Project Reality Forums

As it is now, I think it would be a good idea to give the M1 better armour because it has so many sweet spots compared to the T90.

NickO wrote:I think that 95% of the time people are overpatriotic and cant stand the idea what a T-90 just blew up their M1A2 :/

Ye, speaking of which I was talking to some guys at Bovington about the T-90 and they said in r/l its a really scary thing as it has some "secrete" tech in it that is not all known about, but some things like this feature that can detect when its getting "lased" and if the tank has no target already the turret will automatically swing round and open fire on the target that is lasing it without even the crew having to push a button (i think). With also other features like thous to IR things at the front being able to confuse wire guided missiles and throw them off there course. All this stuff no one fully knows about thou, and thous who do its top secrete stuff that cant be said and even if we did know I dout we could code it ingame.

EDIT:

ZaZZo wrote:As it is now, I think it would be a good idea to give the M1 better armour because it has so many sweet spots compared to the T90.

ye, thats mainly a col mesh bug with BF2 that we are going to have to work around some how to balance out the tanks.

challanger 2 would kick its arse though

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:he is talking about tanks , helis , apcs ,etc ,etc.

i know a littttttle about code , i can edit rof and damge using notepad . also, i didnt say that my ideas are "amazing" but im sure that are not impossible , why dont try to make it more realistic and test it in a OB ? in paper it sound great (to me ) and it worked before (in other mods) .

ye, I have played games like that and think we also did some testing in PR a while back like that but it is no where near as fun when you need 1 and 1/2 or more t-90s to kill 1 M1A2 even if you do balance it out by spawn time, the fun factor still goes down hill a hell of alot.

SuperTimo wrote:challanger 2 would kick its arse though

ARGH! Dont turn this into another pointless M1a2 vs challenger 2 "my countrys tank is better than yours because its from my country" thread.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Ye, speaking of which I was talking to some guys at Bovington about the T-90 and they said in r/l its a really scary thing as it has some "secrete" tech in it that is not all known about, but some things like this feature that can detect when its getting "lased" and if the tank has no target already the turret will automatically swing round and open fire on the target that is lasing it without even the crew having to push a button (i think). With also other features like thous to IR things at the front being able to confuse wire guided missiles and throw them off there course. All this stuff no one fully knows about thou, and thous who do its top secrete stuff that cant be said and even if we did know I dout we could code it ingame.

EDIT:

ye, thats mainly a col mesh bug with BF2 that we are going to have to work around some how to balance out the tanks.

your are talking abou the shtora ,

the crew need to press a button to make the turret turn to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the maingun.

also ,shtora was tested with 10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads,4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.

sorry but it is end of story (and not just becuase its british!)

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:then i have and idea : change the gameplay !

make things assimetrical , make tanks realistic , but balance it in other ways , not mirror balance , make t90s faster or with "low" respawn timers (or lower than m1a2s) , etc ,etc .

war is not symetrical .

and about the rate of fire in tanks , t90s can shot 3 shells in 13 sec. (like 9-10 rpm) , m1a2s only had a fire rate of 8-9 shots per minute , so yeah , t90s are faster than m1a2s .

Go play insurgency? It's pretty unsymmetrical. It sucks to me compared to PR because it's Mirror Unsymmetrical not like PR unsymmetrical where the fun factor still remains.

I mean that PR is well Balanced in it's asymmetry compared to Insurgency.

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:your are talking abou the shtora , and actualy , the crew need to press a button to make the turret turn to meet incoming ATGM with the best protected section and to engage the laser beam source with the maingun.

also ,shtora was tested with 10 Kornet ATGMs with removed warheads,4 ATGMs hit the tank, the other 6 deviated to the left of the target in the middle of the flight.

ye, but the main point is these features cant be coded really in any way into PR so to make up the loss of r/l features we need to give it advantages in other ways which we can code

People stop complaing!!! go and play on vBF2 again makes you appericiate what the devs have done like nothing else can!!

DavidP wrote:Go play insurgency? It's pretty unsymmetrical. It sucks to me compared to PR because it's Mirror Unsymmetrical not like PR unsymmetrical where the fun factor still remains.

I mean that PR is well Balanced in it's asymmetry compared to Insurgency.

the thing with insurgancy is that they have to do symmetrical balance with a side that only can be done realistically with asymmetrical balance, which I think is what you mean you just aint explained it very well

So what you get is sides with very diffrent types of weapons, which should be used in very diffrent ways, but then they try and give the teams both the same advantages and disadvantages in all the other areas, which makes it not as fun. But it still attracts alot more players cos of the much shorter spawn times, small maps and quick games etc which alot of people like, even if the weapons aint as anywhere near as fun.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:ye, I have played games like that and think we also did some testing in PR a while back like that but it is no where near as fun when you need 1 and 1/2 or more t-90s to kill 1 M1A2 even if you do balance it out by spawn time, the fun factor still goes down hill a hell of alot.

thats where the teamwork part comes , a single t90s should not defead a m1a2 (like RL) , but a group of 3 , flanking the m1a2s can , and should .

when i first played FH , it was a pain to play as allied vs axis , becasue your shermans cant do anything to their panzer , i was about to unistall the mod , but then i played with some frineds and learned how to play those maps , not moving ala rambo , but moving slowly , taing adventage of the terrain , and NOT FIRING if you know that your not going to win .

moving the example to ejod , as everybody already know , MEC inf > US inf , so the US need to have armor suport to protec their troops , MEC can do the same , but they should loss since US tanks > MEC tanks , so the MEC NEED to take adventage of the terrain , move slowly ,use the hills to kill the m1a2s ,be patiend, etc,etc .

there is also other ways to balance things , like putting 5 t90s vs 3-4 m1a2s , or make a t90 variant that come with AT-11 ATGM , etc .

i feel sorry for the bloke who started this thread, only too find rhino and 77SiCaRiO77 having a cat fight

yes like you said you "can" balance it out like that, but then you loose the symmetrical balance part of the mod that alot of people like is that there is both symmetrical and asymmetrical balance.

