Project Reality Forums

It was really hard to see a "point" this the post starting this thread. With all those statements and conclusions of which I would agree with most, I still did not see any part that tells us that we should do something specific to avoid a problem.

As for the Realism for realism's sake part:

I personally think the fun while playing the game is the most important aspect of a game. If the game is not fun then why should anyone want to play it? Games are something mainly used for recreation although of course many games include the learning of things useful in life (e.g. how to work in a team with other people)

Of course we would not throw pink battle-elephants into PR just because most people think it would be fun to ride one of those. PR draws much of it's fun from the thick atmosphere it produces (mainly) by including some aspects from real life. The real life aspects help draw people into the experience because they are easy to grasp and not as abstract as a team-play enforcing game where the rules governing the way of playing have nothing to do with the real world or common sense.

On another note. "Balanced" gameplay was mentioned earlier in this thread as important aspect and I have to disagree. Balance is surely important in most games for reasons I will not get into. But as long as the game is fun for the people playing it balance is not needed per se. Of course balance can help because after you played insurgency a lot and had fun you might notice that one side can win much more easily if they try to do this. At this point you will not have as much fun playing the unbalanced game because you don't like being given a smaller chance of success than the other guys. (While maybe some of the other guys will miss the challenge). Balance is one of these factors that has an hard to evaluate impact on the enjoyment of a game in most cases.

To conclude this posting which was not just about one single thing but roamed about some of the aspects covered in this thread:

In my opinion fun is the most important factor in PR. Due to the design of PR most realism aspects will increase the fun, while some decisions for real-world mimicry can have adverse effects on the fun while playing. The hard part is to find out what to add and what to leave out (and of course what can be added within the tight confines of the BF2 engine).

VipersGhost wrote:So the solution though is not to nerf the tanks, the solution is to try and find something within the bounds of reality that might help things out.

C4 and SLAMs messing up tanks would be realistic. A massive explosive charge carefully placed on key locations of the tank would incapacitate it, I am sure. Now, I'm not an expert in either explosive ordinance, or tank maintenance, but I am pretty sure that stuff like tank-track linkages and guide wheels are maintained by human engineers with simple tools. If they were completely impervious to everything but tank rounds and heavy AT-rockets, how on earth would an engineer with a jack-hammer and spanner be able to disassemble them for routine maintenance, etc? So it strikes me that a slam on a key piece of linkage would pull a tank off its treads, certainly a massive wad of C4.

Now, in the game, you can't realistically model that sort of damage. There isn't a "climb up the side of the tank, open up an engineer's access panel" button, or a "slim the charge behind the armour skirting right onto a drive-wheel" tactic. However, given the difficulty of getting up to a tank, and that the side skirting is the most prominent place to stuff a SLAM / C4, it strikes me that incapacitating a tank that way would be a reasonable compromise, even if the tank still had it's turret operational.

Ideally, being able to use C4 to stop the turret from traversing too, dependant on the placed location of the C4, would be nice and add to gameplay, although I have no idea how well shielded the key gyroscopic components and the bearings of the turret mechanism are.

That would at least help a bit, give players a chance to give a functional, but immobilised, tank a wide berth, even with it's uber sniping range...

-So Ace, from what I gather you are essentially trying to say that you want to be able to play without planning anything, without implementing any squad level tactics, without having to worry about staying alive, and still win? I just don't understand why you play this mod at all if you don't want realistic gameplay.

[R-DEV]Spearhead wrote:But as long as the game is fun for the people playing it balance is not needed per se. Of course balance can help because after you played insurgency a lot and had fun you might notice that one side can win much more easily if they try to do this. At this point you will not have as much fun playing the unbalanced game because you don't like being given a smaller chance of success than the other guys. (While maybe some of the other guys will miss the challenge). Balance is one of these factors that has an hard to evaluate impact on the enjoyment of a game in most cases.

Yes, I agree, I meant balance in a slightly different sense. I played a fair bit of BFV, which was heavily criticised for trying to model asymmetric warfare, and consequently giving an edge to one team, but IMO in some respects it succeeded surprisingly well in terms of balance. In some respects, I'd say that Insurgency *is* balanced, in that while one team might *nominally* win more than others, and one faction may have infantry armed only with stones, it is still possible to have a solid scrap on both sides without getting the familiar "spawn just to get cut down." Bizarrely, civs do a really good job of this, as if you do spawn just to get cut down, the opposition are going to regret it due to the loss of tickets and massive spawn times.

