Project Reality Forums

I believe there should be a balance between realism and fun even on a realistic mod like PR. As we come to play to have fun.

Not to be traumatized for life.

Remember war in real life sucks.

PR currently does a great job of capturing the fun bits and the fun bits only

Bluedrake42 wrote:can you honestly tell me you've never played a flight sim just to fuck everything up haha, I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, I'm just saying people could still have fun =P I think for the casual servers people will have fun just blowing **** up and romping around (albeit sloppily) with military equipment, and for tactical servers, there will be communities experienced enough to have serious rounds.

Yes but there never really is that sharp divide between casual and serious on public servers. You can only really have that kind of certain coordination in closed community situations, like a clan or a more structured server like United Operations for Arma2. Left to their own devices people will bugger it all up and its bad for the people who are actually trying to be deprived of an essential support feature because someone couldn't figure out how to take off.

I mean its bad enough with lots of people in PR and the Helos.

Do I enjoy that full on realism? Hell yea! I bought 3 X-52s and a Rudder Pedal system just for IL-2 Sturmovik, and then got a TrackIR5, and played on full realism settings. But even in that game taking off involved few things past:

"switch on engine, taxi to take off, deploy flaps, push to high throttle, keep nose down til over particular speed, gently lift off, up landing gear, up flaps".

Online games however ought to have a concession to playability, even if its hardcore realism. Imagine everytime you spawn as a regular infantryman having to dress your soldier up from his skivvies, painstakingly apply face camo paint, strip, clean, and check your weapon, load individual rounds into magazines, listen to annoying metal to pump you up, all just to get into the field again. Thats as realistic as the start up times for the Jets but its not something that adds to the experience unless its a single player game, and even then only once.

PFunk wrote:
Online games however ought to have a concession to playability, even if its hardcore realism. Imagine everytime you spawn as a regular infantryman having to dress your soldier up from his skivvies, painstakingly apply face camo paint, strip, clean, and check your weapon, load individual rounds into magazines, listen to annoying metal to pump you up, all just to get into the field again. Thats as realistic as the start up times for the Jets but its not something that adds to the experience unless its a single player game, and even then only once.

ok thats taking it too far, its like when someone said drivable ships in PR wouldnt work because someone would have to sweep the deck, sorry what?.
Even DCS doesnt put that stupid **** like putting on the flight suit for the pilot or connecting the air hose the the suit because its pointless, and brings nothing to the game, starting up jets like in lockon is not complicated at all and even in DCS you have a shortcut which lets skip the startup procedure and the game does it for you they dont force you to do it.
A game like whats being talked about would work, as long as it let players drive cool vehicles and have cool weapons, yes of course it would get farther away from realism, but at the end of the day its still a game, even the most hardcore sims acknowledge that.

PFunk wrote:Yes but there never really is that sharp divide between casual and serious on public servers. You can only really have that kind of certain coordination in closed community situations, like a clan or a more structured server like United Operations for Arma2. Left to their own devices people will bugger it all up and its bad for the people who are actually trying to be deprived of an essential support feature because someone couldn't figure out how to take off.

If you don't like the idea then that's your opinion, but I think this is more for people who want this to happen, and want to talk about how to make it happen, not to argue whether we want it or not.

PFunk wrote:Online games however ought to have a concession to playability, even if its hardcore realism. Imagine everytime you spawn as a regular infantryman having to dress your soldier up from his skivvies, painstakingly apply face camo paint, strip, clean, and check your weapon, load individual rounds into magazines, listen to annoying metal to pump you up, all just to get into the field again. Thats as realistic as the start up times for the Jets but its not something that adds to the experience unless its a single player game, and even then only once.

I think that you are one of the 0.001% of players that get turned on by realism in a game.

I play the game in order to get out of the real world not recreate it.

karambaitos wrote:ok thats taking it too far, its like when someone said drivable ships in PR wouldnt work because someone would have to sweep the deck, sorry what?.
Even DCS doesnt put that stupid **** like putting on the flight suit for the pilot or connecting the air hose the the suit because its pointless, and brings nothing to the game, starting up jets like in lockon is not complicated at all and even in DCS you have a shortcut which lets skip the startup procedure and the game does it for you they dont force you to do it.

All I said was that if you made someone do something that complex over 20 minutes impatience could get the best of them and make them screw it up somehow. And really what is the startup procedure to an infantry man? Put your flak vest on, check your gear, etc etc. What would take 10 mins for an infantryman to do to get ready?

Whats the point of a process to go through startup if you can skip it?

I'm just saying, if you can actually screw up the startup for a jet to damage or make it inoperable in some way then its not a good idea to have it in an online game. If you were in an online game and knew you could screw up your important asset by making a mistake in startup, why risk it if theres a 'skip' button? Offline is a different matter.