And also bare in mind, just cos the M1A2 and T-90 are around about equal, dont mean you still cant use your 2 or 3 tanks to gang up and use teamwork on 1 tank which you already see in maps like kashan. It is just alot more effective in PR to work as a team, but not as critical as you said, you found it not fun being killed the entier time by a tiger (not a panzer, panzers are around abouts the same as a Sherman) and was about to unisntall the mod.

We can also bring in that type of balance into PR with our scimitars etc and already have that kinda balance in our asymmetrical maps, just not to do with tanks.

It is better to keep the option of symmetrical balance than throw it out of the window.

I think it's good to have a mix of asymmetric fighting and symmetric.
balancing would be really hard for the two tanks, imagine making the mod, compile, test, look at the results, revise work, compile, test, check results. you get the picture.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:the thing with insurgancy is that they have to do symmetrical balance with a side that only can be done realistically with asymmetrical balance, which I think is what you mean you just aint explained it very well

Yes exactly. I hate it how that only 2 guys in a squad can have ak47's while 4 usmc can have m16's and 2 of those with m203's. Rpg's do not balance it out well. And come on 1 support is enough per squad i hate having Saw and Rpk whores ruin the fun on especially such small maps. By the way where are the medics? There should be atleast 1 per squad! Not to revive but to patch up minor wounds somehow.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote: So what you get is sides with very diffrent types of weapons, which should be used in very diffrent ways, but then they try and give the teams both the same advantages and disadvantages in all the other areas, which makes it not as fun. But it still attracts alot more players cos of the much shorter spawn times, small maps and quick games etc which alot of people like, even if the weapons aint as anywhere near as fun.

Dude most people that Play Insurgency have Half life 2 or another Source variant game. Which there are atleast 20 of, Where as there is only 1 Bf2.

Believe me man PR>Insurgency in almost every category. It's more balanced, More teamwork, Engineer/Sapper actually do something, There are Medics, People actually talk to each other and watch others backs, I dont see m14/Smle whores everywhere, I dont care about the graphics they have smaller maps and shorter games but too many damn lonewolves! Pr may have it's faults too but they are not your fault they are Ea's for rushing bf2 and turning it into 1 long beta.

I too would like to see less mirror balancing for the tanks. The differences wouldn't be that dramatic to begin with, things like range, electronics etc. can't really be reflected ingame.

I'm no tank expert, but I'm sure a T-90 wouldn't be killed by an Abrams, especially one with a well-trained crew and what not. The T-90 has a slightly more powerful cannon for starters (125mm compared to the Abrams 120mm). From what I understand the Abrams & Challenger tanks have better armor. One tank has better armor while the other has better firepower, they sort of off-set each other creating a minor yet hardly noticeable advantage.

The real unique feature for the T-90 (and Chinese T-99) is their ability to fire a guided missile, designated as the 9M119 Refleks. If added ingame, the T-90 tanks would hold a powerful feature if used properly.

The link below is a nice little source to gather some basic info on the T-90 from.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/

I believe if done right, the advantages and disadvantages of the two counterparts wouldn't be anything drastic.

___

On the note of Infantry, one of the reasons the G3 and M16 balance is so off is because it's not done properly. From what I've observed and read on the forums, the G3 and M16 have exactly the same recoil. It's one of the reasons why the G3 is so godlike. The G3 should have much higher recoil, while the M16 should hold much lesser recoil. Thus the MEC G3s would have more power, less accuracy while the U.S M16s have less power but more accuracy.

IMO asymmetrical balancing is something PR should be moving towards. Some of the most popular FPS games (CS, CoD) go with asymmetrical balancing. No reason it shouldn't work for PR.

for the last time, PR has both Metrically and Asymmetrical balance... Best to have both for diffrent maps... Gives the players verity and a choice.

and yes, we have said the M16 is bugged but it only proves my point more that when you have 1 weapon that is better than the other is a symmetrically balanced map, the gameplay becomes ****. When the G3 vs the L85A2 in Street for exsample, you can see the difference they are both around equal because of there positive and negative points they both have. Then there is a 50/50 chance on winning that map, depending on the team you have and not so much on the weapons.

I aint heard about the guided missile might look into that, but balancing it out by diffrent positive and negative points is fine, like we have with ARs as long as they balanced out you can still have symmetrically balanced maps, where you dont need to have 5 tanks v 3 tanks or with one team having a shorter respawn as that sucks. When a tank has a even chance of killing the other tank that is symmetrical balance, even if the way they kill each other is diffrent.