Project Reality Forums

Your opinion does not match everyone else that may or may not posts here.
Build a bridge. Cross it. Burn it. Lean to accept defeat.

What? Defeat? It's not like everyone who expressed their opinions here are against mine opinion, and I still didn't heard any decent argument against my opinion. So how is that a defeat?

I hate the word "realism"/"realistic" word thrown when talking about games.

Well that's your problem then, a lot of people are searching for realism in games.

It's a game.
It will never be real.

Kthx I know.
It doesn't mean we should stop searching for that realism feel in a video games.

Your continues strawman arguments are really annoying.

My arguments are not strawman. If my posts are annoying to you just don't read them and don't reply.

A Dev in here even came and verified that YES, medics ARE able to use optics on their weapons.

Now that's some sort of a strawman argument, he said that a certain real life armies are using it, not every army of the world.

My friend is a Tank Crewmen, he has a M320 on his M4. Does this mean we should give this to the crewman in game?

Every crewman has m320 or just your friend? I doubt it, and it will be a little bit over the top, I'm not suggesting something completely balance wrecking, read my posts again or something if you don't understand what I am talking about. If you don't wanna understand then why are you answering to me?

FUN > BALANCE > "REALISM".

Don't you think that a "realism" can sometimes add more fun and balance if implemented right?

I also find it extremely awesome that the IDF is getting it's Optics removed. It's going to be SO MUCH FUN playing Iron Eagle as IDF now! SO MUCH FUN /s

Is that a sarcasm?
I think it will be really interesing and refreshing like a glass of cold water, yeah, it will be more tougher to play as them, but you can really enjoy that toughness. Besides they have better tanks so should be pretty balanced.

Unhealed wrote:If Canadians, Americans and British have it that way then it's really better to have it the same way in PR if it's possible.
My point is that I don't wanna see unrealistic stuff for no reason.

Even if it improves the gameplay? Gameplay should always come first in my opinion. If you'd rather have realism than gameplay ARMA would be something for you.

Unhealed wrote:Well that's your problem then, a lot of people are searching for realism in games.

Well... They will be searching for a long *** time.

Unhealed wrote:Don't you think that a "realism" can sometimes add more fun and balance if implemented right?

Fun? Sure. If you'd give an Apache to the US Army on Kokan, or bring back the A-10 on Al Basrah, the pilots would have a lot of fun, but it would wreck the balance which is essential for any multiplayer game to work.

Even if it improves the gameplay? Gameplay should always come first in my opinion. If you'd rather have realism than gameplay ARMA would be something for you.

Does having a scope on a weapon of a Russian(for example) medic really will help a gameplay? How? Public players will be less frustrated becouse of their own stupidity? We all know how stupid they can be aren't we.
More serious players - I think they don't care since scope is a really special-oriented(don't really know how to say it), becouse as I said I played almost all of my last rounds as a medic and I never felt an urge to have a scope on my weapon, it's just for those really special occasions if you are medic.
For me(and I'm pretty sure for some players out there) the addition of the scopes to the medic kit of every faction will only kill the gameplay, I like to feel something fresh when I'm switching classes and factions, I like to adapt to something new and win, becouse I know that I might be weak personally but I'm more strongly strategically, like my tanks have better armour or my starting position is better and etc.

Well... They will be searching for a long *** time.

They found it already.

Fun? Sure. If you'd give an Apache to the US Army on Kokan, or bring back the A-10 on Al Basrah, the pilots would have a lot of fun, but it would wreck the balance which is essential for any multiplayer game to work.

IDF still can win on Iron Eagle even without ACOGs, while Insurgents are doomed by the CAS presence. It's not the same thing.

My brother play only as medic and I play SL/medic most of the time and he hates to play as German medic just because of scope so I do but we agreed that there should be option for medic to pick a scope even if We would pick it once per hundred hours of playing. As you Unhealed said medic is mostly bussy healing and he can't always cover your backs so you need at least one more guy with iron sight to do so.

I agree with Joker86 that medic is a rifleman for first place and then medic, If your medic is bad in shooting or he just hide to don't get shoot he will just have more work on healing because he can't help take down those "bad guys" who can kill your squad mates.