To clarify, by "balance" I mean balanced qualitatively in terms of gameplay. Civs ineffectual offence is offset by the warm fuzzy feeling you get when an APC cuts you down and ruins his armour-whoring score, for example.

So, yah, balance != symmetry.

Tartantyco wrote:-So Ace, from what I gather you are essentially trying to say that you want to be able to play without planning anything, without implementing any squad level tactics, without having to worry about staying alive, and still win? I just don't understand why you play this mod at all if you don't want realistic gameplay.

It seems that's not all you "don't understand." Read the initial post again. If *you* wanted "realistic" gameplay, you'd not be playing this mod either, because having been shot, your character would be buried in a soldier's grave.

I play this mod precisely because it isn't TRYING to be a hyper-real simulation, as the devs have said. And I am quite reassured that they seem to be saying "it's that way because that's how we want it" rather than "it's that way because we're still struggling with the limitations of the engine." Rest assured that if it goes too far away from a level of playability I am happy with, I'll be on to greener pastures.

And as "squad level tactics, planning, and staying alive" don't magically drum H-ATs or tanks out of thin air, I'm not too sure what you're driving at. Personally, I couldn't give a fig about winning, there's a 50-50 chance you'll be saddled with the inferior of the two teams. What I DO care about is being unable to play for more than one minute out of every five because the only flags I have to attack / defend are being camped by vehicles that are almost completely immune to anything I could conceivably do to them, irrespective of my skill, planning, tactics, or mastery of 7-fist shaolin tiger.

If *you* wanted "realistic" gameplay, you'd not be playing this mod either, because having been shot, your character would be buried in a soldier's grave.

-Ok, I'm growing tired of your idiotic arguement. It's a simulation, not real life, I can simulate as many lives as I want to, stop being a complete moron.

Well I just wrote a very lengthy and detailed responce to your original post and deleted it. I fell into the same trap you did, I tried to illustrate my thoughts with great detail and supporting examples. The end result being an eliquint, well thought out and detailed post that resulted in my ideas being lost somewhere within, as I found your original post did the same Of course you can't win because if you had been blunt without any explanations you would have had a rather large argument on your hands.

I'm not trying to belittle you or your opinion just that after reading the entire post and trying very hard to understand each point, as it relates to your overall "thesis", I could only come away with a very simple statement.

PR is a game first, focusing on reality but makes concesions to fun/engine limitations, to strive to achieve a realistic but enjoyable game. People need to realise this.

I agree but also think that a lot of people fear too many changes in the name of realism and cling to the fun elements. I'm guilty of this but in the long run have found a new form of fun with the realistic changes. I accept that reality may be an interpritation some times to make concescion to fun/engine limitations. These ideas are nothing new but perhaps some forget?

Ace42 wrote:I appreciate what you are saying, but any game that goes "well, your teammates lost the only couple of assets that could make a difference, so now you're powerless and have to resign yourself to being massacred indefinitely" isn't fun. That's not just "your team losing because they're not very good" - that's your entire team of 30 or so players losing because of a handful of players. Nevermind that a griefer could take the tank / kit and charge straight into an ambush intentionally, under the guise of simply being a poor player.

Ok my first post was a responce to your original post, before reading the rest of the responces (I didn't want my opinion muddied up by others). I think you need to flip what you said around here a bit. Your saying that a select few can waist a valuable asset and ruin the rest of the game, leading to no fun. What I see, and why I love PR over every other FPS game, is that when your team works well together (even a loosely organized team) the thrill of seeing all of these elements come together and end in success or a gritty nail bitter of a defeat make for great fun. This is a different type of fun then most other games. PR has done an amazing job at forcing our hands to work together, so when people don't work together the fun dwindles for sure. But I find the fun had from a good round of teamwork far outways my ability to level the playing field (powerfull C4) to make most rounds slightly enjoyable more often.

