Project Reality Forums

M.Warren wrote: 1. Removal of Heavy AT missle tone and increasing target aquisition speed.
<Note: Yay for one-shotting APC's without a chance. Looks like it's just as overpowered as in v0.6. But then again, atleast in v0.6 you had a chance to get out of the way as you can hear the warning tone.>

Of course this is crappy to gameplay right now, anyone who has tried to run an APC squad on Jabal, Qwai, 7gates, etc knows it. But I dont think giving back the missle tone is the solution. There is several ways you could go to making the H-AT perform more realistically. I think bringing the settle time back to v0.7 levels would probably help alot. Or a new way of using the HAT altogether, where you have to 'deploy' it on the ground each time you want to use it, thus a long prep time. Without question you'll see H-AT changed signifigantly in v0.8 cause right now its too powerful of a weapon on most maps. When servers have to make rules banning a weapons use versus players, you KNOW its over powered

2. Removal of Officer kit flashbangs.
<Note: Simply a handy tool to have. Matter of fact it'd be more valuable now than before seeing grenades are nearly useless.>

Not realistic to be used by every infantry squad (and if given to the officers, EVERY infantry squad would have these and their use would be high). I believe it also conflicts with the shaders of PR.exe but I could be wrong.

3. Reduction in the effectiveness of fragmentation grenades.
<Note: Welcome to v0.75, that big baseball sized green thing in your hand no longer kills people. However now you can place it in the enemies mail box and blow up the box of cookies thier mother sent to them for psychological warfare.>

I think the grenades are much better now. When you throw a grenade in a bunker, and there are 2-3 guys in that bunker, you will probably kill at least 2 of them. But you MUST go in and clear the bunker out to be sure they are all dead. IRL grenades are not the perfect killers, the fragments are quite random. Before, you could throw a grenade in a bunker and you would never have to clear it because you would know the instant it goes off that all the bad guys are dead, which is unrealistic. I do believe that the RADIUS of the grenade should be increase a bit (10 meters or so) but I dont think it should get anymore lethal. If at all possible I believe the 'suppression' effect should last much longer with grenades, as a grenade going off close to you is going to give you complete hearing loss, loss of consciousness, bleeding from the eyes/nose/ears/mouth, but killing you outright every single time is just begging for them to be spammed to all high hell, which was a MAJOR problem in v0.6.

4. Removal of BF2 artillery for JDAM.

Disagree STRONGLY with bringing back vbf2 artillery, I think it was not realistic, did NOT support teamwork, and was just plain annoying. I think a much better route would be player controlled mortars, more changes with the bombs dropped by jets, and changes to the JDAM to increase its lethality.

5. Removal of quality maps.

Its true PR has a short list of maps right now and we need more quality ones. However I dont think bringing back the old maps is the answer, people have fond memories of these maps but I think that if we did bring them back the gameplay flaws in them would quickly become apparent. So instead of looking to the past for the answer, I think we should look to all the future potential, there are literally DOZENS of maps under developement by devs and community members right now, all in different stages of completion. They are all designed specifically for v0.7 gameplay and are being made with realism in mind, so I think the next few versions of PR are going to be very exciting as far as interesting places to fight.

6. Removal of the Crewman wrench.

Dont agree with bringing the crewman wrench back. The only valid point I can see is having a limited number of players on a team and needing an extra engineer on a tank squad takes away from boots on the ground. However I think the engineer situation should be changed, there is a number of solutions that could be made such as adding a 4th position on tanks so the engineer has a place to button down when the lead starts coming in.

7. Removal of Engineer repair trucks.

Agree that they should make a return, but in a different capacity than in v0.6, which IMO was a bit too spammy and gamey (for example, parking next to 2 engineer trucks and repairing, while 2 engineers repairing the tank from behind, means the tank is 'invincible' and can repair damage faster than it can recieve, much like vbf2 and parking next to a couple supply crates). Also things like driving beside the tank and getting repairs "on the move" made these trucks prety arcade like in nature, even vanilla didnt have this kind of roadside service!). Possible solution could be engineer trucks "deploying" a repair station, similar to the way we deploy ammo crates right now from jeeps. The engineer truck can only deploy 1 repair station at a time, to get another one they have to go to bunkers/firebase/commandpost, just like the jeeps and their ammo crates. The repair station repairs any vehicle nearby at a slow rate, but has a limited amount of repair "ammo", and it can be destroyed very easily by any weapon, just like ammo crates.

8. Removal of kit requests from supply crates.

This was a change to increase the importance of the (already numerous) kit limit request points. Saturating the whole map with kit limit request points means players dont give a **** about defending the ones that they got, cause there are supply crates dotted everywhere on the map. Also another big problem is being able to request off of enemy supply crates, further increasing the avaliability. I dont think supply crates should be kit request points when every supply truck can drop them, which really lessons the importance of the bunkers/firebases and rallypoints.

