Forward Armor Recovery Station (F.A.R.S.)

[Sgt1Winters]

Again M.Warren strikes! he is amazing, this is seriously brilliant, especially in Kashan Desert/Battle of qinling.

[Teonanacatl]

Originally Posted by Sgt1Winters

Again M.Warren strikes! he is amazing, this is seriously brilliant, especially in Kashan Desert/Battle of qinling.

Basrah too.

[Sgt1Winters]

No, is too little for that.

[.blend]

If this were implemented, increased armor respawn times would aid the process.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

The key reason why the Forward Armor Recovery Station (F.A.R.S.) must be a temporary deployed structure and not a mobile unit is to prevent any type of vehicle being camped around it. Let's say if the F.A.R.S. did not have a despawn time, people would place the bunker up, then proceed to huddle vehicles around it. When a vehicle get's destroyed all the engineers need to do is wrench it back up from the wrecked state... Which is very bad and will impact gameplay in a negative fashion. It must remain a deployed asset developed and completed with teamwork and proceed to despawn when finished.

Warren, you really need to stop and think about this part. If the FARS was a deployable asset, that required infantry to build it the same as a bunker. What's to stop it from being blown away, and the infantry shot while trying to re-build it? A single HAT would decimate that fictional base set-up you made. One shot to the FARS, to the tank.

Your worries would be valid if it took a second to re-build, but it doesn't. If a tank is destroyed it'd take a atleast a minute, probably more, to repair it to usable status. If the FARS is destroyed it'd take just as long to rebuild to usable status. What's to stop the enemy who are attacking the base to simply shoot the engineers before they repair anything?

Like I said, if it's too complicated it'll never be used, if it'll never be used it shouldn't be implimented, since the devs have more important things to do then throw in useless features. Keep it relativly simple so any ONE squad could do it. If it starts requireing a bunch of vehicles, endless squad-commander teamwork, and inter-squad teamwork, it just wont happen. And as much as I applaud your efforts for trying to create teamwork, you can't force people to play the way you want.

[Sgt1Winters]

Originally Posted by Colt556

Warren, you really need to stop and think about this part. If the FARS was a deployable asset, that required infantry to build it the same as a bunker. What's to stop it from being blown away, and the infantry shot while trying to re-build it? A single HAT would decimate that fictional base set-up you made. One shot to the FARS, to the tank.

Your worries would be valid if it took a second to re-build, but it doesn't. If a tank is destroyed it'd take a atleast a minute, probably more, to repair it to usable status. If the FARS is destroyed it'd take just as long to rebuild to usable status. What's to stop the enemy who are attacking the base to simply shoot the engineers before they repair anything?

Like I said, if it's too complicated it'll never be used, if it'll never be used it shouldn't be implimented, since the devs have more important things to do then throw in useless features. Keep it relativly simple so any ONE squad could do it. If it starts requireing a bunch of vehicles, endless squad-commander teamwork, and inter-squad teamwork, it just wont happen. And as much as I applaud your efforts for trying to create teamwork, you can't force people to play the way you want.

He did not say do it now. maybe they can do it later when some important bugs are fixed, this is just an idea, it can always be changed.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by Sgt1Winters

He did not say do it now. maybe they can do it later when some important bugs are fixed, this is just an idea, it can always be changed.

No, I know. I'm just saying the way he lays it out it's not worth adding, ever. Because the resources it would take, and the ammount of team-work, it'd just never be used. If it's ever added, it should be added in such a way that a single squad could do it themselves. Protect the tank and the engy's, and recover the tank, and repair it. If it takes more then a single squad, it'll never happen. Since inter-squad teamwork is almost nonexistant from what I've seen.

[M.Warren]

Originally Posted by Colt556

Warren, you really need to stop and think about this part. If the FARS was a deployable asset, that required infantry to build it the same as a bunker. What's to stop it from being blown away, and the infantry shot while trying to re-build it? A single HAT would decimate that fictional base set-up you made. One shot to the FARS, to the tank.

