Completely Removing the map with friendly positions for infantry

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

What about 1 manning a tank? Good team-play says that you shouldn't do that. But if PR didn't make it ineffective, would it not be done more often? Sure, the servers I play on (those that you listed) would punish people for such behavior, but what about when there are no admin? Or they're on the other team? And should the players really be responsible for figuring out if someone who's kicking ass with a tank is alone or has a driver. Not when the game can easily be modified to prevent this.

You can't modify everything to stop a player from doing it. You can put disadvantages with using it incorrectly, but people are still going to do it. I agree that there should be disadvantages put in place to stop player from using something incorrectly, but that is only going to be half of it. Most players still haven't figured out the disadvantages of having snipers in their squads etc.
But removing the minimap is completely different as it doesn't come with a positive, only disadvantages. You said "what about when there is no admin or if players should figure out if they are kicking their ass with a tank?" That is basically what the Commander's job would amount to with this change.

I know it's a stretch to compare looking at a map to 1 manning a tank. But they're both unrealistic tactics that get reinforced in video games way too heavily. The reason they do is not necessity, it's effectiveness. Just look at the way people react to the thought of losing it. It's way too effective for every foot soldier to carry a zero delay, 100% reliable, tracking system. The same way it would be way too effective if you could have 6 1manned tanks with no warm up time, in a squad. Of course it would be better to have 12 people. But that's taking people out of infantry squads, who wants to drive, it's a boring job, involves verbal communication with other people, incompetent drivers ruin the game, yadda yadda.

PR is half realism half gameplay oriented. Half of what is ingame is based on real life counterparts, but even then they aren't always realistic like the M16 (way to much kick and muzzle rise). The M16 is the way it is because of gameplay issues. Same with making the Auto Rifleman have a 5-10 minute respawn time. If this was real life, every squad would have at least 1 AutoRifleman at all times along with a Grenadier. But then the Grenadier could be abused. The minimap is one of those things that isn't realistic, but it needs to be there for gameplay issues and to balance out things.

[[MoL]jaVi]

I totally agree with that!

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

You can't modify everything to stop a player from doing it. You can put disadvantages with using it incorrectly, but people are still going to do it. I agree that there should be disadvantages put in place to stop player from using something incorrectly, but that is only going to be half of it. Most players still haven't figured out the disadvantages of having snipers in their squads etc.
But removing the minimap is completely different as it doesn't come with a positive, only disadvantages. You said "what about when there is no admin or if players should figure out if they are kicking their ass with a tank?" That is basically what the Commander's job would amount to with this change.





PR is half realism half gameplay oriented. Half of what is ingame is based on real life counterparts, but even then they aren't always realistic like the M16 (way to much kick and muzzle rise). The M16 is the way it is because of gameplay issues. Same with making the Auto Rifleman have a 5-10 minute respawn time. If this was real life, every squad would have at least 1 AutoRifleman at all times along with a Grenadier. But then the Grenadier could be abused. The minimap is one of those things that isn't realistic, but it needs to be there for gameplay issues and to balance out things.

1 Manning tanks has its advantages. Not with the system they have now. But if it was like vbf2 where you could drive and gun, it would be a step backwards making 2 people do it. First of all driving and firing isn't exactly easy in bf2. And voip has a delay that makes it a pain to use. But, they still changed it. In favor of good game play. Not effective game play, but fun game play. You get more people involved in the actions of that one piece of armor. Instead of just one guy killing another, it's a team effort.

Now think about the map. You can pull it up in half a second and see the whole picture of the battlefield. Down to the smallest detail. Of course taking any of that information away would hurt a players effectiveness. But so does making another player drive your tank. What you would gain is sharing your expirence with other people in the game. Working as a team instead of just running together as a group of Rambos with common goals.

I value this type of team play, as it makes for a fun game. If you do not, then you will think this change is bad. As it hurts the player and computer relationship, and makes you rely more on other players.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by badmojo420

1 Manning tanks has its advantages. Not with the system they have now. But if it was like vbf2 where you could drive and gun, it would be a step backwards making 2 people do it. First of all driving and firing isn't exactly easy in bf2. And voip has a delay that makes it a pain to use. But, they still changed it. In favor of good game play. Not effective game play, but fun game play. You get more people involved in the actions of that one piece of armor. Instead of just one guy killing another, it's a team effort.

