More realistic approach

[dunno/be]

Hello,

this will be of a bigger text to read, but please do.

Although I have been a fan of PR(:BF2) for over 3 years and like to play PR: ArmA 2, the latter gets boring to me after a while. I don't exacly know why. I totaly agree with an other topic creater that there is no room for a break.

The gameplay is IMO too fast. They're is way too much dieing/killing, being frustrated and having to run around for a while to get back to your squad (if you have any squad).


My opinion: What we lack in Project Reality is a milsim/realism approach. I played a couple of missions on unitedoperations.net for example and liked their way of playing the game.

Maybe the PR makers should look into similar approach. The real added value of this mod should be intense, teambased, realistic gameplay and not just the repetitive build a base and then proceed to capturing flags or destroy caches.

Missions:

Organize missions like 'Kill the insurgent leader or squad leader(s)' where one of the players is randomly selected as Team Leader or because he selected a specific slot or because he is a squad leader. The target's movement space should be limited and BLUFOR should be given mapintel on the target's position or area where he is by killing insurgents. Respawning could be allowed or otherwise a permadeath setting.

Or just missions like 'Conquer village X' or 'Conquer objective X':

There should be a build up time of 10 minutes. The attacking team('s leaders) should make a plan and brief their team on their approach. Their movement should be restricted for that time and when the time is over, the limit is removed.

The defending should brief their team on their strategy. E.g. Team Alpha defends the hill overlooking the village, team Beta puts an ambush on the road towards the village, team Delta does logistics.

We don't have to ditch the logistics parts of PR nor the respawning entirely. The defending team should given resources to build up defenses (MG tripods, sandbags, barbed wire, mines,...) or perhaps an FOB during the build up period.

General gameplay:

No respawn or perhaps limiting respawn would be interesting. Teams could be given the possibility to construct an FOB to allow limited respawn. E.g. when we have 30 players on the REDFOR side, they team could be allowed 30, 50, 60 respawns or even a lot more. When they run out of respawns, the game will most likely end soon + the other team could search for the enemy's FoB and take it down to prevent them from respawning and finish the game sooner.

You could play with the respawn limit. The attacking team which has more players and thus be given less respawns than the defensive team. Or no respawns/FOBs could be a setting as well. Permadeath.

Weaponry: there need to be way less scoped rifles, realistic AT usage, zeroing on grenade launchers, maybe NVG's should be limited as well and longer range firefights between fireteams would be interesting. Maybe you shouldn't be able to chose an AT from the squad role menu, but AT,AA, silenced weapons, PKP etc. should only be available fom weapon crates. (You're able to pick up AT kits anyways from dead people.)

Special attributes like tanks, apc's, helo's etc. shouldn't be able to respawn either or perhaps 1 time after being destroyed.

Maybe the current maps aren't good for this. (Chernarus is too dense, forested and Takistan isn't exacly my kind of Afghanistan. I want either real mountains or a flat agricultural terrain.)

Don't worry too much about balancing. Teams don't have to be equal ingame as the focus should be on tactics, neither does weaponry have to be balanced.

Force communication and teamplay, severely penalize lonewolfing and dieing should be penalized heavy as well!! Make people think twice before they do something!! Caution should be key!!

How I see immersive, intense gameplay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oig3h...feature=relmfu
ArmA 2 - UO - TvT ZomBergenDrop - YouTube

I participated in this battle, but on the other team. I was most likely killed by friendly fire I think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyI8Lvns3Wk

[Bluedrake42]

yeah I agree united operations is still better than PRArmA2 so far

[Rashomon]

I have to agree with most of what you said there. But mentioning "No respawn" seems to be a no-no around here. Atleast that's the impression I get, because whenever a topic adresses this, you usually get the "There needs to be a balance between realism and gameplay" comments real fast.
I am of the opinion, that the more value your virtual life during a round has (as in "none or very limited respawn"), the more carefull and though out (aka realistic) your movements, tactics, firefights, etc... become. And the logical consequence of that to me, is that the whole game becomes much more intense and immersive.

What I think this mod needs, is much more time for a decent preparation, plan or briefing, combined with the aspect of an overall commander for each team. There is close to no planning involved the way it is now. One squad "sacrifices" itself to place a couple of fob's in the beginning of a round, the rest can start capping objectives as fast as they can.
But that's simply the mod...it's designed to be able to quickly jump in a game, teleport yourself to where ever the action or your squad is, and start shooting bad guys with the weapon of your choice. The only time people get annoyed by this, is when they run out of fob's and start spamming side-chat with "Why is no one building fo's?", "We need to defend objective X real fast or we're gonna lose this round" etc...

Imagine rounds where an actual plan is drawn up and teams are organised and briefed according to that plan or strategy... Ok, so Alpha is first gonna place FO's there and there and then set up there as a QRF in case Bravo get's into trouble with obj X... Meanwhile we'll try to have Charlie do this or that, while Delta does this and that. And meanwhile have Echo provide air cover during whatever assault or part of the plan... And have the opposite team do the same... Although the terrain remains the same, different approaches will provide different results, wins ?nd losses. Different plans...different commanders trying to outwit and anticipate their opponents plans. Never mind the sayings "No plan ever survives first contact!" or "Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong!", there will be a lot more purpose to the game, instead of

The gameplay is IMO too fast. They're is way too much dieing/killing, being frustrated and having to run around for a while to get back to your squad (if you have any squad).

with which I agree btw.