Bluedrake42 wrote:If you don't like the idea then that's your opinion, but I think this is more for people who want this to happen, and want to talk about how to make it happen, not to argue whether we want it or not.

Oh, so this is a fanboy thread for a game that doesn't exist? Roger. How inappropriate of me to actually have an opinion that isn't the mainstream of niche nerdgasm fantasy.


You know I do like the idea of this thing. I just said 'that one thing I don't think is a good idea'. And its that ONE THING that apparently casts me out of your bosom of mutual delight over this unlikely idea for an online game.

TheComedian wrote:I think that you are one of the 0.001% of players that get turned on by realism in a game.

I play the game in order to get out of the real world not recreate it.

I think you misunderstand me. I said 'it'd be retarded if you had to do this, and its a hassle cause its an online game, not one of those offline ones where you can screw it up and it doesn't matter cause nobody real is waiting for CAS'.

I compared doing a lengthy start up procedure for the A-10 to an infantryman having to kit up in a locker room for 15 minutes before he can get into the field.

PFunk wrote:Oh, so this is a fanboy thread for a game that doesn't exist? Roger. How inappropriate of me to actually have an opinion that isn't the mainstream of niche nerdgasm fantasy.

You know I do like the idea of this thing. I just said 'that one thing I don't think is a good idea'. And its that ONE THING that apparently casts me out of your bosom of mutual delight over this unlikely idea for an online game.

I don't like it when people criticize without offering any solutions, for instance saying "Online play is going to be buggered" is a lot more negative than say, "Online play would probably be problematic, but maybe a good tutorial system would help even things out"

I'm not beating you down, I'm just saying I think you should approach this differently. And I wouldn't necessarily call this a nerdgasm fantasy, I think something like this is going to be possible (and most likely happen) in the near future, it'd be nice to know exactly how to make it good when it does.

Bluedrake42 wrote:I don't like it when people criticize without offering any solutions...

What solution do you want past "don't make it that complicated"? In an online environment I believe it ought to be simpler than you have in offline DCS A-10. The point in online games is to get people outside the wire and into combat. Single player or Arma COOP stuff is different. With you able to start it at will you can afford the luxuries of indulgent realism. In an online setting you want to keep as much 'fluff' realism that doesn't directly impact player v. player gameplay as possible.

I don't like being crucified for having an unpopular opinion. Maybe if you guys just want to stack it tall like one of those now-defunct In-n-Out Burger 100+ patty orders with no thought to the actual practicality of it then say so. Dream on and I"ll think up something else to add.

If we're rationally discussing a 'realism MMO' or 'hardcore realistic online shooter' or however you want to describe this theoretical project, then nays are as important as yays in determining how it ought to be.

Why not model birdstrikes on the canopy? Probably stupid. Extreme propwash from standing under a Chinook that severely hinders local voice communication? That'd be sick and really add to the atmosphere of it but also give incentive to not carry out a firefight on the ramp of your ticket out of there.

PFunk wrote:What solution do you want past "don't make it that complicated"? In an online environment I believe it ought to be simpler than you have in offline DCS A-10. The point in online games is to get people outside the wire and into combat. Single player or Arma COOP stuff is different. With you able to start it at will you can afford the luxuries of indulgent realism. In an online setting you want to keep as much 'fluff' realism that doesn't directly impact player v. player gameplay as possible.

See that's the thing where I just straight up disagree, I like every aspect of DCS, and I would intend to keep every interactive feature for what we're talking about. otherwise we might as well just play arma 3...

There wouldn't be any shortcuts or anything, you would straight up have to learn how to fly the warthog. Now as far as anything past that (putting on flightsuit, connecting hoses, extra flim flam outside of piloting/driving a vehicle) for this specific title I wouldn't want any of that. Essentially the gameplay would be almost identical to project reality, only the vehicles would be much more in depth (it might be cool to add in ground crew features, as that was pretty enjoyable in PR:ArmA2). And of course an integrated radio system like ACRE would be awesome.

Infantry combat would be practically the exact same, but tanks, humvees, planes, helicopters and everything else would be fully interactive. (of course they would also keep their basic control schemes, so you wouldn't have to press down on the gas pedal with the mouse to go forward, or pull up with the mouse on the collective to go up)

Procedure, preparation and training will save your life in RL. Video games can never simulate that.

TheComedian wrote:Procedure, preparation and training will save your life in RL. Video games can never simulate that.

Um, sure they can? Have a team of players that sort out Procedure, preparation and training and they will most likely win.

TheComedian wrote:Procedure, preparation and training will save your life in RL. Video games can never simulate that.

yeah I don't get what you're trying to say here, that's just blatently not true

Bluedrake42 wrote:See that's the thing where I just straight up disagree, I like every aspect of DCS, and I would intend to keep every interactive feature for what we're talking about. otherwise we might as well just play arma 3...

