Project Reality Forums

Determined wrote: This is not a simulation. No one wants to play a game where you have to stabilize, evac, then perform surgery. The medic set up is fine. His function is fine. If he is used improperly that is the fault of the player not the game. This IS a game where you respawn when you die. I mean come on.

1. Not a simulation. Would it be that bad if it was? I quote from PR's description: "The Mods name, 'Project Reality', is self descriptive in its aim to create a realistic combat environment on the home computer." A realistic combat environment should hopefully encompass all aspects of combat. One aspect of real combat is that people do not get healed back to combat status in the middle of a battle, as they do at present.
2. I take it that you prefer servers where the spawn time is 15 seconds...

dementt wrote:Or then you are just blind? Multiple times in this thread it has been pointed how it seems to be pretty impossible to make, I have talked to the coders about it. Also it would require two person just to carry the guy. Then the chopper pilot etc. etc.

It would require huge amount of work pretty little update in gameplay, so get real, get on the fields and avoide the bullets. Also this thing would be another noobtrap I think

"so get real, get on the fields and avoide the bullets"
Um... Actually, I am on the game "field" far more than the forums, but anyways...

1. It is not impossible to implement, just tricky (it would require implementing a new "vehicle" in the case of the stretcher)
2. Yes, it would require 2 people to carry the guy... That is the idea - to encourage teamwork and increase the value of a soldiers life.
3. Noobtraps are only for noobs that don't RTFM

Well, as you wont take my word. See the fact that this is not to come ingame. Too tricky, too much work for such debated update that would be pretty darn difficult to work with ingame since it is a process where many people must work together.

It is nice dream that everybody have readed the manual and that everything just "clicks" but no, it just does not work that way. I do admit that as an idea it is good but the way it work should be very well thought to make it working in the fields.

Edited, too tired to write clearly, I mean that it is good idea but highly unlike to be seen due to its multiple workarounds, requirement of multiple people working very well together.

dementt wrote:pretty darn difficult to work with ingame since it is a process where many people must work together.

It is nice dream that everybody have readed the manual and that everything just "clicks" but no, it just does not work that way. I do admit that as an idea it is good but the way it work should be very well thought to make it working in the fields.

I think it is sad that there are not enough serious players if what you say is true. What I am hoping is that such a thing would *encourage* teamwork and thus seriousness.

If anything, one aspect missing from PR is training missions like those in Americas Army. I.e, you cannot play on ranked servers as anything but a rifleman without passing the relevant training missions. But that is the topic of another thread I guess.

Bottom line: People who take the game seriously should be rewarded and those who do not RTFM (or ask questions) should be penalized.

Heck, just to prove it is possible I will pull out my mod tools and 3d studio. At least that will put this "impossible" case to rest. Could take a while though as I have never made new models or maps (only messed with CON files).

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']

1. Not a simulation. Would it be that bad if it was? I quote from PR's description: "The Mods name, 'Project Reality', is self descriptive in its aim to create a realistic combat environment on the home computer." A realistic combat environment should hopefully encompass all aspects of combat. One aspect of real combat is that people do not get healed back to combat status in the middle of a battle, as they do at present.
2. I take it that you prefer servers where the spawn time is 15 seconds...

This game has never been about 100% realistic combat. You misread the name or didn't read much into it, but if you want complete realism, then I guess choose ArmA or something.

Whats the point in doing something that takes 3 minutes when you can just die and respawn in 30 seconds? You know how many people would be off the battlefield with your system? 3 people(1 wounded, 2 meds), so unless you want to play against maybe 6 people at best, this is not a viable option.

"so get real, get on the fields and avoide the bullets"
Um... Actually, I am on the game "field" far more than the forums, but anyways...

1. It is not impossible to implement, just tricky (it would require implementing a new "vehicle" in the case of the stretcher)
2. Yes, it would require 2 people to carry the guy... That is the idea - to encourage teamwork and increase the value of a soldiers life.
3. Noobtraps are only for noobs that don't RTFM

Ummmmm, who will you find to carry around a wounded guy for 3 minutes and be away from the combat(the point of the game) in order to help heal one guy just to do the same thing 5 minutes later?

And do you know how many people this game has? 1 man having 2 medics would pretty much make this game a medical sim or something because there will be no one to fight.

O, and listen to the man. This is pretty much impossible to impliment, not worth it, and you will not find anyone willing to do it.

I think it is sad that there are not enough serious players if what you say is true. What I am hoping is that such a thing would *encourage* teamwork and thus seriousness.

If anything, one aspect missing from PR is training missions like those in Americas Army. I.e, you cannot play on ranked servers as anything but a rifleman without passing the relevant training missions. But that is the topic of another thread I guess.

Bottom line: People who take the game seriously should be rewarded and those who do not RTFM (or ask questions) should be penalized.

There is plenty of teamplay right now. Just get a squad together and use VOIP.
And the best training is online, not against bots.

Bottom line: People are rewarded for their good squad combat if they win the match. That is all that matters.

'[R-PUB wrote:trogdor1289']Again the answer thanks to EA is "Why, why must you do this to us EA?" Brakes down and starts crying.

I say we do a community gathering in redmond and we can have signs that make fun of EA and how everything is hard-coded

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']

1. Not a simulation. Would it be that bad if it was? I quote from PR's description: "The Mods name, 'Project Reality', is self descriptive in its aim to create a realistic combat environment on the home computer." A realistic combat environment should hopefully encompass all aspects of combat. One aspect of real combat is that people do not get healed back to combat status in the middle of a battle, as they do at present.
2. I take it that you prefer servers where the spawn time is 15 seconds...