9. Removal of kit requests from APC's

Actually you can request all kits from APCs besides "specialized" kits which are: HAT, AA, specops and sniper. The only one that is really an issue then is HAT, because it may be realistic to store these in the back of an APC. However I think the problem right now that APCs are not being used properly as a mechanized infantry transport is mainly for OTHER reasons, not because they cant request snipers or specops on them... Those other reasons are quite complex and for a different topic altogether.

10. Removal of the "Dizzy" near death experience as seen in the v0.6 patch.

I think the current one is fine, as long as it SEVERELY restricts your ability to shoot back at the enemy.



Anyways thanks the criticism. I think PR v0.7- PR v0.75 has its faults but also I think that were well aware of the faults and actively making changes to correct the faults. Hopefully egg gets more time and can have a closer eye on what were doing as well as put his magic into new features

Feel free to post any more discussion on this as its welcomed but keep it civil. I disagree with Wolfe in that I really think the dev team is coming together and coming up with solutions to problems in a good way now. For a while it was prety rough but now things are starting to get back on track!

I must say though. One of my greatest issues here is that a forum limits the possibilities of explanation and suggestive brainstorming a verbal conversation may have. I wish there would be a time where we could speak to the developers once again in an in depth level and elaborate. Possibly on a private teamspeak server or a ventrilo server rather than X-Fire. More people have Ventrilo and Teamspeak in my opinion anyways.

But I agree with Fuzzhead and the other players that uniformly agree that Heavy Anti-Tank is overpowered. However at this point it's rather clear that the issue with the "Warning Tone" will never, ever be implemented again as it's firmly understood that it's application is unrealistic. So now it simply comes down to tweaking the kit itself and limiting it to a certain degree.

I had spent about 7 hours thinking on ways to alter the Heavy Anti-Tank in a rather logical and realistic manner, rather than blurting out possibilities on impulse. It's simply too complex to explain it entirely, maybe the developers one day will truely allow us to congregate on a public ventrilo or teamspeak server... Then again, I'm not sure if the last time it was hosted on X-fire was a flop either.

and this is nothing? I thought thats pretty sweet what mescaldrav had put together
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... stion.html
warren, you want the DEVs to hook you up on TS to brainstorm and listen to your thoughts although you havent coded or contributed anything for the mod? I mean cmon... Im glad we got this platform to give feedback and be heared when we think somethings problematic. we cant and shouldnt expect any more if we dont come up with a solution ourselfs.
sit back and enjoy the ride like the rest of us

Ye speaking of which something hopefully might be happening with that in the near future.....

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:When servers have to make rules banning a weapons use versus players, you KNOW its over powered

In the Middle Ages, a pope tried to ban crossbows because of their lethality and the ability for an uneducated (and barely trained) peasant to kill knights with years of experience. Would you call crossbows OP today? I bring this up because the HAT does not need to change, but its targets and the game around it are sure to change in the coming months and years.

Therein lies the answer: in order to rationalize the massive power of the HAT kit, don't screw with the kit, change its effects on the targets - such as disabling APCs and tanks.

If we don't want to go down that road, of course, we can simply remove HAT on maps without tanks, but I had assumed that it had already been considered.

Its easy ammo which is at fault more then the HAT kit but that cant be fixed as easily

Most times, the HAT dies before anyone can supply him ammo, or even before he can get back to the ammo crate that's waiting for him.

gclark03 wrote:In the Middle Ages, a pope tried to ban crossbows because of their lethality and the ability for an uneducated (and barely trained) peasant to kill knights with years of experience.

AFAIK, it wasnt banned, they were just not allowed to use it against other Christians coz it looks like a cross or something

gclark03 wrote:In the Middle Ages, a pope tried to ban crossbows because of their lethality and the ability for an uneducated (and barely trained) peasant to kill knights with years of experience. Would you call crossbows OP today? I bring this up because the HAT does not need to change, but its targets and the game around it are sure to change in the coming months and years.

What history books are you reading? They tried to get it banned because all the knights got pissed with all the peasant's prone spamming!

Should have banned those stupid peasants from the server!

All the Pope had to do was add deviation.

I lol'ed.

Anyway, to those who want to reduce ammo on the HAT; Don't do it, it is darned frustrating to have a perfect ambush going but knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter what you do, that armored unit is not going to die if he chooses to run after the first shot. I speak from experiance with the LAT kit, you just don't get ammo back fast enough. Maybe increase the stabilization time, but that would be as far as I would go on changing it.