We can't forget about ppl who play on low resolution, I've played with few ppl who said that they won't take iron sights just because they play on low res which makes enemies too hard to aim at on longer range.

The argument about not adding scope for medic because ppl won't focus on medic work is just stupid for me. Lets take scope away from SL they should focus on leading not shooting and if we go even bit futher with this we will remove scopes from half kits to make ppl "focus on their (kit) job". Good player will pick what fits best for situation, when bad player don't need scope on medic to focus on shooting instead of healing. Just because of those 12 patches medic is one of best classes for lonewolfs, so should we lower number of them only because of players like that limiting good players?

The same goes with remove of binoculars. I love it except of one reason -> SL won't be able to ask someone to spot for enemy (sadly we can't share equipment like in ARMA) and I think that i will have to pass my Officer kit for this to other squad members when I will be bussy with other tasks.

We can't forget about ppl who play on low resolution, I played with few ppl who said that they won't take iron sights just because they play on low res which makes enemies too small to aim at on longer range.

I play on these too.

I agree with Joker86 that medic is a rifleman for first place and then medic, If your medic is bad in shooting or he just hide to don't get shoot he will just have more work on healing because he can't help take down those "bad guys" who can kill your squad mates.

Well rifleman is a rifleman, medic is a medic, that's it.
Someone else should focus on these guys, but not you if you don't have a scope(which you will have 50% of the time anyway, since almost all Blufor factions are possibly getting them), but you can supress the enemy with rapid fire - it's also effective, it's also fun. And these situations are extemely rare since you said you have to pick them only in 1 battle out of 100. So is that one battle really worth breaking an immersion of having a realistic kit loadout? Is that one battle really worse seeing an increased number of a noob medics who lead the way on a public servers(becouse some people just won't understand that some classes are for the support if you don't hint them)? For me - no, it's not worth it, it's like they did in Rising storm, added a pistol to the japanese rifleman class even thou it's completely inaccurate, just a nonsense. And the funniest thing is that people almost don't use them but immersion is sort of ruined.

Unhealed wrote:Project reality is all about fun through teamplay, so it's just a nonsense to separate these two things from each other.
The rules are fair as they are now, but I think in your opinion fair is when you and your enemies are just a mirror of each other.
Medic has 12 patches but no scope and BUIS on his gun, becouse of that he can be very vulnerable but he can also be very strong.

PR is indeed about fun through teamplay, but you can seperate those things nonetheless, because the fun can also origin from other sources.

Of course it's fair when the enemy is a mirror of me. But I never said it's the only way to achieve this. It's just the easiest and most obvious way.

And those 12 patches don't make the medic strong, they make him tough at the best, which is still a difference. He is everything else than "powerful", he is just a bit more forgiving in terms of mistakes.

Unhealed wrote:You said that every nation medic should get a scope even if they don't have them in real life. But let's not forget that Project reality is also about asymmetrical balance (becouse there is no symmetry on the real life battlefield), which is far more enjoyable than having everything just mirrored for everyone.

Yes, but the assymetric balance should still be fair. If you nerf one aspect and buff another it sounds fair. But what if those aspects are not perceived as equal by the players? What if one of those aspects is perceived as more important, more fun, etc.?

At the end of the day everyone in PR is a fighter, and often enough I heard the philosophy that everyone in a group is a rifleman at first place, and then something else at the second place, including the medic.

Unhealed wrote:I never encountered a situation when squad lead even thinks about not taking a medic becouse he lacks optics, are you sure you just didn't took it out of your head?

This is because of the obvious best choice. If a squad lead plans to go over the flanks through open terrain, and tells his people to equip long range weapon, he will most likely think "****, the medic has no scope... well...", as of course he would be really stupid to go without a medic. This doesn't change the fact that he has to choose between having all scopes in his squad, or having a medic.

Unhealed wrote:And if someone can't having fun throught teamplay(being a medic from time to time if no one is volunteering) and wants to have fun only through killing then he also can't have fun through being a teamplayer and therefore he should probably just play BF3 instead.

I didn't say only through killing. But killing is still an aspect of the game, and when nobody is injured you still want the feeling to help your team by also engging the enemy. But if you can't tell where he is, since you only see a few pixels, you feel kind of useless.

