Project Reality Forums

TLDR in italic.

Currently asset maps often end up being one-sided steam rolls. This keeps coming up in one form or an other. People usually suggest some combination of nerfing assets, buffing infantry, and gitting gud, but I'd like to point out one other aspect that could use tuning.

Take this post with the following premises (aka. if you disagree with these, stop reading and consider this thread moot*):
- Asset maps (Khami, Black Gold, Burning Sands, etc.) are supposed to provide game play that is more focused on and around heavy assets.
- Assets make the game overall more fun, and simply removing them or the maps they are featured on is not a solution.
- Heavy assets are supposed to be scary, and should not be nerfed into the ground.

The problem is that infantry's capability to deal with assets is constant for the most part. You have a fixed number of LATs available, one HAT and two AA-s. You can build a fixed number of TOWs that will help a little bit. Kits may be unavailable for a couple of minutes, but the longest a team has to go without them is 5 mins at worst.

On the other hand asset numbers vary a lot throughout the round. If a team's armor is sub-par, a match can easily go the way of 4 tanks vs nothing; and it stays that way for over 20 minutes. More than enough time to steamroll anyone. The same thing happens with CAS. 3 jets face off against 3, the winner side gets to destroy every living thing on the enemy team afterwards.

This is not fun for the infantry, nor the assets on the losing side. So I'd recommend instead of making a map asset heavy by simply piling on more of a given vehicle, how about making them more prevalent by adjusting spawn timers. For example: 4 tanks could be replaced with 2 tanks that re-spawn every 10 minutes. The goal would be to smooth out the spike of impact that heavy assets have in groups. The infantry doesn't have to put up with an unbreakable wall of armor; the tanks/jets don't get 20 minutes of steam roll because their counterparts are more often there to put up a fight. I can imagine people bringing up a bunch of points against this:

P: But then less people get to be in assets!
R: Not really. Half of the 8-man tank squad is usually free-kitting or AFK-ing while their asset is down. This way people who do get into asset squads get a more engaging game with less downtime. The rest can also get a better round by playing proper infantry. Everyone gets off better.

P: The same two guys will take all the tanks all the time.
R: Git gud.

P: But I like big tank columns and my milsim demands formations!
R: Sure, not every map needs this. When a map is so heavily dependent on assets that half the team is in them already (Black Gold), this is not something you'd want to change. But altering the spawn rates can offer a different kind of asset map, where the threat is less overwhelming yet more prevalent.

P: Quickly respawning assets will waste a lot of tickets!
R: Not more than usually. 4 tanks getting rekt every 20 mins is the same as 2 tanks getting rekt every 10 mins.

P: Matches will be grindy! There should be downtime between assets!
R: Maybe there should be. But we see what the 20 mins leads to. Even less can lead to super steamrolls, and this is an easy change compared to trying to balance assets that are by definition not supposed to be balanced. And asset maps are supposed to be about playing with and against assets anyway. Not 20 minutes of inf gameplay and then 10 minutes of hiding while the asset whores decide the outcome of the game.


This is something that could be easily tested as it only requires server side adjustments, and can be tuned on a map-by-map basis. Currently every map just goes with the "20 minutes for heavy assets" because "that's how heavy assets work right?".



*Thread is not about changing how heavy assets feel and play within PR during moment-to-moment gameplay. There are plenty of threads about that.

nb4 FFG

Aleon wrote:Currently asset maps often end up being one-sided steam rolls. This keeps coming up in one form or an other. People usually suggest some combination of nerfing assets, buffing infantry, and gitting gud, but I'd like to point out one other aspect that could use tuning.

That ultimately comes down to two things, Admins balancing on servers and the shift from ground assets generally being equally capable towards tanks being the power assets.

Aleon wrote:Take this post with the following premises (aka. if you disagree with these, stop reading and consider this thread moot*):
- Asset maps (Khami, Black Gold, Burning Sands, etc.) are supposed to provide game play that is more focused on and around heavy assets.
- Assets make the game overall more fun, and simply removing them or the maps they are featured on is not a solution.
- Heavy assets are supposed to be scary, and should not be nerfed into the ground.

Agreed, This is the mentality I take into doing asset layouts on maps. I balance specifically as to the capabilities of the assets to combat each other, So in situations where say tanks are 3v3 but a TOW built by INF kills the tank its perfectly fair because the 1 team outplayed the other team.

