Russian Breacher Class

[Kingy]

Just curious about the removal of the Shotgun for the Russian Specialist. I'm assuming there was a reason for the change in the layout of this class.

As of right now the Russian Breacher is at a significant disadvantage over other factions, I'm not complaining about the loss in killing power but rather the inability to open doors or destroy crates.

Why was this change made?


If there is a thread for this already I'm sorry, I did use the search function but am either incapable at using it or no such thread currently exists.

[Brisk187]

According to wikipedia(lol) shotguns aren't used by the Russian Ground Forces.

Though I have reason to believe that because the dev team is pretty knowledgable on modern military equipment, especially when it comes to the russians. If they removed the shotgun, wikipedia is probably right.

[Kingy]

I don't think gameplay should ever be compromised in the name of realism, I hope that's not the real reason.

[Rabbit]

I don't think gameplay should ever be compromised in the name of realism, I hope that's not the real reason.

It doesn't effect gameplay at all, never once have I thought to myself, "Damn, we would have won that round had we had shotguns for that one kit". It doesn't hurt gameplay or balance at all. Should we get rid of or add anti tank versions for grenade launchers because of the french have them? There are little tiny things, (like this) that are not only realistic, but balance factions out.

[Kingy]

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

"never once have I thought to myself, "Damn, we would have won that round had we had shotguns for that one kit"

Of course not It's a minor imbalance that is never going to decide the outcome of a game but rather individual battles. When you destroy a firebase and have to waste precious grenades on the crates to prevent it being rebuilt and you cannot open doors to buildings to gain tactical advantages there is a problem.

There's also the obvious lack of a hybrid kit suited to both close and long ranged combat like every other conventional faction is capable of deploying.

Should we get rid of or add anti tank versions for grenade launchers because of the french have them?

This is made balanced by the fact that the French grenadiers have less HE grenades than other factions, whereas the Russian Breacher is simply at a disadvantage.
The Russian Breacher has no unique advantage to compensate for the loss of the shotgun and although I understand the desire for Realism, I feel that the gameplay must come first.

[WhiteRhino]

Maybe they could have more C4 to have the ability to destroy crates?

[Brisk187]

never once have I thought to myself, "Damn, we would have won that round had we had shotguns for that one kit".

I can think of one time when I was on bluedrake's squad where we could have used a shotgun.
Project Reality v1.2 ? Underground Breach & Clear (Livestream Highlight) - YouTube
Sure, we could have all gone in the other entrance, but it's hard to think of stuff like that in the heat of the battle.

[Rabbit]

I can think of one time when I was on bluedrake's squad where we could have used a shotgun.
Project Reality v1.2 ? Underground Breach & Clear (Livestream Highlight) - YouTube
Sure, we could have all gone in the other entrance, but it's hard to think of stuff like that in the heat of the battle.

As he was going to do, c4. Yeah it can suck, if you come up to a crate or fob, but you can also use vehicles to open gates.

[Kingy]

What? That's your answer, take a vehicle everywhere with you. That's just stupid.

If two factions have an identical kit and you remove a piece of equipment from one then there is a clear imbalance. It's not asymmetrical warfare because you haven't added anything to the kit to compensate for what was lost, I just don't understand how you can justify these kinds of design decisions.

Shouting "It's in the name of realism!" does nothing for me, I got into PR for it's gameplay.

[Geronimo]

...
When you destroy a firebase and have to waste precious grenades on the crates to prevent it being rebuilt and you cannot open doors to buildings to gain tactical advantages there is a problem.
...

I may be wrong on this but I cannot name any map with breachable doors with the russian faction on it.

How about adding 2 more magazines or 1 more grenade (flame on) or 1-2 more C4 (like WhiteRhino suggested) to the russian breacher? It would be realistic because he doesn't carry a heavy shotgun around.

[Rabbit]

If two factions have an identical kit and you remove a piece of equipment from one then there is a clear imbalance. It's not asymmetrical warfare because you haven't added anything to the kit to compensate for what was lost, I just don't understand how you can justify these kinds of design decisions.

So back up iron sights and the ability to go full auto isnt imbalanced over no back ups and 3 round burts, but not having a shot gun for a gate is.

[Spook]

I may be wrong on this but I cannot name any map with breachable doors with the russian faction on it.

How about adding 2 more magazines or 1 more grenade (flame on) or 1-2 more C4 (like WhiteRhino suggested) to the russian breacher? It would be realistic because he doesn't carry a heavy shotgun around.

Dovre has as some Gates. Beirut has some wooden doors. But all in all they are not that many.

