camp main has already taken care of this.

              The whole reason it's being enforced is because people can't resist getting cheap easy unmanned kills.
              Which breaks a cardinal rule in the primer.
              Who cares if it's realistic as a tactic. Who cares if you're a great sniper.
              The ruling is there to remove exploiting cheap gaming tactics and get people to fight each other.

              If you want to hat snipe helo's at an Enemy main, go create a private server and get your jollies. You'll be working with the same number teammates doing that by yourself anyway.

              I believe at it's core. This is one of the few games that isn't truly about winning. It's just as fun to lose a close match as it is to win.

              The 189th Infantry Brigade: Taking the 'the' out of psychotherapist since 2010.

              XFire: mrthomasking

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                One suggestion from the top of my head. Get rid of the possibility to see the score board during rounds. It's nice to see how you did in the end, but mid game it confirms kills in a very unrealistic manner.
                [S7]Hablos
                Proud to have been part of the 101st Siege Corps of Engineers

                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                  Originally posted by |TG-Irr|Nixon View Post
                  @ DiscoJedi & snooggums: O.K. Then try to explain to me (in a pm and not here please) why are we loosing good players like Ash, Jeepo, Sonic, I am not a Canadian, Charity Case, Liquid Watch, etc? I do understand that changes in PR are not the only reason that they decided to leave the TG-PR community (or play less PR), but some the issues I pointed at the start of my last post are keeping good people away from the game, thus brining down the quality of the player pool that join the server.
                  I'm going to do it here because it is relevant to the topic. Most of the negative comments I hear from long term players is griping about a few crappy players being able to negatively affect a game too easily, or give the appearance of doing so. Crashing assets, running off with supply trucks as a sniper, etc are so easy to do, can have a huge negative impact on a team and once someone starts complaining morale goes down really fast.

                  There is an attempt to appeal to the public by the admin staff overall where we don't want to punish for stupidity or people doing their own thing when there is no commander, so many people will get frustrated that teamwork doesn't happen the way they magically expect. PR has gone from a small scale conflict where you could walk to the next flag to requiring transportation and cover for that transportation. The example of Muttrah with no choppers is my favorite: Where are your APCs and boats?

                  Many players are also sick of the e-drama of the asset whores that are the most vocal about anything in the game, and are the ones giving them support or transportation. Last night someone crashed the Apache at the beginning of Muttrah and players were complaining that the round was over because the Apache was dead. It really isn't that big of a deal, there are other assets, it could have gotten shot down on it's first run like it usually does, etc and the map would play out like any other round. Having to read or listen to the e-drama is what turns most players off, especially if they are already frustrated with being dependent on those same players.

                  Your suggestion increases the dependence on assets and building, the very things that are turning off many long time players. I like having a FoB building ability, I like assets but I don't want them to be the focus of the game unless they are the only focus of the game like in vehicle warfare.
                  |TG-6th|Snooggums

                  Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                    Also, a few of those players gone don't approve of the extremely long rounds PR is now known for, and left for other games due to that fact, some for no other reason at all.




                    In regards to the whole idea, I disapprove. It's much more complications to gameplay than the game actually needs to be fun.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                      You can never make everybody happy in this world, it's just that simple. I like how PR has developed in the last years. Yes assets are worth a lot of tickets and therefore the hunt is ALSO on the assets, but flag capture is an important parameter in the game too!

                      If the server is beginning to fill it is sometimes really difficult to get stuff organized, but like many other I try to SL in these circumstances in order to get things organized. Many times I start with building fire bases to help my team.

                      But my point is that it's NOT the game but unwillingness of players to adapt to new rules/gameplay. Changing the game will sadly not remove unhappiness. So we loose and we gain players..........it's life, even if it is only a game!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                        All I want are pregnant women suicide bombers, its a two for 1 kill every time, think of the intel points you can gain, think of the explosions.
                        Randy = Ace ! - Warlab
                        Level II Volunteer FireFighter
                        Level I HazMat Technician
                        NYS EMT-B
                        Town of Mamaroneck Fire Dept.