Now think about the map. You can pull it up in half a second and see the whole picture of the battlefield. Down to the smallest detail. Of course taking any of that information away would hurt a players effectiveness. But so does making another player drive your tank. What you would gain is sharing your expirence with other people in the game. Working as a team instead of just running together as a group of Rambos with common goals.

I value this type of team play, as it makes for a fun game. If you do not, then you will think this change is bad. As it hurts the player and computer relationship, and makes you rely more on other players.

You can't compare 1 or 2 manning a tank to using a minimap.

-PR Tank has 2 people. They don't move whatsoever while in the tank and only 1 of them is firing at a time and only 1 of them is driving them at a time. The driver controls the actions primarily though.

-With a 6 man squad, you have 6 people moving to a location individually (by their controls) and firing individually. You cannot give them all orders individually as that is too time comsuming and the only time I have seen it work is when you are moving silently, not really in actual combat. Once you get ingaged, every individual troop has to do his own thing to keep you all alive. Of course you can give them orders like "cover fire", "flank", "suppressing fire", or "defend", but you don't tell each individual troop where to go all the time as that is too time consuming and you will get killed by the enemies very quickly if they move faster.


So how exactly are you gaining "sharing your experience" by taking away the minimap? If anything, it takes away from "sharing the experience" because if the SL does not tell you to look a certain direction, there maybe a squadmate being engaged without VOIP or who cannot use it fast enough who you won't see over the hill. With the minimap, you will see the squadmate just standing there, meaning something maybe wrong. This is even more true with defending because when you defend, you usually don't stay all in the same spot. Muttrah's Mosque for example.


Even as you said, there is a delay with VOIP, so why are you proposing that they be vulnerable for those few seconds when they could just pop up the minimap? This isn't America's Army or SWAT 4. BF2/PR moves way to quickly to depend upon VOIP alone as you have suggested.

[badmojo420]

I understand that 6 people will be doing different things. I wouldn't expect the SL to give everyone individual commands. What you and other people were complaining about is knowing what other squads are doing and where needs defending and where already has 2 squads on it. And that's a legitimate need. But, what you talked about, watching the green dots and reacting to them. Is exactly what i want PR to get away from with removing the map. I understand you have a different opinion on this topic. So i won't bother explaining my reasons anymore.

[Vege]

IF SL:s are given other SL:s locations and commander sees all and SM sees SL and SL/game markers I would see no reason to not implement this.
If we give drivers the map they have now they could prevent the possible problem that if CO would be the only one to get the current map and if CO was present.
This would also add more infantry debendancy on vehicles.

+More job to CO
+People would use grid coordinates more to tell where they are.
+People would stop yelling enemy at my location even those nobody knows where they are even with the map.
+Would bring more realistic troop movement ingame.
+People would have to rely on some chain of command.

-Confusion among new players
-Confusion among those without a Mic
-People would have to think
-People would "expoit" for example with yelling for medic to know where someone is for example.

If i would know where to attack and where i should go by looking my map im happy.

[CodeRedFox]

The biggest problem is simple....really which make the original idea mute. With out inter squad leader communication this doesn't work.

[Vege]

Capping flags would also be allot more confusing as people would not know how meny players there are in flag zone.

Well, can we atleast get rid of the medic magic ability to know who has died in other side of map?

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by Vege

IF SL:s are given other SL:s locations and commander sees all and SM sees SL and SL/game markers I would see no reason to not implement this.

I thought about that, but the main problem with that is that you may go to that location only to find the SL alive and his squad wiped out and than get ambushed yourself or his squad maybe nowhere near him for some reason. With the current system, at least you know if other squads are in danger or not by how many of them are in an area. Pretty much inter-squad communication as much as PR can without intersquad-VOIP.

[Ca6e]

I`d like to say only this: in real life when u shoot with AK-47 your iron sight cover 1/3 of your visual sight. In PR0.8 is too small i think, must be much closer vhen you aim. In real iron sight on 100m cover the standing human.
THX

EDIT: User warned for posting a useless post