Unhealed wrote:People are often injured, I mean really often. My last 10 rounds I played only as a medic and with a decent team, and I can't remember a single moment when having a scope was so necessary that we have to sacrifice realism and assymetrical balance and add them for everyone. And I can't remember a single moment when I could have had more fun by having a scope.

You know, people make different experiences, have different taste and preferences, and it's not like you are the prototype of a PR player, your way to play it is the only right way, and thus your taste and preferences should dictate the gameplay of the others.

Unhealed wrote:Who is "us"? Battlefield 3 players? Read KiloJules post on a page 3 and see that you can and should(if we are talking about PR) have fun through the teamplay, not trough kills.
And sorry, I sound like a **** but don't really know how to explain it the other way and fast, this post can be waay longer and I can explain in every detail why are you wrong and should probably play different game, but sorry it's really time consuming to type these huge messages in my non-native language.

It isn't my native language either. But you know what? I don't think you are "wrong", and I am honestly shocked you think in this argument you can be right or wrong. It's about preferences. And don't you dare to tell me what I should play or not, I am the perfect team player, and I do (did, since I am inactive for some time now due to lack of time and a proper machine) play medic a lot. And I my first priority was always keeping my team up. But whenever there was a fight over long range, I felt at a considerable disadvantage without my own fault. The same applies for the specialist, btw., but in his case I can understand it a bit better, since he has a shotgun and thus follows the "CQB-theme".

I did the "medic" part of the medic 100%. And really, I didn't die often, I was carefull. But I felt somewhat limited on the "soldier" part, and I don't understand why this has to be.
And I don't understand why you want to dictate the gameplay of other people. Why can't you let everyone play the way they want? If you enjoy playing medic with ironsights and being at a disadvantage, then feel free and take the kit without scope. But if someone prefers using a scope, then he should be free to do so. HE has to use this rifle, not YOU. You mind your business, he minds his. If he plays like Rambo, it has nothing to do with the scopes, it has to do with the person.

I know you are not from North Korea, since those poor ******** over there are not even allowed to use cell phones, so I don't know where you are from, but we here in the west have the attitude that everyone is free to enjoy himself the way he likes it, unless he is getting in the way of someone else trying to enjoy himself. And I don't see any way how someone else using a scope could get into your way of having fun.

This is the reason why I am strictly for medics being allowed to choose, since most other classes can choose, as well. Otherwise the popularity of certain classes would be lowered without reason.

And perhaps just to add a little thing to explain my opinion further: I also think the entire ironsight implementation in this mod is terrible. For everyone who is playing not on maximum setting, it is impossible to engage on distances over 100m without ironsights. You often can't even see the enemy properly, unlike in real life, where - as I said - your eyes have more than 1024x768 photosensitive cells on your retina. That's why I would prefer a solution like in ArmA, where you can zoom your view. Scope weapons have BUIS, and ironsight weapons have EF, eye focus. And the secondary mode is just always inferior to having chosen the other primary mode. So the BUIS are still worse than having real IS in terms of overview, and the EF still has a little lower zoom and precision than having a scope. But that's just my opinion.

PR is indeed about fun through teamplay, but you can seperate those things nonetheless, because the fun can also origin from other sources.

Other sources? What do you mean? Spawning as an insurgent rifleman, joining a "FREE" squad and running around getting some sick kills? A lot of people is having fun like that, no wonder people think insurgency is broken. If you mean something else - please explain.

And those 12 patches don't make the medic strong, they make him tough at the best, which is still a difference. He is everything else than "powerful", he is just a bit more forgiving in terms of mistakes.

No. They do. Imagine a situation when you have to clear a building filled with the enemies before reviving your friends. Does extra patches is a real help when you are 1 vs 6 in a CQB environment? The answer is obvious I believe.

Yes, but the assymetric balance should still be fair. If you nerf one aspect and buff another it sounds fair. But what if those aspects are not perceived as equal by the players? What if one of those aspects is perceived as more important, more fun, etc.?

It's not a perceiving thing I guess, it's about if there is balance or if there is not. Remove the optics from the majority of the IDF kits - and the outcome of Iron Ridge is still not gonna change enogh for IDF to loose more often becouse Merkava is more protected than a T-72. It will be around 50% for each sides.
Fun? Yes, at least for me(you can't make everyone happy anyway), becouse it's more fun to have a different from other BLUFOR factions gameplay and becouse it's also how they fight in real life.