                        sigpic




                        Bring On Project Reality 1.0!!!
                        RSS Feeds:Bamboo | | 9/11 - Never Forget |
                        Apophis - "TG was created to cater to a VERY specific type of gamer rather than trying to appeal to the greater gaming population.
                        Tactical Gamer is not mainstream.
                        We are not trying to attract mainstream gamers."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                          Originally posted by |TG-Irr|Nixon View Post
                          1) Playing commander is long and boring. Proof of this is that people only join the commander role to drop the arty then leave the position. I wanted the Cmd job to be more fun. He could join up with the Logi squad and build and maintain theses new assets. Also, if the CMD is the only one that can drop theses assets the team will actually NEED a Cmd to be an effective army like in reality. This also means that each round someone will go Cmd and this will help with smaktards since (according to TG rules) they will be a better allocation of assets.
                          Then you're doing it wrong. I've had spectacular fun commanding on Karbala and Iron Ridge. You don't have to sit in your command post -- get in the action, go to the front lines, SEE what's going on with way more perspective than your UAV can give you. Don't be afraid to micromanage on occasion.

                          If the changes you suggest go into effect, the entire team suddenly depends on one person. What if that one person is inadequate? The team then loses.

                          I like the current ability for the team to operate independently of the commander.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                            People used to love the “more forgiving PR". At lease then they would not get martyrized if they had the misfortune of losing a jet or a tank because assets would spawn in regularly and it did not affect to much the outcome of the round.
                            PR came from BF2, though I didn't play then i'm sure early versions were spammy and arcadey too.

                            In every update, from BF2 to now and the future, PR moves towards its goal, requiring more teamwork and coordination, slowing down the gameplay and discouraging lonewolfing and tard rushing.

                            Now, each player has their own sweet spot, their ideal pace and coordination requirements. because of PR's ongoing development, many people who liked the gameplay of 0.5 aren't going to like the gameplay of 0.9 so much. As the game changes and other games come out, people are going to move on.

                            On the servers there are people who want to play seriously, and there are people (partially due to the legacy of PR) who just want to run around and shoot stuff. The serious players get annoyed with the non-serious players for tard rushing and wasting assets, and the non-serious players get annoyed with the serious players for being boring and not letting them have their "fun".
                            Personally I think the best way of dealing with this is servers catering to each group of like-minded players, which we do have to a degree.

                            As for your actual suggestions:

                            Pace: if PR wanted to suit the most people, they'd make something spammy like everyone else. They are making their own perfect game, and other people playing it is nice, but not the #1 goal.

                            RTS stuff: Not opposed to it specifically, but it sound like pretty much another game, and unlikely to happen.

                            Control Points: A ticket growth is essentially the same as the ticket bleeds in BF2. They give a bonus/penalty per time, encouraging teams to be always attacking. and flag bonuses/penalties that are per time, therefore encouraging non-stop attacking can pretty much be ruled out as suggestions.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Suggestions and Ideas for PR1.0: assets, dome of death, SPEC-OPS and a hint of RT

                              Originally posted by TomKing View Post
                              but it doesn't sound feasible without a huge huge huge overhaul.
                              Actually, most of what I am proposing should already be coded since earlier version had theses options (see Disco's post)

                              Originally posted by snooggums View Post
                              Your suggestion increases the dependence on assets and building, the very things that are turning off many long time players. I like having a FoB building ability, I like assets but I don't want them to be the focus of the game unless they are the only focus of the game like in vehicle warfare
                              I don't think so, but your point about "a few crappy players being able to negatively affect a game too easily, or give the appearance of doing so. Crashing assets, running off with supply trucks as a sniper, etc are so easy to do, can have a huge negative impact on a team and once someone starts complaining morale goes down really fast." Is right on the money and my ideas would kick theses players.

                              You probably remember an older version of PR that kicked players that had negatives scores. It was great to take care of theses crappy players, but people would get also kicked for unrelated stuff like blowing un a FOB or losing to many requestable kits. My proposition is trying to rectify this.

                              Also, if building all of theses assets is to hard they could just be "dropped" by the CMD when the team as enough CP points.

                              The whole idea around this post is to try to find a way to make the game more unpredictable and more realistic. Troops in Iraq or Afghanistan don't capture flags, they try to control vital routes to get re-supplied and strategic grounds to deny the enemy resources.

                              If you guys tried Company of Heroes you know what I mean. Even tough people always try to attack this ammo dump and that fuel depot it's always a challenge to see (in the long run) how they will do this; will they use infantry or tanks or paratroopers??

                              For you guys that are saying that maps will never end I point to COH also. Strategy dictates the length of the game. Poor coordination in multiplayer could lead to a 5 minutes victory and proper cooperation could make a very long and interesting game. The CP points systems could be adjusted to make longer or shorter games (Control Points give less tickets or assets are worth more tickets, etc.)

                              Once again, if you don't like the idea, PM me because I would like to keep this post positive and constructive.

                              Nix

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X