Aleon wrote:The problem is that infantry's capability to deal with assets is constant for the most part. You have a fixed number of LATs available, one HAT and two AA-s. You can build a fixed number of TOWs that will help a little bit. Kits may be unavailable for a couple of minutes, but the longest a team has to go without them is 5 mins at worst.

Not always the case. Logistics is a huge factor to this. Some maps are incredibly easy to build super fobs on and some aren't.

Aleon wrote:On the other hand asset numbers vary a lot throughout the round. If a team's armor is sub-par, a match can easily go the way of 4 tanks vs nothing; and it stays that way for over 20 minutes. More than enough time to steamroll anyone. The same thing happens with CAS. 3 jets face off against 3, the winner side gets to destroy every living thing on the enemy team afterwards.

I mean winning the dogfight or tank fight you're not guaranteed to keep all 3 jets or all 3 tanks alive. I mean if you do, more power to you. You might as well steam roll because obviously your better crews then the other teams. But that being said its not like that happens everyday.

Aleon wrote:This is not fun for the infantry, nor the assets on the losing side. So I'd recommend instead of making a map asset heavy by simply piling on more of a given vehicle, how about making them more prevalent by adjusting spawn timers. For example: 4 tanks could be replaced with 2 tanks that re-spawn every 10 minutes. The goal would be to smooth out the spike of impact that heavy assets have in groups. The infantry doesn't have to put up with an unbreakable wall of armor; the tanks/jets don't get 20 minutes of steam roll because their counterparts are more often there to put up a fight. I can imagine people bringing up a bunch of points against this:

Issue with lowering spawn timer means theres no actual reward for doing well. If say, I kill an APC as INF and that APC comes back 5 minutes later and wipes me its no better in the long run. Especially in these situations where its often harder for INF to rearm lats, hats, etc does it become an even worst ordeal for the INF.

On top of that, APCs are generally easy to kill. Tanks on the other hand aren't (for the average pub). Without giving INF proper time to prepare for Tanks etc, Tanks will just roll right over them.

Aleon wrote:P: But then less people get to be in assets!
R: Not really. Half of the 8-man tank squad is usually free-kitting or AFK-ing while their asset is down. This way people who do get into asset squads get a more engaging game with less downtime. The rest can also get a better round by playing proper infantry. Everyone gets off better.

Part of the reason why Kashan ATM is kinda really shit is because its more effective to sit there and farm kills then it is to kill the enemy tanks. I personally believe theres too much INF on maps like Kashan. Back in the day when INF largely we're left alone on deployment there was actual strategies to defending etc. But INF doesn't get that opportunity in 1.4.20.

Aleon wrote:P: The same two guys will take all the tanks all the time.
R: Git gud.

lol

Aleon wrote:P: But I like big tank columns and my milsim demands formations!
R: Sure, not every map needs this. When a map is so heavily dependent on assets that half the team is in them already (Black Gold), this is not something you'd want to change. But altering the spawn rates can offer a different kind of asset map, where the threat is less overwhelming yet more prevalent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VrhdgdY6jw

This isn't finished yet, But when it is there will be more dynamic asset spawns across all maps most likely.

Aleon wrote:P: Quickly respawning assets will waste a lot of tickets!
R: Not more than usually. 4 tanks getting rekt every 20 mins is the same as 2 tanks getting rekt every 10 mins.

Quick spawning assets will play more recklessly and even more agressive. People doing assets need to ensure their assets are there and are alive.

Aleon wrote:P: Matches will be grindy! There should be downtime between assets!
R: Maybe there should be. But we see what the 20 mins leads to. Even less can lead to super steamrolls, and this is an easy change compared to trying to balance assets that are by definition not supposed to be balanced. And asset maps are supposed to be about playing with and against assets anyway. Not 20 minutes of inf gameplay and then 10 minutes of hiding while the asset whores decide the outcome of the game.

Again, more of a logistical issue on maps then an issue of assets. That being said, having people run around like headless chickens while assets are bearing down on them isn't good gameplay either.

Aleon wrote:This is something that could be easily tested as it only requires server side adjustments, and can be tuned on a map-by-map basis. Currently every map just goes with the "20 minutes for heavy assets" because "that's how heavy assets work right?".

Servers can't run stuff like this without a password. Maybe have a chat to a community to test this concept and come back to the thread with the evidence from the matches? With prtracker we can look at the individual assets effectiveness over the round and compare it to current gameplay.