Wouldn't the best solution for HATs (Seeing as how most of you addressed it's balance against APCs) be to simply remove the kit from maps that aren't tank heavy? Or maybe even further restrict the kit to 1 per side? I don't think the kit needs to be any more cumbersome to use, with the startup delay, having to be in a crouched or standing position and having to wait for the accuracy to maximize.

Still, I don't think maps like Seven Gates, EJOD Desert, Jabal truly need the HAT kit. Sure it might make it extremely difficult to eliminate the APCs then, but true to real life armor should pose a major problem.

Another idea (Probably better) might be to lengthen the amount of the time the kit takes to become available again. The HAT kit is a powerful piece of equipment, yet unlike vehicles that take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes to respawn, the HAT kit becomes almost instantly available after being lost. So maybe a 5 minute timer before it becomes available in the pool again.



As for the artillery, I too would like to see some form of requested artillery return (But as an addition to the JDAM, and not a replacement). I'm not a big fan of player controlled artillery devices simply because that takes away from the ground pounders and means more people playing a support role (In addition to your transport, air attack, armor and infantry squads you would have a dedicated artillery squad). Another big plus for that would be the extension of the commander's role.

Now obviously strict limits would exist to separate the artillery from the old vanilla version. A longer load period, and maybe a restriction on range based on the projection of firebases/bunkers (An artillery strike can only be called in within a certain range of one of your firebases or bunkers). As for the teamwork argument, considering that SL's would still need to send the request to the CO, and thus the CO accept or deny it, there's still some degree of coordination involved.

The JDAM really needs a shorter timer (I'd go 10 to 20 minutes). The weapon isn't that effective, yet commander's will hold out on it until the last remaining moments of the game, where the JDAM is called in just for the hell of it. Also, it's extremely rare that you'l have the opportunity to use the JDAM against a large force. At best, you might use it against a squad or two defending or attempting to capture a flag, but normally everyone is doing their own thing. Finally, it's also unlikely that a JDAM would be used that frequently. Sure the potential exists, but with players reluctant to be commander, SL's unaware of how to use the JDAM, or simply being out of position or not finding the JDAM needed at the moment means you'll rarely see the darn thing dropped every moment it was available.

Why don't we add mortars as automated (player-requested, not player-controlled or fired) 'mini-artillery' placements at firebases/bunkers, alongside the AA missile system?

Be able to deploy HAT like a mortar in POE, that way, you reduce the amount of 'HAT sniping' because you can still use a gun, increase deployment time, reduce deployed movement and encourage Ambushing and Defending.

Is it possible for a pile of spare parts (repairs) to repair only one vehicle at a time?

Originally Posted by M.Warren View Post
2. Removal of Officer kit flashbangs.
<Note: Simply a handy tool to have. Matter of fact it'd be more valuable now than before seeing grenades are nearly useless.>

Us at TCombat. have had some army guys teaching the non-army guys about FIBUA and CQB so we could Quote- "go onto a server and nail some noobs!!11"

Smokinguns has such a way with words god-bless him. But yes, it had worked. we had figured out how to effectivly restock the MG with the second person without having to run around reloading an ammo box and giving the MG gunner half. (No apparently both the ammo dude and MG gunner can lie beside an ammo box and both reload at the same time while firing, simple but elusive.)

We ran into a snag...Clearing rooms became extremely difficult without the use of a flashbang. and frags just didnt cut it. all it did was slightly lower the target's vision with suppression effect for 3 seconds and during this time, with l337 efficiency and accurasy the targets dispatched half the squad while they moved through their paths of least resistance.

(The whole point of our ranger training was to get the lower skilled guys to follow a protocol so we could all be leathaly accurate by teaching how to properly suppress targets, how to move, how to make formations and clear structures. and believe me...IT WORKS! OH HELL YEA IT WORKS!)

We had even used a guy to cover the door on fully auto while the second in the group which had stacked up threw in the nade. we cant afford to scrimp on resourses because of smacktards nade spamming. and besides, who the heck would nadespam flashbangs...i mean come on! i heard the reason for its removal was because it was too weak? what kind of reason is that?...just increase it! dont remove it.

So yea, flashbangs need to be brought back in and given to squad leaders. i imagine they would be used as much as the insurgent squad leaders use the GL. so i doubt there would be any problem with spamming.

Tirak wrote:I lol'ed.

Anyway, to those who want to reduce ammo on the HAT; Don't do it, it is darned frustrating to have a perfect ambush going but knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that no matter what you do, that armored unit is not going to die if he chooses to run after the first shot. I speak from experiance with the LAT kit, you just don't get ammo back fast enough. Maybe increase the stabilization time, but that would be as far as I would go on changing it.

you know when your insurgent and you stand on a spawn point you can spam the RPG right?