At the end of the day everyone in PR is a fighter, and often enough I heard the philosophy that everyone in a group is a rifleman at first place, and then something else at the second place, including the medic.

Never heard that philosophy, a rifleman is a rifleman and medic is a medic, they both fight but they have their own roles.
If you are as agressive as a rifleman, a decent squad leader will give that role to someone else or atleast warn you. You are responding to me like I said that a medic should only always hide or something.

This is because of the obvious best choice. If a squad lead plans to go over the flanks through open terrain, and tells his people to equip long range weapon, he will most likely think "****, the medic has no scope... well...",

He should think about a better plan then, if that one is so risky it can fail if a medic will be without a scope.
It's so strange that you guys don't want a challenge where is your fighting spirit?

of course he would be really stupid to go without a medic. This doesn't change the fact that he has to choose between having all scopes in his squad, or having a medic.

What a hell man. If he has to be really stupid to go without a medic that means there is no choice other than taking a medic.

I didn't say only through killing. But killing is still an aspect of the game, and when nobody is injured you still want the feeling to help your team by also engging the enemy. But if you can't tell where he is, since you only see a few pixels, you feel kind of useless.

Well then he can engage those who are not a few pixels and satisfy his blood lust, there are many of those as well. Hell, he can just play a round as a machinegunner to satisfy his blood lust before playing a round as a medic. Why I have to explain such obvious things? I already said all that.

You know, people make different experiences, have different taste and preferences, and it's not like you are the prototype of a PR player, your way to play it is the only right way, and thus your taste and preferences should dictate the gameplay of the others.

Let's say some guy prefer to take a sniper kit only to make some noscope kills, how dare I to say him that there is a better way of playing as a sniper? It's not me dictating how to play certain class, it's a common sense dictating. If someone feel that a medic is born to kill I will ask him to change a role.

I am honestly shocked you think in this argument you can be right or wrong. It's about preferences.

A game is dictating those preferences, the mod is called Project Reality, not Project Gameplay, if it would've been called like that we probably wouldn't had all those same boring(for someone) guns for every kit in a spawn menu. A mod called like that simply can't make things like some people prefer becouse of it's name.
I am kinda shocked too.

If you enjoy playing medic with ironsights and being at a disadvantage, then feel free and take the kit without scope.

Yeah right lol. If a game is too easy for you, you should totaly just limit yourself!
Let's give a one shot kill assault rifles for everyone in PR so then I could try to kill them with a knife!
Overall it's of course just my vision of the game vs your vision, I just want PR to stay the last trully hardcore and alive mulitplayer game(except for arma).

Joker86 wrote: You know, people make different experiences, have different taste and preferences, and it's not like you are the prototype of a PR player, your way to play it is the only right way, and thus your taste and preferences should dictate the gameplay of the others.

And thats what I were talking about adding scope even if I would use it rarely. Fact that I won't use it at all doesn't mean I have to ban other ppl from use it. No offence Unhealed but your post in this thread sound selfish since if you won't use scope anyway why others can't? It won't change medic class for me it will be still unique no matter what weapon/optic it will have. I just don't see point in limiting this way other players from playing how they want.

Scope or not won't change player from "kills seeker" to teamplayer or vice versa.

Toszi wrote:Scope or not won't change player from "kills seeker" to teamplayer or vice versa.

It will, at least it's true for the pub players. About everything else you said, no offense, just read my posts again becouse I already have said everything.
Also one more reason to keep every medic from having a scope is a marksman, from my experience people are rarely take it, while MG and a HAT/LAT or grenadier is almost mandatory. And if every medic gonna get a scope, marksman will be not extinct only on a servers where people join "FREE" squads and take it just for personal fun.
Not good right?

Uh... What? Are you saying that less people will take marksman kits if the medic gets a magnified scope?

Unhealed wrote:Other sources? What do you mean? Spawning as an insurgent rifleman, joining a "FREE" squad and running around getting some sick kills? A lot of people is having fun like that, no wonder people think insurgency is broken. If you mean something else - please explain.