Yes, the best way to prevent lopsided steamrolls would be a constant supply of assets which would result in a combination of stalemate and grind as you could never really get rid of an enemy asset.

Can also ask v1.0 to v1.2 vets how the 15 min spawn on tanks and CAS worked out.

[R-DEV]Outlawz7 wrote:Can also ask v1.0 to v1.2 vets how the 15 min spawn on tanks and CAS worked out.

> Hey Aleon, how did you like the 15 min spawn time?
> It was fine.

But more seriously, Outlawz this is not about just reducing spawn timers. There is no point in reducing the spawn timer on a map like Beirut or Vadso. This is about including the spawn time in the balance in a smart way instead of just sticking to 20 minutes flat because reasons.

One issue could be a playing with the thought "lawls I lost CAS but it will be back up in 5 mins" proceeds to lose next jet a few mins after taking off only to think "lawls I lost CAS but it will be back up in 5 mins". The punishment for losing an asset should be felt by the team for long enough that they figure out other ways to shore up the gap left by said lost asset.

So while this means one team can never have an advantage for too long it also means one team can never be punished for being bested for too long. I don't think "git gud" should be tossed around with this suggestion because if you have a problem with respawn timers you actually do need to git gud....

Aleon wrote:Hey Aleon, how did you like the 15 min spawn time?

It was fine.

But more seriously, Outlawz this is not about just reducing spawn timers. There is no point in reducing the spawn timer on a map like Beirut or Vadso. This is about including the spawn time in the balance in a smart way instead of just sticking to 20 minutes flat because reasons.

15min CAS and TANKs were garbage, 4 jets a map is garbage, even 7-10min APCs are garbage.

Low respawn times means a good crew of 2 guys can keep returning with new assets to get 10-30 kills with each, without fear of downtime, other than driving out of main. Generally results in 50-150 kills with about <10 assets spent.

Muttrah already sees this problem with STD layout with 3 AAVP and 1 LAV. Simply lock sq at 2 players, drive out 2 AAVPs at once, leave 1 at repair bay, go get 20 kills and die, get other AAVP, go rape again.

It's simply cancer. Killing the asset is worth nothing in this situation, because with each time you kill them, you limit their kills by 5-15 at most, with them still ending up with over 50 and changing the game entirely.

Even APCs need lower numbers and higher respawns (10min for open turret, 15min for 12.7mm-30mm closed turret, 20min for IFV). You've seen what me and my crew or some other good crews have done with only APCs, and you still suggest lower respawns for tanks?

What you're suggesting will turn out the same way as current gameplay: good players have lower threshold of doing high risk high reward attacks, enemy assets despite lower respawn will not be able to counter the armor any better.

Lower overall numbers for both APC/TANK and higher respawn times for APCs could solve this to a point. Simply so if you do manage to kill a few good players in an asset, that kill will be worth something for the entire game. As it should be.

The shitty team would feel this change as getting rekt more often and with riskier attacks that usually pay off.

Won't work.

I never thought I'd see Viirus perfectly explaining why high respawn times for vehicles are simply better for gameplay.

viirusiiseli wrote:...

I mostly agree with you viirus, you nicely summed up the current system. The problem with your reasoning is that having more assets respawn slower is a superset of what I'm suggesting. Everything that this suggestion allows, and you are having problems with, is already in the game right now. A skilled group of players can lock the squad/kick unskilled players with not all assets manned (and there are servers that will let this fly). The result is the same (or even worse). You should be familiar with this concept. So the argument that killing an asset will be meaningless does not hold; it either already is, or it won't be even after the changes.*

Like you say, this will turn out a lot like it is right now. This is not a "breaking" change. However, you get the benefit of the infantry never having to face a wall of 3 or 4 tanks or 4 jets, etc. I agree, the amount of assets on some maps is ridiculous. But I've made the thread with the premise that there is a demand for these within the community and therefore simply reducing the amount of assets is not satisfactory. This is a different discussion. This thread is not about a fix for the asset problem, but an improvement to what we have.

I'll reiterate that, the problem is that infantry's capability to deal with assets is hard capped. It is silly to increase the number of assets and expect them to cope with it.

And finally, skill can be used as an argument on both sides of the equation: I know you can get tons of kills in a tank or an APC. Arguing weather one should be able to rack up 70 kills in a tank is outside the scope of this discussion. The main difference is that I know how to deal with one or two tanks as infantry. Be it you, or some milsim guy, I will kill the asset given the tools. Dealing with 4 of you on the other hand... the best I can think of is hiding and AFK-ing until area attack or jets are ready.