I can relate to where your coming from, I have found the last two+ weeks of PR lacking in teamwork and hence not fun for me. Last night I had the first really good rounds which have made up for those last few weeks.

Ace,

first off, my response to your first post; well done sir! It takes a degree of commitment to post more than a couple of hundred words in one go on any forum as the medium does not lend itself to "article-length" texts. I actually get precisely what you are trying to say.

It can be an excellent exercise when an "argument trend" is spotted on a forum to take time out to try and analyse the thinking behind the multiple factions involved and in this you have done an excellent job - even if you did not do so explicitly.

If I may use one of the more base examples, I don't think anyone is suggesting that your ability to shoot straight should degrade after more than an hour if you haven't pressed the "P" button to unzip your flies. To model the digestive system and its physiological effects is not only unnecessarily complex but also would not add to the "feel" of the game.

Having agreed that there are certain "realistic" effects which it is wise *not* to put in the game, and also that there are some "fun" effects which it is wise not to put into the game (giant walking robots, pink attack elephants and so on) then we can concentrate on which aspects of "realism" move the game forward and which would detract from the game.

Personally I would like to see discussion around suggestions that never used either of these two extremes (realism without regard to fun and fun without regard to realism) and instead focussed on what the Devs have stated is their aim - to create a game that promotes team play while still "feeling realistic".

In this post MTV world it is easy to use glib comments like "Well that's how it is in reality, get used to it" or conversely "If it was reality then the game should uninstall the first time you are shot". While both have their technical merits, neither focuses on the reality that we should be focusing on, namely the "reality" that in any game there are trade-offs to be made and constraints on what can and cannot be achieved.

Well done Ace.

Eggman, about this statement:

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman;446387']
About the most realistic thing PR can simulate is the dependency on your team mates to be successful. No... that doesn't require a realistic setting, but that's the choice we have made. And as the ones pouring the blood sweat and tears into the thing.. we get to make those choices.

I hear you. It jives very closely with what I thought you were trying to do. I realise I have no influence in the direction the mod goes, but it's nice to know that what I'm looking for is pretty much what you guys are working hard towards. That's my personal opinion.

I am still not getting the point... other than you are asking for some unrealistic elements to aid in game play.

C4 would not typically do much to a tank. It explodes outwards. SLAMs would do nothing to a tank. If we had the fidelity we'd probably have them disable tracks if we could but we can't.

You make a backhanded criticism about the Engineer kit load out, but use the term farce to describe design decisions we have made, so little else of your ramblings gets much in the way of credibility from me.

You mention tanks and their invulnerability. And well.. yeah.. if your team loses it's attack helicopter / attack jet / tank .. and can't get into a firing position, you *will* have problems.

We're not going to make things "fair" in that event. We want players to change how they play, not grab another heavy asset.

We certainly are aware that tanks are very powerful (as they should be) and that there is a need to evaluate some other weapon systems to counter this. Rather than "nerf" things, we always look to what other realism inspired elements we can introduce to counter game play issues.

Again .. lots of philosophy and then a degeneration into insulting language .. is there some specific points you want to raise? Some recommended solutions?

if u want a realistic game play that sacrifices in game play play arma lot more realistic a lot less fun

Ace42 wrote:. What I DO care about is being unable to play for more than one minute out of every five because the only flags I have to attack / defend are being camped by vehicles that are almost completely immune to anything I could conceivably do to them, irrespective of my skill, planning, tactics, or mastery of 7-fist shaolin tiger.

I had a long post too but I deleted it.

The game is fun because it is HARD.

When you win against a strong opponent is feels good because losing is very easy.

IF you expect to find a mode where no matter what happens you will always be happy then..............you're gonna be disappointed.

If you get on a map and the team is scattered and there is no chance of winning then simply narrow your focus and don't worry about the win.

I have had games where I told my squad " These guys are morons and we have no chance. So lets just play the best game WE can, stick close and worry about small objectives and not the overall win" ...and had a damn good game.

One time we even won because other squads, without our noticing, had coalesced and taken objectives and turned the bleed our way.

It's not always going to be fun no matter what weapons or explosives you have.