There is a very big difference between any DCS game and Arma when it comes to the flight model. Arma is pretty weird when it comes to flying. DCS is pretty extreme. How does learning the exact start up procedures for a jet or helicopter teach you anything about flying it? People won't bother to know what any of these buttons mean, they'll just memorize them or even worse develop keyboard macros they press to simulate inputting it in the right order.

I know plenty about how to fly by real world rules. I've played lots of flight sims yet I honestly can't tell you much of anything about the start up procedures for an F-16 or specifically what all those means. Does that make me an inferior pilot by definition? The rules of flight have nothing to do with the mandated process of bringing from cold to hot the avionics of a modern jet. It adds nothing to actual combat or the parts of the game that directly affect other players. You'll just be sitting alone in a cockpit pressing buttons, or macro keys, and nobody will know anything about it. You shouldn't need to print out some 2 page check list just to get into a jet if you are an expert in proper CAS or air to air fighting.

When I played IL2 online I spent my time bothering with the complex and ruthless nature of aerial combat. If I'd had to sit there for 20 minutes trying to remember buttons instead of basic flight maneuvers I'd just get bored or worse be spending valuable time memorizing things that have no bearing on whether or not I'm actually a better pilot.

Am I better virtual soldier because I understand how to break down and reassemble an M-16? I see no distinction when applying that logic to the start up routine of a jet. There are far more important things for an online player to be worrying about, even in hardcore realism environments.

"Is your radar on?"
"Yep"
"Do you know how to use it?"
"No, I spent too much time trying to remember which button turned it on".

In a WW1 online flight sim should I need a dedicated player on the tarmac who has to put his hands on the propeller and help my engine get started?

PFunk wrote:There is a very big difference between any DCS game and Arma when it comes to the flight model. Arma is pretty weird when it comes to flying. DCS is pretty extreme. How does learning the exact start up procedures for a jet or helicopter teach you anything about flying it? People won't bother to know what any of these buttons mean, they'll just memorize them or even worse develop keyboard macros they press to simulate inputting it in the right order.

Yeah exactly I think we're just having a difference of opinion here. I want a game where you do in fact have to start it with the correct start up procedure, and not only that, I want to have to operate the aircraft exactly how it would need to be operated in real life for every feature aboard. And you wouldn't be able to use macros to start a plane, since everything in the cockpit besides HOTAS and flight controls would need to be clicked by a mouse.

I like the immersion and challenge that comes with a fully interactive and realistic flight simulator. And I would like that immersion and challenge to be blended into the gameplay of a game such as project reality (on every vehicle as well not just aircraft)... you're not going to change my opinion on that.

And for sure if someday someone finds a way to implement a feature where you can strip your weapon on the field, and its not buggy and clunky then I'd be all for it.

DCS:A1O is cool, would awesome to have such flight systems in PR as well, even though it may seem very complicated... xD

Yeah I really like it, DCS black shark rocks too

TheComedian wrote:Procedure, preparation and training will save your life in RL. Video games can never simulate that.

I agree that that is not true. When I was in NATO I remember we once played against public players with us on the US side and pubs on MEC side on Jabal AlBurj. Our team had a plan we were prepared because we had gone through training for NATO. The game starts 30 mins into it we still had not taken a single casualty. While the MEC team was getting pummeled. My squad was tasked with holding the Bridge. I forget why but for some reason. It was only me and another guy from my squad that had been left to hold the bridge. I think we were about to cap the next objective so we were getting ready to leave.Me and this guy were able to fight off almost an entire squad before being killed by reinforcements on our flanks. The reason we were able to do that was because we knew how to fight alongside eachother. We had already been in a few battles against CATA and we knew how to work together. We had been prepared because of our initial basic training and experience having fought alonside each other before.

lromero wrote:I agree that that is not true. When I was in NATO I remember we once played against public players with us on the US side and pubs on MEC side on Jabal AlBurj. Our team had a plan we were prepared because we had gone through training for NATO. The game starts 30 mins into it we still had not taken a single casualty. While the MEC team was getting pummeled. My squad was tasked with holding the Bridge. I forget why but for some reason. It was only me and another guy from my squad that had been left to hold the bridge. I think we were about to cap the next objective so we were getting ready to leave.Me and this guy were able to fight off almost an entire squad before being killed by reinforcements on our flanks. The reason we were able to do that was because we knew how to fight alongside eachother. We had already been in a few battles against CATA and we knew how to work together. We had been prepared because of our initial basic training and experience having fought alonside each other before.

Its nice to see someone other than me spam the forums with NATO stories.

In terms of jet playability I think the Su-25/T in lockOn FC2 simulate the best balance for realistic online play. It has main systems simulated and Advanced Flight Model, but its not overly complicated to start up and so forth. This would be perfect for combined-arms multiplayer game like PR as it is very lenient on start-up, but boy is it hard in piloting.

An online sim does not have to be a study sim like the DCS series, but must combine accessibility with real challenge.