Murphy wrote:One issue could be a playing with the thought "lawls I lost CAS but it will be back up in 5 mins" proceeds to lose next jet a few mins after taking off only to think "lawls I lost CAS but it will be back up in 5 mins". The punishment for losing an asset should be felt by the team for long enough that they figure out other ways to shore up the gap left by said lost asset.

I agree with this, but this is an individual/mindset problem. You're talking about trying to protect the team from one's inability to recognize how important the asset is. Not something I'd rely heavily on when balancing a map. 4 guys who suck at CAS will waste the jets just like 2 guys who suck at CAS would. This falls in the category mentioned at the beginning of my post. As far as the rest of the server is concerned, they hardly care if they are getting rekt because two guys are wasting two jets every twenty mins, or one guy is wasting it every ten. (Maybe the later will get resigned faster.)



*For those who are about to reason that half of the 8 man tank squad will waste the assets anyway, let's not go there. This is about the possibility of something happening not about weather or not it does every single game. Assuming that 100% of the tank squad is skilled, double the amount of tanks are exponentially worse.

Aleon wrote:I mostly agree with you viirus, you nicely summed up the current system. The problem with your reasoning is that having more assets respawn slower is a superset of what I'm suggesting.

I didn't suggest more assets at any point.

viirusiiseli wrote:Lower overall numbers for both APC/TANK

I'm suggesting a reduction in the number of assets. I want overall less CAS, TANKs, APCs, and of those, APCs desperately need higher respawn times. They're commonly the ones that reach crazy kills, and maps have too many of them.

Assets should be really good and effective, maybe a bit better than what they are now after several patches of nerfs. But they should also be a lot more limited in numbers and by respawn time, so it's never better to go die in an asset and get a new one out of main, rather than RTBing.

With low numbers and high respawns people who know a thing or two are motivated to kill those assets. Killing a heavy asset isn't easy, so it should have an effect on the game if you manage to kill it. That effect comes from long spawn times and low numbers, which also motivates crews to keep their asset alive, which in turn reduces risky rush attacks and possibly would increase the level of gameplay you saw Bluffer complain about.

viirusiiseli wrote:I didn't suggest more assets at any point.

I worded that poorly, I refer to the current maps as "having more assets with slower respawn" compared to what I'd suggest we do.

I agree with the rest. But until others share this view, we're stuck with an abundance of heavy assets, that I'd like to at least make more enjoyable.

My 2 cents:

- Once this delayed spawn system is in, adding an initial spawn delay of lets say 1 or 2 min will already make a huge difference and gives inf more time to deploy

- Less assets are not necessarily the best way, all times. Lets say you have a CAS dominated map, 2 vs 2 strike fighters. Adding an ASF jet to both sides will increase the amount of assets but reduce the chance of an asset surviving that can severly damage the ground (with bombs etc.).

CAS_ual_TY wrote:- Less assets are not necessarily the best way, all times. Lets say you have a CAS dominated map, 2 vs 2 strike fighters. Adding an ASF jet to both sides will increase the amount of assets but reduce the chance of an asset surviving that can severly damage the ground (with bombs etc.).

More than 2 jets a side on PR simply turns into constant air combat. Jets are supposed to be CAS, not this 1.0 cancer of simply dogfighting for a whole round because there's 8 jets a map.

The modified runways already make it difficult enough to provide good CAS, the abundance of jets make it even worse.

If you only want dogfighting might as well go play Falklands VW. ASF jets should be removed entirely IMO. They're nothing but a purposeless 12 ticket waste to the rest of the 90 players. They have no real role in this game in anything other than air combat VW.

I'm with viirus, less tanks on 4k maps, longer respawn on apcs on muttrah.

Is it possible to have a increasing spawn time? Would the game accept it?

I.e Respawn starts at 20 mins, every time the asset is lost the respawn increases by increments of 5 minutes? No idea if something like this would work or is even possible in the game, just a thought.

The assets need to be more valuable, a lot more valuable, and punishment for wasting them needs to be harsh, maybe then rampaging in at the start maybe a thing of the past, this would increase gameplay, maybe even make asset drivers and gunners move and work with their infantry rather than a solo squad doing their own thing.
Having infantry around you cuts the chance of a LAT up the arse by ten fold.

=MeRk= BluFFeR wrote:Is it possible to have a increasing spawn time? Would the game accept it?