I might be completely off on this, as I am sure many people will disagree with my opinions, but I would almost go so far as to say "I guarantee you a better experience, if people would approach A2-PR this way!".

There is this one fella whom everybody knows, who plays this mod, and whenever you find him on the opposite team, you're more likely to lose that round than win. Maybe because he succeeds in bringing some organisation to that side. Although I don't agree with his views about "Speed is everything", I have to say that he'll probably be a terrific player in any game mode, be it no respawn or respawn. Not because of his uberskillz with the AK, but because he's a thinking player who sees the big picture and tries to bring some order in what otherwise mostly is just a haphazard approach with people shooting at eachother. And there are plenty of other regular players out there, that are trying to do the same (for some reason they tend to be not clan affiliated, but independent players...something to think about, altough there are exceptions (RGG comes to mind)).

I would suggest to leave the gameplay and respawn options as they are now, but introduce an overall strategic feel to the mod. Some preparation time before a round (I would call it a mission) to sort teams out, divide responsabilities and draw up a general plan. Introduce a commander spot, someone who can provide cohesion between squads, sees the big picture, and uses his assets (squads) on the battlefield where they are most needed.
This however requires a whole other level of teamwork, than what most people are used to. But if UO can do it with 80 or so people, PR should be able to do it aswell....I think

[Lanthan]

For me the "no respawn" is not the solution for "it gets boring". The opposite is the case... my one life game might be thrilling but the you are dead screen is in opposition to this. I don't like it already to be dead and wasted enough lifetime already waiting for different things.

Just writing this because I have the impression these days there is a wave of ppl arguing for the no respawn approach and I want to show there are others. I can understand you bitter when you are saying it can get repetitive but I don't want to accept that no respawn is a solution to this.

Also amazing how high the demands are around the Arma players concerning new stuff to play with. Looking at other games you don't have as much variety as you have with arma and still players are playing BF2PR.
I mean it is great that arma offers this but still it is a lot of work to do just for a few months of enjoyment.
So maybe there is a need for new concepts but I hope it is not no respawn.

Bitter let me know when you play if you are actually still playing.

Cheers

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by Lanthan

For me the "no respawn" is not the solution for "it gets boring". The opposite is the case... my one life game might be thrilling but the you are dead screen is in opposition to this. I don't like it already to be dead and wasted enough lifetime already waiting for different things.

Just writing this because I have the impression these days there is a wave of ppl arguing for the no respawn approach and I want to show there are others. I can understand you bitter when you are saying it can get repetitive but I don't want to accept that no respawn is a solution to this.

Also amazing how high the demands are around the Arma players concerning new stuff to play with. Looking at other games you don't have as much variety as you have with arma and still players are playing BF2PR.
I mean it is great that arma offers this but still it is a lot of work to do just for a few months of enjoyment.
So maybe there is a need for new concepts but I hope it is not no respawn.

Bitter let me know when you play if you are actually still playing.

Cheers

Nice play with "bitter", Lanthan I'm not bitter at all, I still enjoy it, but think a few aspects of the mod could be "bitter", thats all I play no respawn with 20-30 players and up regularly, so I kinda have experience with both options. And was thinking about ways to inject that

my one life game might be thrilling

feeling into PR without actually implementing no respawn. More organisation and planning were the first things that came to mind.

Didn't mean to scare ya

[dunno/be]

Lanthan is talking to me. My nickname ingame is 'Bittereinder'.

(Lol are u stalking me lanthan? how did you know it was me? I sent you a message on the dao.nu forum.)

[Rashomon]

Originally Posted by dunno/be

Lanthan is talking to me. My nickname ingame is 'Bittereinder'.

Silly old me

[snotmaster0]

Originally Posted by Rashomon

I would suggest to leave the gameplay and respawn options as they are now, but introduce an overall strategic feel to the mod. Some preparation time before a round (I would call it a mission) to sort teams out, divide responsabilities and draw up a general plan. Introduce a commander spot, someone who can provide cohesion between squads, sees the big picture, and uses his assets (squads) on the battlefield where they are most needed.
This however requires a whole other level of teamwork, than what most people are used to. But if UO can do it with 80 or so people, PR should be able to do it aswell....I think

There already is preparation time. It certainly could be longer, but that time is there for those who want to use it. Also, the commander position is a planned feature that hopefully will come within an update or two (pretty please devs, I will give you my first born!).

I feel like you might be comparing apples to oranges when you compare PRA to UO. They've been around longer and have an established mentality and tighter community. They're a community that let's pubbers play, while PRA is pubbers playing with the occasional clan or community member thrown in. UO also has more defined "events" rather than having a server at 80 players all the time (like PRA). Basically, PRA isn't trying to cater to the community driven milsimmers, that niche is already taken by UO, TG and others. PRA is still finding its niche of an easy to join public game where a teamwork can be found. Is the teamwork there yet? No, but PRA is still young. I would hate to see drastic measures taken to try and force teamwork which ostracizes large parts of the community.

[Lanthan]

Haha... doesn't matter guys. I'm still laughing...seriously. I already love the thread.

Edit: @Dunno.... you told me quite some time ago, sorry mate. Check inbox.
And I agree with snot.

[Swedge]

Personally, I would really enjoy the opportunity to play a 'no-respawn' version of PR:Arma2 sometimes if such an option is feasible. Historically, 'no-respawn' missions tend to only draw a hardcore minority of Arma 2 players. But it would certainly be a fun option sometimes.

I also support increased battle preparation time.

Thank you for your time.

Cheers,
Swedge