"so get real, get on the fields and avoide the bullets"
Um... Actually, I am on the game "field" far more than the forums, but anyways...

1. It is not impossible to implement, just tricky (it would require implementing a new "vehicle" in the case of the stretcher)
2. Yes, it would require 2 people to carry the guy... That is the idea - to encourage teamwork and increase the value of a soldiers life.
3. Noobtraps are only for noobs that don't RTFM

If I wanted to play a game where I respawned every 15 seconds I wouldn't have stopped playing vBF2 last December in favor of PR. You will also hear that PR's goal is to add realism to BF2, but still remain fun. They will also say they have no interest in becoming a simulation.

Ok. All those against have very valid points - so I am proposing a compromise.
I also do not want the "fun" aspect bled out of PR, but realism is important to me and many others from what I have read on these forums.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote: This game has never been about 100% realistic combat. You misread the name or didn't read much into it, but if you want complete realism, then I guess choose ArmA or something.

I don't get you - I specifically quoted the "About" text of PR. If they say the aim is to "create a realistic combat environment", then the goal is to make it realistic more than less. I don't expect complete realism until we connect our brains directly to a computer and things are simulated right down to the macro-molecular level with LOD for performance reasons.

I mean come on, if an element of warfare can be implemented that will enhance realism without making things unplayable, then why not? Do you not find it too realistic that choppers now take time to warmup? That adds ~30sec to the time it takes for getting airborne. Oh, and don't forget that horrible pilots kit that is required

So how long does it take to re-spawn worst case now? 45 seconds to a minute? Sometimes more? How about if every capped flag gets a field-clinic hut or something that soldiers can be taken to for revival when incapacitated?

The effect achieved would be simple - people would be FAR more careful in combat. From what I have seen, the average time spent alive is far less than 5 minutes. Imagine if that was the case in real warfare... And I am not talking about a D-day beach-landing here.

Let me put it this way: in the recent battle between Hizbullah and Israel (which lasted > 30 days), Israel lost "only" 119 soldiers. Now a large number of those were killed in rocket attacks, accidents, crashes etc. so lets say around 90 died in "battle" combat. Thats means around 2 soldiers every 24 HOURS!!! In PR its more like 1000 soldiers every hour on a full Al Basrah server with a whopping 64 players total out in the field. In the above-mentioned conflict, there were tens of thousands of troops/insurgents involved.

Something ain't right. Now I know there are those who love mass-carnage, but for that kind of thing there is always vBF2.

Am I alone on this observation? The frag-rate is not realistic - not by a long shot.

'[-=IDSF=- wrote:SykloAG']I don't get you - I specifically quoted the "About" text of PR. If they say the aim is to "create a realistic combat environment", then the goal is to make it realistic more than less. I don't expect complete realism until we connect our brains directly to a computer and things are simulated right down to the macro-molecular level with LOD for performance reasons.

I mean come on, if an element of warfare can be implemented that will enhance realism without making things unplayable, then why not? Do you not find it too realistic that choppers now take time to warmup? That adds ~30sec to the time it takes for getting airborne. Oh, and don't forget that horrible pilots kit that is required

The respawn time is fine in the game, but the reason no one is taking your suggestion seriously is because it tries to be too realistic, and this game will never be THAT realistic. And just because it makes the game more realistic doesn't mean it should be implimented.

The M4 was realistic for the most part in 0.4, but was taken out because it was too powerful
The SAW in 0.5 was too realistic and have to be given a delay and be a pickup kit

Ex.

If you add headturning into the game like in ArmA, it would serve no purpose at all even though it would be realistic. In a game that is still very fast paced and depends on aiming quickly and accurately, there is no advantage to turning your head while walking or running because you have no time to do so and it is nothing you cannot do by just turning your whole body.

This game is about realism, but at the same time keeping a balance between gameplay and realism spilling over into one of them is a recipe for disaster as the community views it.

The point of this game is to try to simulate and resemble parts of realistic combat, not be exactly like it. If it was, people would be killed in 1 shot and that frankly wouldn't be fun at all.

Let me put it this way: in the recent battle between Hizbullah and Israel (which lasted > 30 days), Israel lost "only" 119 soldiers. Now a large number of those were killed in rocket attacks, accidents, crashes etc. so lets say around 90 died in "battle" combat. Thats means around 2 soldiers every 24 HOURS!!! In PR its more like 1000 soldiers every hour on a full Al Basrah server with a whopping 64 players total out in the field. In the above-mentioned conflict, there were tens of thousands of troops/insurgents involved.

Something ain't right. Now I know there are those who love mass-carnage, but for that kind of thing there is always vBF2.

It is a game. No one wants to have 1 life in a game no matter how much it resembles real life. You cannot translate deaths or ratios in a game to an actual battle.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote: This game is about realism, but at the same time keeping a balance between gameplay and realism spilling over into one of them is a recipe for disaster as the community views it.

...

Sure. I agree 100% it is a game. I'm not looking for a full on mil-sim like ArmA at the moment (and from what I hear, ArmA is bugged worse than Vista). You took all I wrote to the extreme. All I am saying is that if the word realism is even a 50% objective in PR, then frag-fests are not realistic by any means.

Now if that makes me a reality-extremist then so be it. And did I ask for 1-life per game at any stage? NO.