Your worries would be valid if it took a second to re-build, but it doesn't. If a tank is destroyed it'd take a atleast a minute, probably more, to repair it to usable status. If the FARS is destroyed it'd take just as long to rebuild to usable status. What's to stop the enemy who are attacking the base to simply shoot the engineers before they repair anything?

Originally Posted by M.Warren

Keep in mind that the use of a F.A.R.S. is purely optional. Chances are about 80% of the time you may not even get to use it simply because the area is not secure and is under heavy enemy contact. That will truely hinder any chances of recovering a vehicle.

Once again. The idea of the F.A.R.S. is to offer the ability to recover vehicles you can. Meaning they are in a safe enough location to perform this action. Not deploy a F.A.R.S. every single time one gets blown away.

So as I've said, if the F.A.R.S. is intended to be deployed it must be in a secure location. If the Engineers are getting shot at while attempting to perform the recovery, then it's obvious that it is too dangerous or impossible to accomplish. Thusly, should not be attempted at all.

This is similar to what Helicopter Pilots have to face. Imagine this... They have a squad onboard of a helicopter at a predetermined location. The Pilot flies to the location, but discovers it's a Hot LZ... Now it comes down to player skill. Does he:

A. Continue with the operation ignoring the potential risk of losing a team vehicle and/or risk the safety of the squad members.

B. Identify the Hot LZ location as a threat and improvise an immediate alternative solution by dropping off the friendly squad in an uncontested area in an alternate nearby location.

It's pretty clear that most rookie pilots will perform action A, whereas skilled pilots will perform action B. However skilled pilots that perform action B are usually yelled at by the squad members in the back of the Helicopter. This is because they didn't get dropped off at the pinpoint geographical location where they want because they're too lazy to spend the next 2 minutes advancing from a safe location.

This is about knowing what to do and when to do it.

Originally Posted by Colt556

Like I said, if it's too complicated it'll never be used, if it'll never be used it shouldn't be implimented, since the devs have more important things to do then throw in useless features. Keep it relativly simple so any ONE squad could do it. If it starts requireing a bunch of vehicles, endless squad-commander teamwork, and inter-squad teamwork, it just wont happen. And as much as I applaud your efforts for trying to create teamwork, you can't force people to play the way you want.

Nothing's too complicated for Project Reality, considering all the way it's came from requesting kits, to building bases and requiring support trucks to be within a certain proximity. The mod is already demanding and if anything like this could be implemented, Project Reality could do it.

As for the devs "having more important things to do", that may very well be. However, what do they have planned for v0.9? Just because you can't do something now doesn't mean you can't spend time potentially working on something in the future. There will be quite a few more handful of updates before this mod fades away, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Not that I expect the F.A.R.S. idea to take off, but it does have a potential of occuring.

As for "forcing people to play the way you want" what can I say? I have high standards for the PR community. But they belittle themselves with thier own lazyness and general lack to participate. If you want a good experience in PR you must work for it and whip your squads into shape. I've never came across a player that said "you're teamworking too much".

I've gotten many compliments before for being a good leader, and I try to lead by example so other players may learn to perform the same. A particularly new developer to the PR team that I take my hat off to, despite the times we may clash in opinions is fuzzhead. He's certainly put alot of time and effort pouring his expertise into the community to help bring them up to speed.

But one of the most major problems Project Reality players face is that alot of the servers are allowed to run unmoderated. Resultantly ending up with a general lack of administration to preserve "law and order". In the end, people are people. They will do what they want, which is fine and dandy. But the problem here really is, is that too many servers are not watched enough or at all. Players need to be monitored. Thankfully "Tactical Gamers" (TG) and "I'm Going In" (IGI) and thier administration are constantly active. Because without those guys setting the example for Project Reality it would be no different than some of the worst BF2 maps.

For allowing certain servers to run PR without any form of admin is simply setting themselves up for a problem. I wish Project Reality would spend some time to recognize servers that do have an active administration. Because I could go rent a server and disappear for a month without checking up on it, and I guarantee people will be running amuck HAT sniping, camping mains, teamkilling... It'd just be a disaster.

