Project Reality Forums

Lol, okay CAS I surrender

I actually completely agree with you on all of those points, just pointing out the current situation in PR in relation to this vid.

Then you should be looking forward to Combined Arms 2.0.

Alex6714 wrote:You know, about the deviation, I will say 2 things:

1) 0,6 kind of deviation, very accurate = I am much more willing to open fire constantly on the enemy, its likely a shot will hit but I can keep firing accurately.

2) 0.8, 0.85 deviation = best approach is to just wait for an accurate shot and boom. This is because of the short view distance (easy to take an accurate shot after the wait) and the deviation added from moving/shooting.

And add into this fact that as said, people won´t fear fire, medics are too effective, even when limited, rallies are near also.

Solution imo:

1) Deviation a la 0.6 with prone diving penalties 1.5 patch will bring and a very slight movement penalty.

2) View distance raised.

3) Revive removed (it already takes 2/3 shots to kill someone, if you get hit once, just pull back and get medical attention.


Now someone will come and say "well thats just going to remove teamwork".

No.

As we have found out in combined arms, much more deadly and realistic weapons tends to make it more necessary to work together and more importantly will make it fun to do so. You are the owner of a deadly weapon so not completely useless but you will want that extra help and to help the others. Especially since increased view distance makes seeing things more difficult and the deadliness of the enemy means you really need that support.

I can vouch for the combined arms statement about bringing more teamwork given realistic equipment.

My example would be the Apache vs Tunguska in Desert Rats 32 (Kashan 32) in CA (combined arms). In CA,

Apache has:
1) A-G radar which allows it do see armor targets from very far away.
2) Guided hellfires that lock onto armor targets with no delay from 2km, since all armor has laser targets on them, so no lasing required
3) Both pilot and gunner have magified FLIR optics to help find targets on radar, visually

Tunguska has:
1) A-A radar which allows it to see and ENGAGE air threats from very far away. Sometimes even beyond view distance.
2) Homing cannons that will shred any aircraft within 1 second

That all sounds like an even match up right? No!

Victory Determining factor:
1) In CA, flares no longer have Heat signatures attached to them. This means that aircraft can't just sit there and pop flares to automatically distract the missile for a sure miss. In CA, you'd have to take evasive maneuvers, and THAT won't guarantee survival. Plus, the homing shells of the tunguska are almost 100% effective if aircraft is in range and NO COUNTERMEASURES can make them miss.

What this ^^ means is that in a head-on battle the Tunguska outmatches the Apache by MANY MANY FOLDS!

So, according to PR's current logic, these assets seem TOO POWERFUL in their own respects right? And would discourage "teamwork" because 2 people or 1 person in Apache and Tunguska, respectively, would "PWNZORS" everything else, right? Wrong!

Now, Apaches have to rely on friendly armor to take out Tunguskas, and Tunguskas will need protection from friendly tanks against enemy tanks. TEAMWORK right there!

CanuckCommander wrote: Now, Apaches have to rely on friendly armor to take out Tunguskas, and Tunguskas will need protection from friendly tanks against enemy tanks. TEAMWORK right there!

Well not only that, but apaches will have to work together, and along with scout helicopters also. Tanks will be almost defenseless without aa support and vice versa.

Alex6714 wrote:Well not only that, but apaches will have to work together, and along with scout helicopters also. Tanks will be almost defenseless without aa support and vice versa.

Oh yea those scout choppers are friggin deadly. They can easily sneak up on an apache or havok. Combined with deadly 20mm cannons or 3800 rpm miniguns, the scouts are deadly chopper killers.

Just wait till I get em stingers. There will be much lulz.

Well thats a nice point.
But only in a small community compared to PR.

Within a small number of people with the same likes, directions etc sounds wonderful.
But within the large scale of PR is somehow utopia.
More the people = more opinions, likes and of course retards.

One of these retards runs, takes the APACHE and crashes it during warmup.
The tank (wich is more deadly than PR's tanks) is unstopable now.
My team is doomed because of one retard.
Realistic of course. But with fun factor = 0.

We have to think that every change is addresed to a large community.
Its not only how i would play.
I dont play the game alone. And not everybody sees the game like me...

Well its the same in PR tbh.

I think we can all agree the players really make the teamwork, so why force it in unrealistic ways with limits?

Realistic teamwork will come with the right people with realistic environments.

Forced teamwork just creates the illusion of teamwork with people who aren´t really helping much.

The only reason theres more kills in PR than reality is because people in PR are generally not highly trained proffesional soldiers. They try to kill the enemy and therefore put themselves in the line of fire.