I.e Respawn starts at 20 mins, every time the asset is lost the respawn increases by increments of 5 minutes? No idea if something like this would work or is even possible in the game, just a thought.

Alon keeps telling me to not underestimate the engine, but I don't think that's possible.

It wouldn't prevent a lot of tanks and CAS from being wasted; save for a couple of maps they only spawn in after 20 minutes, then you spent 5 minutes driving into enemy territory, "waste" them, and then after another 20 minutes of waiting time, you spent another 2 minutes driving into enemy territory now I'm at 47 minutes and that's usually game over on a map that has tanks. Whether or not I add 5 more minutes somewhere has not really an impact.

The thought is more interesting for the APCs; if these were to spawn in later with every iteration(10 minutes, then 15, then 20), that would be really good. Vehicle recovery would be much more important, currently you might as well blow the shitter up yourself if it gets tracked.
The bad thing about implementing this suggestion however is that this is pretty much the only class that is going to see an increased spawn timer:

Trucks and Logis -> please no
Jeeps-> ehhhhh, I don't really think so, no
Shitboxes -> They don't do a whole lot anyways. After the initial rollout they are just meme vehicles.
Tanks-> On most maps the generally expected ticket drain during an average pub round with equally incompetent teams allows them to be wasted only once or twice already
CAS-> Same as with the tanks, really
AA -> Counterpiece to CAS. If CAS isn't touched, neither is this

Leaves only Scout vehicles, APCs and IFVs.

=MeRk= BluFFeR wrote: The assets need to be more valuable, a lot more valuable, and punishment for wasting them needs to be harsh, maybe then rampaging in at the start maybe a thing of the past, this would increase gameplay, maybe even make asset drivers and gunners move and work with their infantry rather than a solo squad doing their own thing.

The rampaging at the start will not stop. The increased spawn timer is a drawback, yes, but it will not really be perceived as such as it is NOT a punishment for rushing, it is an attribute added to >insert vehicle class here<.

And vehicles are already valuable, losing them drains your team of very specific capabilities. Why else would the better players go for the enemy assets first if there isn't a real punishment to them?
It is just that they are too easily dispatched by just about anything to make the punishment any harder a sensible solution as we still want to allow players to play the way they like. The circumstances when vehicles are lost vary greatly from intentional waste, to "ignored a mark TOW on the map", to mines put outside your mainbase, to sneaky LATs ambushing, to Breachers C4-ing when surrounded by friendlies you can have just about anything. To create a distinct punishments for all of these is hard, but when it comes to writing this in code, free of bugs, is downright impossible.

=MeRk= BluFFeR wrote:Having infantry around you cuts the chance of a LAT up the arse by ten fold.

LUL

Tanks can be balanced by faster-deploying ATGM and/or fast-respawning ATGM vehicles.
ATGM-vehicles(and/or some IFVs) should have had even quicker respawn time post-ATGMnerf.

CAS can be dealt with by faster-respawning missile-only vehicles, because anything with a rapid-firing HE gun will be used on infantry.

Muttrah APC should have been fixed by forcing thermal smokes.

=MeRk= BluFFeR wrote:Having infantry around you cuts the chance of a LAT up the arse by ten fold.

In my experience, it does not. I get a bunch of kills and don't die too often, and it's because I don't stay near friendly inf. It's better if you stay as far as possible in an open area with good visibility, rather than clumped in the city/forest where its easy to get flanked. But yes, I believe when crews actually start feeling the penalty of losing an asset through more limitations on the assets, the tactics will eventually change towards less rushing.

Frontliner wrote:The rampaging at the start will not stop.

You're right, it wont stop right away at least, as there will always be crews willing to risk it all.

But with 20min spawn time on tanks, IFVs and better APCs, along with less assets in maps than currently, if your team kills the rushing asset, they will be at a much better situation for the next 20 minutes than the opposing team. In this situation, killing an asset actually has an effect on the result of the round like it should be.

Eventually, through the realization that you can't fuck up with your asset or your team loses, the tactics will change later on.

I agree with the reduction on maps like Khami, Burning etc.

I think Kashan is the only map that benefits from having more assets, as it becomes less effective to farm inf on bunkers due to the lower count of INF in the bunkers itself.

But I do heavily miss the 10 wait time for assets to spawn the first time around. made people actually prepare for CAS instead of turning their brain off and forgetting about it because it takes too long to remember to prepare for it.