[M.Warren]

Originally Posted by Colt556

No, I know. I'm just saying the way he lays it out it's not worth adding, ever. Because the resources it would take, and the ammount of team-work, it'd just never be used. If it's ever added, it should be added in such a way that a single squad could do it themselves. Protect the tank and the engy's, and recover the tank, and repair it. If it takes more then a single squad, it'll never happen. Since inter-squad teamwork is almost nonexistant from what I've seen.

It takes:
(Engineer Squad): 1 Officer - Deploy the F.A.R.S. asset
(Engineer Squad): 2 Engineers - Assist in building and repairing.

(Tank or APC squad): 2-3 Engineers - Respawn and assist in building and repairing.

Total = 5-6 people to recover the vehicle. (Worth one squad.)

To recover a Tank from being completely destroyed and offering the chance to avoid waiting the 20-30 minutes it takes to respawn is a major advantage. It simply comes down to if it can be done. This is nothing like a Medic being able to revive a single soldier, this is a team of Engineers being able to revive a single piece of armor from the ashes.

[Colt556]

Originally Posted by M.Warren

So as I've said, if the F.A.R.S. is intended to be deployed it must be in a secure location. If the Engineers are getting shot at while attempting to perform the recovery, then it's obvious that it is too dangerous or impossible to accomplish. Thusly, should not be attempted at all.

This is similar to what Helicopter Pilots have to face. Imagine this... They have a squad onboard of a helicopter at a predetermined location. The Pilot flies to the location, but discovers it's a Hot LZ... Now it comes down to player skill. Does he:

A. Continue with the operation ignoring the potential risk of losing a team vehicle and/or risk the safety of the squad members.

B. Identify the Hot LZ location as a threat and improvise an immediate alternative solution by dropping off the friendly squad in an uncontested area in an alternate nearby location.

It's pretty clear that most rookie pilots will perform action A, whereas skilled pilots will perform action B. However skilled pilots that perform action B are usually yelled at by the squad members in the back of the Helicopter. This is because they didn't get dropped off at the pinpoint geographical location where they want because they're too lazy to spend the next 2 minutes advancing from a safe location.

This is about knowing what to do and when to do it.

You make it too black and white, the way you have it it'd take a good 10 minutes or more to recover a tank, the area around the tank could be empty of any hostiles when they start, and half-way through get attacked by an enemy squad. If that's the case you can't have 15 engineers running around, as you'll need rifleman to protect them.

It's like for your heli scenerio, only while the heli is on the ground deploying it's troops it gets attacked, so it has to rely on the squad it just deployed to protect it while it gets the hell out of dodge.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

Nothing's too complicated for Project Reality, considering all the way it's came from requesting kits, to building bases and requiring support trucks to be within a certain proximity. The mod is already demanding and if anything like this could be implemented, Project Reality could do it.

The examples you gave aren't complicated at all. I got the hang of all that stuff within my first 10 minutes of playing PR. Hell it took me longer to get use to VBF2 then it did PR and even I find your way to be complicated.

In the end, as realistic and tactical as PR is, it is still a game. And if it ceases to be fun, it's a failure as a mod. It must find the balance between fun, and realism, which thus far it has, quite well. Your idea leans WAY too much to the realism side of the spectrum, and away from the fun side. It is NOT fun to have to sit around for 10 minutes with 12 other people just to repair a single tank, that you wont even get to use.

You need to keep it simple, and stream-lined, while still requireing teamwork. Which is why allowing 1 or 2 engy's would do it. Ask for a build order, build the FARS, have an engineer or two repair the tank. A single squad could do the entire operation so you could have a dedicated "rez squad" without taking away too many players from the battle.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

As for the devs "having more important things to do", that may very well be. However, what do they have planned for v0.9? Just because you can't do something now doesn't mean you can't spend time potentially working on something in the future. There will be quite a few more handful of updates before this mod fades away, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. Not that I expect the F.A.R.S. idea to take off, but it does have a potential of occuring.

