The biggest problem with online “realism” games.

[BeerHunter]

In my original post I wasn't complaining that PRM wasn't real enough.

In fact PRM offers IMO the ultimate experience in balancing realism with game play. ArmedA probably is more realistic until you try playing Team vs Team then you run into the same damn type of player..charge in be damned the consequences.

My position was that PRM offers the opportunity to kind of "role play".A SL can call his group together , discuss the tactics for an assault , assign specific targets/objectives to squad members and off they go. THis has happened to me a couple of times and is the reason I sort of fell in love with PRM.

Unfortunately , the majority of squads I've been in were spread all over the map , everyone wanting a sniper kit (why I don't know) and as silent as a cemetery at midnight. After a few rounds of thinking your covered then getting wasted cause some fool decided to engage an APC with his grenade launcher , I started playing with bots in SP as at least you KNOW what your playing with.

This was my point. Players aren't getting into the game and playing it the way it was meant to be played (the developers after all have stated that realism is their objective). They are simply playing PRM as they do every other FPS.

Might have to give ArmedA another try.

[Ninja2dan]

In my original post I wasn't complaining that PRM wasn't real enough.

In fact PRM offers IMO the ultimate experience in balancing realism with game play. ArmedA probably is more realistic until you try playing Team vs Team then you run into the same damn type of player..charge in be damned the consequences.

My position was that PRM offers the opportunity to kind of "role play".A SL can call his group together , discuss the tactics for an assault , assign specific targets/objectives to squad members and off they go. THis has happened to me a couple of times and is the reason I sort of fell in love with PRM.

Unfortunately , the majority of squads I've been in were spread all over the map , everyone wanting a sniper kit (why I don't know) and as silent as a cemetery at midnight. After a few rounds of thinking your covered then getting wasted cause some fool decided to engage an APC with his grenade launcher , I started playing with bots in SP as at least you KNOW what your playing with.

This was my point. Players aren't getting into the game and playing it the way it was meant to be played (the developers after all have stated that realism is their objective). They are simply playing PRM as they do every other FPS.

Might have to give ArmedA another try.

I want to start off by saying that I have nothing against PR, and I am not saying people should stop playing PR to go pick up a copy of ArmA.

The problem I see with the PR mod is the fact that it is a mod for BF2. BF2 was not designed for lengthy and "realistic" play, the game in all means is meant to be more of a faster-paced FPS yet still add features that make it better than Counterstrike. While PR is adding a lot more realism and enjoyment to the BF2 system, it will never be possible to make PR realistic enough that players will act in a "professional" manner. Many of us who play PR do try to do so as realistically as possible, but because of the game mechanics that it's based on that is proving quite difficult.

ArmA/OFP/VBS on the other hand was designed more towards realism and less on the arcade-like play of games similar to BF2. You talk about how some squads will take a few minutes at the beginning of the round to plan their actions, but it's hard to find many doing this because they feel they are giving their enemy an advantage since the game has already started. While your squad is talking tactics and movement orders, your enemy is already out capping flags and getting into position. ArmA on the other hand allows each team to plan their battle prior to the game starting, even allowing each team to "draw" markers on the map for visual reference while they do the planning phase. Also the maps in ArmA are huge compared to BF2 and PR, and getting from the deployment zone to the front lines can actually take up to 20 minutes of real time.

I also see many players in PR, be it noobs and vets alike, who complain if a round is taking longer than an hour or so. In ArmA, most good rounds have only just started getting good at the one-hour mark and can last up to three hours or more. It doesn't matter if the map is PvE or PvP, it's all about map design (which is where ArmA kicks the **** out of PR to be honest).

Some things to consider with ArmA for example are the small things, the little details that add to the realism that PR just isn't capable of. Things like having to manually wear goggles around helicopters or sandstorms, or be faced with problems due to downwash and debris in your eyes. Features like being able to unbutton from vehicles, having to emplace crew-served weapons before firing and having to pack them back up before moving out. ArmA is just a lot more "advanced" than PR simply because of how open the game engine is, and the ability to use player-made scripts to simulate a wide variety of tasks to include things like fastroping or air-transport of vehicles.

PR is a great game for people who want more realism than vBF2 but don't feel up to the challenge that comes with a massive game of ArmA. Some people don't like having to drive 30 minutes across a map just to get into the action, and a LOT of people don't like the whole "one life" aspect that is common in ArmA. In ArmA, if you die that's it, no respawns. This fact does cause most players to "fear death and act accordingly". Because PR is based on respawns, I feel that is the number one reason so many don't really fear death in the game. Out of bullets? Too lazy to move covertly back to a resupply point or call in for a support soldier? Easy..Charge the enemy, die, respawn, now you have more ammo. In ArmA, you die and you might be sitting there for a couple of hours waiting for the round to be over with.

If someone is looking for a higher level of realism with all of the positive AND negative aspects that come with it, then I would recommend giving ArmA a try. But don't look down on PR too much, the developers are doing an awesome job with what they have available. BF2 is quite honestly a FUBAR game at this point, and PR is doing things with this shitty game engine that EA/DICE probably never imagined would be done or could be done. I applaud the PR team for what they have accomplished so far, and the fact that they haven't given up on their goals even when faced with such a huge wall of issues due to the limits of the core game.

[Diogenes]

I think getting rid of rally points would help to add "fear of dying," and reduce the "arcade" factor. A handful of bunkers/firebases should be more than enough.

And how about limiting spawns to prevent suicide tactics? I think 1 spawn per round is taking it too far, something like 10, maybe 15 would be nice.