Project Reality Forums

The DEVs don't see it as ultra realism, but I think they want the game to realistic enough so the game doesn't turn into counterstrike every time a city map comes up.

Pure_beef wrote:Why would they take it out? I think a big problem we have in this game is that there are too many realism whores who are limiting the fun in PR. So what if someone wants to take the crewman kit because the MP5 is great at CQB, to me i see this game as more about tactics and teamwork than ultra realism.

Realism whores?

You are in the wrong game if you expect people to not be. The name of the game suggests what kind of player you will find here "Project Reality".

mp5, ray bans and russian tank helmet... the only thing missing is Kit:

RHYS4190 wrote:Im glad some one agrees with me, it not over powered and it very beautifully balanced.

i also agree that it needs to be included in a few other kits, Id wounder if it would be a good idea to put it in the medic kit for the MEC, the medic would benefit with being able to project more hurt down at the enemy in order to keep there heads down and protect them self's a bit better, i agree also it should be the squads job to protect the medic, but with amount of new player coming into the game getting into a squad of vet's who will protect you is very difficult now day's.

I like that pr is become more popular but what bothers me is the attitude of the people who come form BF2 thinking PR is BF2 except with scoped Weapons.

of course i only suggest this for defensive actions, i like every one in PR don't won't the medic kit to became a Rambo kit or some thing like that

Balance is pretty cheesy to me.

Pure_beef wrote:Why would they take it out? I think a big problem we have in this game is that there are too many realism whores who are limiting the fun in PR. So what if someone wants to take the crewman kit because the MP5 is great at CQB, to me i see this game as more about tactics and teamwork than ultra realism.

You contradict yourself. The realistic thing would be to keep it.

The project reality syndrome would be to remove it a la pilot kit.

Cheditor wrote:Haha no Redlalert it really isnt. In CQB it is a beast, takes 3 shots to take down someone and is very fast to fire so you have them rounds in that person before they can shoot.

It really is. Its the best weapon ingame IMO. Easy headshots. I usually take out 3 people on average if I am behind cover because its so accurate.

Ghost1800 wrote:I remember starting up a server on Asad Khal with about 6 people on each side with everybody on mumble. I was on MEC and the squad we had went by the name of "MP5". When we eventually made contact with the Brits all we could hear from the other side was stuff like "Oh *****, they're using SMG's/crewman!" or "Son of a ***** I thought we'd be fighting long range."

Not that it mattered a whole lot, my medic-issue iron-sighted G3 was doing about the same as everyone else in the squad. Still, we tore through the enemy squad at least 3 times for every time they beat us.

Moral of the story is... well I dunno, "Mumble is awesome because you can hear the other team *****" works nicely though.

Doesn't it only let you hear the stuff other mumble users say? Or does it let you hear everybody?




PS: The British Medics gun w/ the iron sights is better than the MP5. It can go far range (mp5 cannot) and it is pretty good when used in close range. So taking the MP5 out because of "balance" would be silly.

Pure_beef wrote:Why would they take it out? I think a big problem we have in this game is that there are too many realism whores who are limiting the fun in PR. So what if someone wants to take the crewman kit because the MP5 is great at CQB, to me i see this game as more about tactics and teamwork than ultra realism.

Well I know people have argued against this statement that I am about to make but the devs diddn't call this mod Project 'Reality' for nothing. They intended to make a more realistic based mod including realistic weapons in recoil, etc.

Realism = Tactics and Teamwork because you pretty much need them just to win and survive. Games like Vanilla BF2 with no realism at all. People bunny hop and just mindlessly rush in things because the game isn't realistic. They get blown up or shot and they can just respawn in a couple of seconds and most of the time on there squad leader or a very close flag.

With a lot of realism where your whole squad can get ripped apart if you aren't communicating or paying attention and using tactics and with the really long spawns and most of the time long spawn points to the objectives. It makes you think twice about being rambo just to say alive so you don't have to go through that.

Realism is what makes this game different and more interesting than vBF2. I think Special Forces squads (people who name themselves that and focus on blowing up assets or causing a lot of havoc for the enemy) should be allowed the MP5 crewman kit for whatever reason they want it for. However infantry squads? Why would anybody want a bunch of infantry squads running around with MP5 Crewman kits? They serve no real purpose to the actual squad in support of it and in that sense is not a teambased choice. Either to a extent a tactic one. The ability to be good at close quarter combat is the only tactical sense it has in which most PR maps have a lot of open space.

Infantry squads depend on the support of the infantry kits to operation fully. Medics to revive and heal. Rifle Specialist to open doors and grapple over obsticles if need be. Riflemen kits for ammo when running low or ammo for gernades when run out to clear buildings. Sometimes light AT comes in handy incase the squad runs into any armor. Gernadier for long range gernade support. All these kits serve the squad more fuller than one weapon with limited ammo and a smoke gernade.

The sensible thing would be to add it to the MEC specialist kit as well, as it's CQC oriented anyways; at long range it loses out, so what's the harm?

M.

Expendable Grunt wrote:The sensible thing would be to add it to the MEC specialist kit as well, as it's CQC oriented anyways; at long range it loses out, so what's the harm?

M.

Yes. ! ! ! !