Everything which is not directly an interaction with your team (examples for direct interaction would be healing, giving ammo, driving armed vehicles, building FOBs, etc.), which also includes shooting enemies. You shoot on your own, your teammates don't help you aiming. Yes, when and where you shoot someone is determined by your team, but the shooting itself is your thing. And shooting is only one aspect, I don't say it's everything.

Unhealed wrote:No. They do. Imagine a situation when you have to clear a building filled with the enemies before reviving your friends. Does extra patches is a real help when you are 1 vs 6 in a CQB environment? The answer is obvious I believe.

Yes, the answer is obvious. The patches do not kill those enemies for you, they just make you tougher to kill.

And you imagine a situation where your squad was approaching the bunkers in Kashan desert and got taken down, and you are the only one surviving, having to engage 6 enemies on 300+ meters with your unscoped rifle. Are those extra patches a real help?

You see, I can play this game that way as well. You tend not to make objective points.

Unhealed wrote:It's not a perceiving thing I guess, it's about if there is balance or if there is not. Remove the optics from the majority of the IDF kits - and the outcome of Iron Ridge is still not gonna change enogh for IDF to loose more often becouse Merkava is more protected than a T-72. It will be around 50% for each sides.
Fun? Yes, at least for me(you can't make everyone happy anyway), becouse it's more fun to have a different from other BLUFOR factions gameplay and becouse it's also how they fight in real life.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. I am talking about the experience of playing Pr, and you suddenly turn the topic to balance on a particular map!

If you feel like "Fuck! There is no fun trying to hit this one pixel over there with my rifle!", then balance, reality and all the other stuff are of no interest, because at this moment the game is no fun at all, and it adds another reason for the player to quit. Fun IS number 1 priority in every case!

Unhealed wrote:Never heard that philosophy, a rifleman is a rifleman and medic is a medic, they both fight but they have their own roles.
If you are as agressive as a rifleman, a decent squad leader will give that role to someone else or atleast warn you. You are responding to me like I said that a medic should only always hide or something.

Especially if your team has been taken out on long range, you can't do anything else than hide.

And here is a link for you: AUSA. A Sgt.Maj. is backing me up. And this is like the scond google result, bet you will find more.

Unhealed wrote:He should think about a better plan then, if that one is so risky it can fail if a medic will be without a scope.
It's so strange that you guys don't want a challenge where is your fighting spirit?

Often you don't have a choice as SL, like on Kashan Desert. And the challenge is in engaging others, but I want it to be fair. I am not one of those who enjoy being the underdog, I just want a fair fight.

Unhealed wrote:What a hell man. If he has to be really stupid to go without a medic that means there is no choice other than taking a medic.

And this is exactly what I am complaining about if a SL wants his squad to be focused on long range fighting.

Unhealed wrote:Well then he can engage those who are not a few pixels and satisfy his blood lust, there are many of those as well. Hell, he can just play a round as a machinegunner to satisfy his blood lust before playing a round as a medic. Why I have to explain such obvious things? I already said all that.

Bloodlust, you say. I just say people shold be allowed to defend themselves properly. This has nothing to do with bloodlust, and again proposing to change the class doesn't hlep the discussion at all.

Unhealed wrote:Let's say some guy prefer to take a sniper kit only to make some noscope kills, how dare I to say him that there is a better way of playing as a sniper? It's not me dictating how to play certain class, it's a common sense dictating. If someone feel that a medic is born to kill I will ask him to change a role.

A sniper has a certain task, and this task is to take down enemies with precise fire. Shooting unscoped is contraproductive, because it is lowering your precision, which means your example is bad. A medic's task is a) being a rifleman and b) healing up others. Having a scope to shoot better is not contraproductive against any of those tasks. And in situations where the team is engaging an enemy over long distance without having suffered casualties yet, or when the team is down and the medic has to get them up again on his own, he is often put at a considerable disadvantage without scope.

Before you try it: surpressive fire is nice, but aimed fire is better, and you can give surpressive fire with a scoped rifle, too, I see no logic binding the task of surpressive fire to the medic.