[Brooklyn-Tech]

why not give all factions the same guns? gameplay over realism, right? We got rid of the personality of each kit by giving them the same guns/scopes, now lets remove the personality of each faction.

EDIT: if that small wooden door next to the water on beirut is causing you trouble either jump on the ledge or the garbage can and jump over the wall. If you dont want to use up your precious stamina, put a C4 on the door.

[UTurista]

What if "tomorrow" a new map is launched where the Russians clearly need to open doors? Should we demand them to use C4 on each door? Should we demand them to use a PKM to breach it?

There are doors in PR, don't care about which map, and we need to allow players to open them. Using the shotgun was a pretty good method so yes Russian's breachers should have the shotgun back.

Unless of course we change the system to allow open doors with knifes.

[Brooklyn-Tech]

Sledgehammer, Shotgun, Explosives (C4), keys.

those are four ways of opening a door. The Russian breacher has one of them. God forbid the squad should need a rifleman to rearm the C4 or have to call in supplies. "If" there will be a Russian map with thousands of doors, then maybe we should worry about giving the Russian breacher more C4's. As far as killing enemy crates goes, there are usually enemy rifleman kits next to them which not only have ammo but also nades which you could use to kill the crates. Throwing 1 enemy nade to kill a crate is better then 3 shotgun shells. Causes less noise and attracts less attention.

EDIT: Let's focus on solving current problems in PR first, rather than worrying about possible future ones. I dont think that the lack of a shotgun in the Russian specialist is a problem... it's a feature

[PatrickLA_CA]

Well, what would make gameplay different if all factions had everything the same. It would be just like playing US with RU voices and skins.

Russians have BMPs with Cannons, ATGMs, Uber high angles and Very fast ROF. Does that mean that the LAV should get all of those things even though it doesn't have them IRL?
Or the havoc who has 16 HFs as opposed to the other attack choppers that have 8 (and that changes a lot).

[StevePl4y5]

I think part of the PR experience is playing as a faction, experiencing the various advantages and disadvantages the various factions have between each other. I don't want every team to have the exact same number of tanks, helicopters, planes, etc. and matching weapons and vehicles with similar values (you know, like Battlefield).

I want teams to balanced like: Ok, they have 2 BMP-3s, we've got 4 LAV-25, or they've got Trans helis and CAS, but we've got more APCs and trucks. Or even, they got a shotgun, but we got a larger caliber weapon.

[Brooklyn-Tech]

I think part of the PR experience is playing as a faction, experiencing the various advantages and disadvantages the various factions have between each other. I don't want every team to have the exact same number of tanks, helicopters, planes, etc. and matching weapons and vehicles with similar values (you know, like Battlefield).

I want teams to balanced like: Ok, they have 2 BMP-3s, we've got 4 LAV-25, or they've got Trans helis and CAS, but we've got more APCs and trucks. Or even, they got a shotgun, but we got a larger caliber weapon.

PR used to be that way but now it's becoming more and more vanilla. In older versions of PR people ran in fear and terror from tanks and CAS. Now nobody seems to care since now we like to nerf things to keep them "balanced" and also we decrease spawn times of heavy assets so they depreciate in value and allow infantry to continuously spawn in through the magic of mysterious backpacks scattered throughout the map. Welcome back to vanilla.

[PatrickLA_CA]

PR used to be that way but now it's becoming more and more vanilla. In older versions of PR people ran in fear and terror from tanks and CAS. Now nobody seems to care since now we like to nerf things to keep them "balanced" and also we decrease spawn times of heavy assets so they depreciate in value and allow infantry to continuously spawn in through the magic of mysterious backpacks scattered throughout the map. Welcome back to vanilla.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this.

IMO the balance should be more asymmetric. For example if one side has got CAS, the other one should get AAVs instead of CAS.
That way Armor will be afraid of CAS as it won't be looking to kill the enemy CAS half the round. And also Armor will make sure they've got AAV support. And it should be harder for infantry to kill Armored targets with LATs so they have to rely on Armor.

[Brooklyn-Tech]

Unfortunately I have to agree with this.

IMO the balance should be more asymmetric. For example if one side has got CAS, the other one should get AAVs instead of CAS.
That way Armor will be afraid of CAS as it won't be looking to kill the enemy CAS half the round. And also Armor will make sure they've got AAV support. And it should be harder for infantry to kill Armored targets with LATs so they have to rely on Armor.

As much as I agree and would love to expand on this discussion, we are getting a bit off topic. I am however thinking of posting a new thread soon about the direction that PR is currently going.