BTW: some of us find learning the 7 fist Shaolin tiger ( ie: commander rules ) to be part of the fun of the game, maybe the reason PR attracts so many older players.

Ace42, I think you need to adjust your play style rather than adjust the gameplay to suit your style. If you're afraid of being cut down by tanks on Kashan because your tankers were stupid - get a couple Heavy AT's and get inside some buildings. If you think Hills of Hamgyong is unfair for the USMC, get some grenadiers and use some SMOKE!

I find that people use the exact same method of play no matter what situation or map they are on. Not every map allows you to have the same squad loadout and win. Not every map gives you the same assets as the other team. In Hills of Hamgyong, people complain about the sheer amount of firepower that the Chinese have up on their hills. What they lack is mobility - use smoke and get up/around them. This really does work as fuzzhead and me in a squad of completely random people on a server managed to get all the way up the central hill with that tactic. The same goes for the couple heavy AT's which we defended North Village from several tanks with.

Well, that's all I've gotta say.

Well put Katarn! If people expect to win all maps with the same tactics then our mappers wouldn't have done too good a job creating some variety. Much of the challenge in PR lies in adapting your tactics to the situation on the battlefield.

I have to say this mod is definitely heading in the right direction. Talking of extremes of realism or lack of in the sake of fun is not necessarily how one should think in terms of what should be changed in this mod. Striving to be realistic, while keeping gameplay in mind is what I think the devs aim for and they have done a fine job. There is going to be tweaking in the future, no doubt, but what we have at the moment is a fun experience overall while immersing the player in a relatively realistic environment. No game is absolutely fun 100% of the time...at least, for me. There are always going to be frustrating times and smacktards who ruin the fun either purposely by teamkilling, etc. or just by unwisely using resources and such. As time passes, many people here to "check it out" will leave and those who stay will get better, making the overall experience much more fun. There is nothing better than when your squad and team is a well oiled machine doing it's job. If all else fails, and I hate to put it this way, but there are other mods or just vanilla that people can play.

Tartantyco wrote:-Ok, I'm growing tired of your idiotic arguement. It's a simulation, not real life, I can simulate as many lives as I want to, stop being a complete moron.

I'm growing tired of your antagonistic attitude, among other things. Firstly, the *devs* can simulate as many lives as *they* want, just as they can "simulate guns", spawn mechanics, or anything else precisely how they want.

You can't go "oh, I don't want that bit to be realistic, but how dare anyone else say they don't want 'such and such' to be realistic!" That sort of double-standard is precisely the sort of thing I wanted to challenge in my post.

Oh, and you might want to tell all the other players that it's a "simulation" - the posts so far seem to put the mod a lot closer to the "game" side of the continuum, thank god.

eggman wrote:You make a backhanded criticism about the Engineer kit load out, but use the term farce to describe design decisions we have made, so little else of your ramblings gets much in the way of credibility from me.

That's your prerogative. I find it hard to dismiss powerful C4 as "unrealistic" when other devs are suggesting using C4 to blow a tank onto your land-mine as a valid AT-tactic. If that (the tactic) isn't farcical, I don't know what is. Now, if anyone has ever used this tactic IRL, I'll be more than happy to eat humble pie and apologise profusely.

You mention tanks and their invulnerability. And well.. yeah.. if your team loses it's attack helicopter / attack jet / tank .. and can't get into a firing position, you *will* have problems.

And as loss of these vehicles is inevitable in combat for one side or the other, then you've designed a game where 50% of players "will have problems", irrespective of how they personally played.

We want players to change how they play, not grab another heavy asset.

So what do you propose doing? Shooting whoever has the H-ATs in the head so that a competent player can get them? TKing anyone running for a tank so you know it will be in good hands? Sneaking up to a tank with a landmine and C4, and C4ing it onto the landmine?

Given that I can't get into a tank, I can't get a H-AT, and there's no choppers / jets on the map - how am I supposed to change my play?

Incidently, if you check my sig, I don't think I've ever been on a map that actually has attack choppers / jets, so that's two less assets to take out enemy tanks right there.

katarn wrote:get a couple Heavy AT's and get inside some buildings.

