Project Reality Forums

The average PR pubber is smarter I suppose... but "more thoughtful" would be more appropriate. PR makes you think, and vBF2 doesn't, so naturally if someone likes PR, they probably are smart-ish to begin with .

PR is NOT for racking up kills, its for teamwork. I had a really fun round once... with zero kills . The vBF2 player wants kills, the PR player (should) want more teamwork. That's sophistication, so in my book the PR player is smarter in a way.

The average PR pubber used to play vBF2 and most probably tried to bring what he/she has brought to PR to vBF2.

[R-DEV]bosco wrote:Added one 'b' to the title, 'puber' somehow didn't sound right

But it sounds like fun, to join someone who is a veteran in going to the pubs.

[R-DEV]bosco wrote:Added one 'b' to the title, 'puber' somehow didn't sound right

Heheheh, pube...

Maybe I'm not mature enough for PR afterall

In my book there's people that play for fun, people that play to win and people that play to kill.

The 'fun' players will role-play, try to use real life military tactics and so on, you'll often see them talk a lot on VoIP and socializing with each other.

The 'win' players will use any known game tactic to overcome the other team and win, such as flag rushing, going behind the enemy lines, running people over or using powerful assets to take out underpowered targets (ie. AT vs. infantry, attack helicopters), they'll also make the best out of any asset regardless of it's power (mass armor squads, jeep drive-bys). They will also have high-end rigs with numerous gadgets to help them (joysticks etc.)

The 'kill' players will not socialize or accept any help from someone else. They will try to do everything mostly by themselves, take and waste assets that could else end up being very useful to the 'fun' and 'win' guys (sniper kits, tanks, jets)and annoy and teamkill other players in order to acquire those assets.
They will often combine the knowledge about the game to deny the enemy team their man power and assets with their own tactics, which mostly include camping enemy main bases/spawn points with powerful assets (sniper overlooking a main base spawn, attack helicopter destroying everything at the enemies main base, or just simply camping a spawn point until someone spawns in)
Their goal is to rack kills regardless of the consequences for their team and while failing to achieve that thanks to the game mechanics they also will not care if they win or lose the round.

Most people combine all three or at least two of these.

that was a very good argument there... i can identify myself with the first two... Though using more powerful assets to destroy less powerful assets is kinda the name of the game isn't it? I mean an armor squad without AA cover is begging to get a missile shoved up their *** and an Apache without information about enemy activity in their area of activity is begging to get tanksniped. So its all relative, same as an infantry squad with a HAT-kit can take out a tank squad that isn't paying attention.

I was referring more to situations where a regular asset could do the job, but someone will still use something way more powerful to accomplish the same thing. For instance, on Korengal defending the E3 hill you can use a .50 cal, scoped M16s or M203s to pin down and kill Insurgents, but you can also spam Light/Heavy AT to kill them.
Both do their job, but compared between each other anti-tank is kinda over the roof.

Maybe smarter tactics-wise, but not better.

I played vBF2 a few times back and I couldn't hit anything. (and I forgot that the enemy can steal your tanks ).
And I think if a fresh new vBF2 player gets into PR, he won't hit anything at first either.

Sadist_Cain wrote:Id rather play with a mature idiot instead of an intelligent dumbass anyday

so which one am i

[R-DEV]Nickbond592 wrote:so which one am i

Just a thought, but I do feel the average PR pubber is more capable than the forum elitists seem to realise.

In a way yes, in a way no.

I think its safe to say that PR has a better chance of attracting older possibly more mature gamers[due to the more mature nature/ties to currently serving soldiers, etc]

But at the same time, you also still get kids who just want a more teamwork based game in a modern war setting.

Its not bad its not good. But I would say, on the whole, we might tend to get some more mature players. But its not exclusive in any way...

I think the fact that every single time I am on US/Jabal if they lose its because they leave East Beach the sole bleed flag unguarded. Usually occupied with attacking west beach.

I guess this rules out trial and error intelligence.

yes, ppl who are playing pr are smarter than vbf2 players, or wait..ehm ..no ..i dont play vbf2 so i cant compare. but i guess yes, cause pr efforts more planing your steps than bf2.

btw the thread leads me to another question, is playing a videogame making you smarter than perhaps going in pubs ot watching tv?

ive read about an experiment where they had some 100 grandmas playing a fps, and after a amount of time they had their brain activity increased.
it sounds quite logical cause playing a game is something active which requires planning, coordination, imagination and math-skills. often you have to think quick and readjust your tactic/strategy.
and of course, pr scores here again cause it requires more of these things than the usual newest graphic-badass weapon-just shoot anything that comes along-longrangecry2-game.
compared to watching TV or listening music where youre often just passive consuming i dont feel bad with this hobby.

Its a learning experience. If a noob comes into a PR server, he will be FORCED to do things the way they are meant to, or he will suffer kicks or bans, no ands/if.or buts about that. So aside from more tactics than BF2, the average noob will learn and be smarter than playing on vBF2 where its a mindless game of kill and rape.

In regards of teamplay and playing with the head (the big one), yes.

Also we are made of chocclate.