Unhealed wrote:A game is dictating those preferences, the mod is called Project Reality, not Project Gameplay, if it would've been called like that we probably wouldn't had all those same boring(for someone) guns for every kit in a spawn menu. A mod called like that simply can't make things like some people prefer becouse of it's name.
I am kinda shocked too.

This is a rather cheap try to make a point, as the name of the game doesn't tell you anything. It could have been called "Blood, Tears and Sweat", and what would have told you this? It is still a game, not a simultation, for various reasons, and the devs stated that, I mean, even vanilla ArmA2 is more realistic in a lot of aspects than PR. So I don't take this as a valid argument and stick to the general rule that in a game fun (stemming from gameplay) is by far the most important factor.

Unhealed wrote:Yeah right lol. If a game is too easy for you, you should totaly just limit yourself!
Let's give a one shot kill assault rifles for everyone in PR so then I could try to kill them with a knife!

This is not what I said. And in fact you are supporting me in this one, unless I misunderstood something. You first say "I like the challenge of not having a scope" then I say "How about letting everyone choose, and if you want a challenge just don't choose a scope?" and then you are like "Oh, yeah, of course, why don't you just let me run with a knife against a rifle".

I am really confused.

And you still haven't answered me how other medics being able to choose scopes would inlfict your personal gameplay.

saXoni wrote:Uh... What? Are you saying that less people will take marksman kits if the medic gets a magnified scope?

Yes. What's a point in it when everyone can shoot just fine on any distance? Even now MG is almost always prefered over a marksman rifle.

Unhealed wrote:Yes. What's a point in it when everyone can shoot just fine on any distance? Even now MG is almost always prefered over a marksman rifle.

easy there tiger, marksman is a fantastic kit. It might be just me but I'm not really a fan of MG's and will ALWAYS opt for marksman (depends of maps) which on open maps is a much better tool than an MG IMO.

Tit4Tat wrote:easy there tiger, marksman is a fantastic kit. It might be just me but I'm not really a fan of MG's and will ALWAYS opt for marksman (depends of maps) which on open maps is a much better tool than an MG IMO.

IMO

just me

Well I was talking about how it is in general.

I just want to add that I want the medic only having the same rifle like the rifleman (perhaps the carbine version if available).

Following your theory, people would already prefer rifleman over marksman. But they don't. A marksman rifle is still considerably better, with higher precision, bipod and often enough higher caliber.

Unhealed wrote:Yes. What's a point in it when everyone can shoot just fine on any distance? Even now MG is almost always prefered over a marksman rifle.

A marksman rifle is a lot more lethal than a regular rifle with a scope. The "max" distance for an ACOG (etc.) is around 250 meters. A marksman rifle can operate fine up to at least 600 meters.

One of the medic kits (std or alt) should have a scope because scopes are useful at ranges 75m or over and irons are useful at anything under 100m. Both are equally useless at under 10m where it is far more efficient to go full auto and blast away. To rebuttal against somebody who will argue that they are amazing shots with iron sights killing people at 300m with one shot not everybody is that good with irons you're just good or very lucky.

Unhealed wrote: No. They do. Imagine a situation when you have to clear a building filled with the enemies before reviving your friends. Does extra patches is a real help when you are 1 vs 6 in a CQB environment? The answer is obvious I believe.

What? You just proved yourself wrong again. unhealed don't ever become a lawyer because you are just contradicting yourself at every turn. I agree with Toszi, you sound a little selfish in the way you are restricting other players just so you can have a challenge or something? No one is suggesting that they want an acog added to EVERY gun for EVERY class, all people want is an option to put on a magnifying scope for the medic gun (whatever it may be) on selected bluefor factions that is within the realm of realism. For example maybe put an acog on the usmc m16 medic class as that fits with how they do it in real life. If Israel don't put acog's on their medic class tavor then don't have it.

Unhealed wrote:Well I was talking about how it is in general.

You are missing the deployed mode and extra damage.

And as always; you can choose ironsight if you feel so masochistic.
Other players prefer to have a better choice for certain situations(or rather most situations, when BUIS is working).

In BF2, Medic is my favorite, I think lots of ppl share the same feeling.

In surgency map, medic with a scope would be too powerful in long range, and somehow depromote teamwork.
If any one have a kit can kill easy and easier to stay alive.
Then GG.