It's not about that, it's about implimenting a pointless feature. It doesn't matter WHEN they have the chance, there'll allways be something that actually matters. And the way you have the idea set up, makes it a useless feature. It's too complicated, and requires too much to work, and so will never be used. So instead of coding in a rather complex feature that'll never be used, they could put in something that WOULD be used. This is why I want the idea stream-lined, if it's simple to understand, and simple to do, then it will be used and will warrant it being added.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

As for "forcing people to play the way you want" what can I say? I have high standards for the PR community. But they belittle themselves with thier own lazyness and general lack to participate. If you want a good experience in PR you must work for it and whip your squads into shape. I've never came across a player that said "you're teamworking too much".

I've gotten many compliments before for being a good leader, and I try to lead by example so other players may learn to perform the same. A particularly new developer to the PR team that I take my hat off to, despite the times we may clash in opinions is fuzzhead. He's certainly put alot of time and effort pouring his expertise into the community to help bring them up to speed.

Encouraging teamwork is one thing, expecting people to jump through 15 hoops just to do something that wont even benefit them is quite another. I have NO problem with trying to encourage teamwork, it's FORCING teamwork that I don't like. Players should allways have the option to play how they want, if their lone-wolfing hurts them, and their team, so be it. But they should be allowed the choice to go lone wolf.

Your idea FORCES the players to do something a single way, they HAVE to bring in those trucks, they HAVE to get 15 thousand engineers, they HAVE to endlessly rebuild the FARS. You need to give them options, allow for a single engineer to repair that tank, but make it take a while. So if they wanna spend a half an hour waiting for that single engineer, so be it. If they wanna get 15 thousand engineers to speed up the repairs, again, so be it. But they should allways have the choice.

Originally Posted by M.Warren

But one of the most major problems Project Reality players face is that alot of the servers are allowed to run unmoderated. Resultantly ending up with a general lack of administration to preserve "law and order". In the end, people are people. They will do what they want, which is fine and dandy. But the problem here really is, is that too many servers are not watched enough or at all. Players need to be monitored. Thankfully "Tactical Gamers" (TG) and "I'm Going In" (IGI) and thier administration are constantly active. Because without those guys setting the example for Project Reality it would be no different than some of the worst BF2 maps.

For allowing certain servers to run PR without any form of admin is simply setting themselves up for a problem. I wish Project Reality would spend some time to recognize servers that do have an active administration. Because I could go rent a server and disappear for a month without checking up on it, and I guarantee people will be running amuck HAT sniping, camping mains, teamkilling... It'd just be a disaster.

Well it's a game, and it's a game that strives for realism. So really admining is sort of counter-productive to the mods overall goal when you think about it. At the end, HAT sniping, camping main. Neither of those are a problem, and infact should be encourage (Well maybe not lol). The HAT acts like it's real life counter part, in real life if a soldier sniped an enemy group of soldiers with a rocket his buddies would be patting him on the back, not kicking him out of the army.

Same for camping main, war is war. The goal is to win, by any means necessary. Camp their air-fields and supply bases, kill them before they even get out of their base so they can't fight back. It's war. Maybe you shouldn't have allowed them to get such an advantage.

Even though this has no bearing on the subject of the FARS idea needing stream-lining....


Edit:

Originally Posted by M.Warren

It takes:
(Engineer Squad): 1 Officer - Deploy the F.A.R.S. asset
(Engineer Squad): 2 Engineers - Assist in building and repairing.

(Tank or APC squad): 2-3 Engineers - Respawn and assist in building and repairing.

Total = 5-6 people to recover the vehicle. (Worth one squad.)

To recover a Tank from being completely destroyed and offering the chance to avoid waiting the 20-30 minutes it takes to respawn is a major advantage. It simply comes down to if it can be done. This is nothing like a Medic being able to revive a single soldier, this is a team of Engineers being able to revive a single piece of armor from the ashes.

A question, if it takes an entire squad to revive the tank, who protects the engineers? That's my point about it taking a bazillion people. You NEED escorts, because while the area may be clear when you start, enemy soldiers can pop up at any time. So to be effective you'd need atleast two squads with your set-up, a squad of engys, and a squad of rifleman to protect them. Too many people taken away from the battle.