Nice in theory, in practice I haven't actually used the H-AT kit once. Not on one single occasion has the H-AT kit been available to me or my squad. Not on a single map on a single server. The only way I can see I could get it is to consta-spam it to try and get lucky, but that means it won't be available if another squad needs it in the meantime.

Oh, and my squad tried smoking out of gas-station on EJOD, tanks cut us down through the smoke...

he's making a point that there are limits to the game engine, and that most people whine and complain too much about how they can't get what they want.
I mean, if you really REALLY want to shoot the m16, why not just go the local recruiter and join the army?
It is in all practical senses, a simulator. one of the best out there.
as technology advances we will have a better chance at being more realistic. but for now, bf2 is all we have.

Ace42 wrote: I find it hard to dismiss powerful C4 as "unrealistic" when other devs are suggesting using C4 to blow a tank onto your land-mine as a valid AT-tactic. If that (the tactic) isn't farcical, I don't know what is.

Do you seriously think that is an intended design element and not a by product of the engine?

I personally do find it appalling when DEVs use gamey tactics and, aside from one offs here and there, am of the opinion that folks that use those sort of tactics on a regular basis have no place on the Dev team. That said, most of them that discover or witness these tactics are the most vocal within the team about solving those gamey dynamics.

Ace42 wrote: And as loss of these vehicles is inevitable in combat for one side or the other, then you've designed a game where 50% of players "will have problems", irrespective of how they personally played.

So we should design a game where there is no winning or losing team? Or introduce design elements that minimize the impacts player actions have on the game world?

Ace42 wrote: Incidently, if you check my sig, I don't think I've ever been on a map that actually has attack choppers / jets, so that's two less assets to take out enemy tanks right there.

The only map with an asymmetrical vehicle set involving tanks is Qwai River iirc. For every element in the mod there is a counter.

Ace42 wrote: Nice in theory, in practice I haven't actually used the H-AT kit once. Not on one single occasion has the H-AT kit been available to me or my squad. Not on a single map on a single server. The only way I can see I could get it is to consta-spam it to try and get lucky, but that means it won't be available if another squad needs it in the meantime.

So here .. let me translate that into a value add contribution:

Given the powerful nature of the tanks we need to evaluate increasing the number of available HAT kits.

How hard was that?


You really are not adding a lot of value at this point. I read your original post and thought "ok this guy is moderately articulate, perhaps with some engagement he'll contribute something useful".

But nothing useful is coming out and it appears as though you just don't like many aspects of the mod. That's your choice, but the rhetoric is jaded.

[R-DEV]eggman wrote:Do you seriously think that is an intended design element and not a by product of the engine?

No, nor did I say I thought it was an intended design element, so please stop looking for a fight when there is none present.

I personally do find it appalling when DEVs use gamey tactics

Personally, if it keeps a tank from perma-slaughtering me, then I'm easy. It's certainly not my place or business to comment on what other people are doing, other than in terms directly effecting how the game mechanic works.

So we should design a game where there is no winning or losing team? Or introduce design elements that minimize the impacts player actions have on the game world?

Heh, the irony is that if *I* replied to you in that supercilious tone, *I'd* get a warning or even banned. Now, read what I said again, and think about it cooly for a few seconds. How is me complaining about the impotence of players versus tanks asking to *minimize* impacts of player action? It's actually quite the opposite.

The only map with an asymmetrical vehicle set involving tanks is Qwai River iirc. For every element in the mod there is a counter.

Yes, except in maps with no jets or choppers, the counter is *another tank* - which means there's a 50-50 chance that after that tank battle, you're going to get tank-raped as you are once again impotent.

So here .. let me translate that into a value add contribution:

Given the powerful nature of the tanks we need to evaluate increasing the number of available HAT kits.

How hard was that?

Is this the suggestions forum? Is this thread dedicated to countering tanks? Hasn't this been suggested before ad nauseum elsewhere? Are you happier now you've reduced the thread to a completely off-topic italicised sentence?

Goddammit eggman, you've approached someone articulately and now you guys are talking in circles with no real meaning! You've completely ignored my post Ace42. Here's a suggestion for not getting "perma-slaughtered" by a tank. Avoid it. Spawn somewhere else. I think for all your articulateness, you possess a certain lack of thinking whilst playing.