If PR consisted of highly trained men there would be less casualties.

The Taliban take heavy casualties, at Sangin they found a mass grave of 200 Taliban soldiers, the Taliban are trained soldiers, and they take heavy casualties.

It's not the system of PR that makes there be more casualties, it's the skill of the Players, it's not meant to be insulting, just true.

Simple fact: players will do what they want. I can just give them the tools.

Alex6714 wrote:Well its the same in PR tbh.

I think we can all agree the players really make the teamwork, so why force it in unrealistic ways with limits?

Realistic teamwork will come with the right people with realistic environments.

Forced teamwork just creates the illusion of teamwork with people who aren´t really helping much.

No its not.
The more deadly the weapon the less chanche to survive because of others mistakes...

Yes i agree that with the right people you can have the right gameplay.
And with more people the more % to find people that agree with you but also the more % to find people that disagree with you.

Also "forced" is something relativ. And somehow connected to every game.
You are forced to avoid the ghosts in pacman. Otherwise you lost.
Whats the different if you have to avoid a missile?
Its a game.
You are forced to do something to win.

Well technically you can still get hit by the missile. But the missile isn't another person. The missile does the same thing every time. Strangers you've never met are completely random. That's why 90% of devs only play with other devs.

Nemus wrote:No its not.
The more deadly the weapon the less chanche to survive because of others mistakes...

Have you tried?

People will always make these mistakes in online gaming, so why the unrealistic limits to force teamwork then, if in the end it doesn´t work? Why not allow people to take advantage of working together in a realistic situation?

If you don´t work as a team with deadly weapons = you get annihilated by those who do however you don´t depend directly on the rest of the team, so its less frustrating with a bunch of monkeys as teammates. Although that said, teamwork will create a big advantage.

Nemus wrote:No its not.
The more deadly the weapon the less chanche to survive because of others mistakes...

Yes i agree that with the right people you can have the right gameplay.
And with more people the more % to find people that agree with you but also the more % to find people that disagree with you.

Also "forced" is something relativ. And somehow connected to every game.
You are forced to avoid the ghosts in pacman. Otherwise you lost.
Whats the different if you have to avoid a missile?
Its a game.
You are forced to do something to win.

Not sure if your example and arguments logically holds here. If anything, I think your analogy is a bit far stretched.

You are forced to do something to win.

You are NOT forced to do ANYTHING to win, just as you are not forced to play the game in the first place. What many of us, including CAS and Alex, are trying to say is that:

1) Give players realistic equipment and conditions. If these items are deadly vehicles and guns, then so be it! It is project REALITY after all.

2) Players can do whatever they please! That is of course, winning and losing do not matter to them.

3) Since we can all agree that most people would like to win and teamwork is a process that will allow them to win, people will start working together based on WILL, not something that is forced upon them by the game.

If you have forgotten, let me give you an example of forced TW in PR. For instance, Planes NEED infantry to lase targets to accurately use their powerful bombs/missiles. In RL, planes do NOT need ground lasers to strike. Planes are deadly by themselves.

If planes are made realistically, INF would need planes for CAS against armor targets. And planes would need INF to spot AA locations. This would be teamwork based on WILL. In order to reach a common goal, which is to win, people willingly rely on and work with one another.

Let's move back on topic. Nemus if you wanna talk about this move it to our forums or make a thread here but I don't wanna get pwnd by a mod.

Nemus wrote:Well thats a nice point.
But only in a small community compared to PR.

Within a small number of people with the same likes, directions etc sounds wonderful.
But within the large scale of PR is somehow utopia.
More the people = more opinions, likes and of course retards.

One of these retards runs, takes the APACHE and crashes it during warmup.
The tank (wich is more deadly than PR's tanks) is unstopable now.
My team is doomed because of one retard.
Realistic of course. But with fun factor = 0.

We have to think that every change is addresed to a large community.
Its not only how i would play.
I dont play the game alone. And not everybody sees the game like me...

If you cant kill it leave it, besides you will have the javelin or H-AT eryx and the likes. Besides how many maps will actually have that sort of load out. Your statement also fails as you have forgotten your own tanks and AA that also can attack the enemy tanks/chopper. And of a idiot crashes the apache now whats the difference? Its not like your precious inf sq cant get tank AA support and the tanks cant lock on inf.

CAS its mentioned in this topic that the weaponry must be more deadly to have situations like these in first post.
I stated my opinion for this.
I didnt montioned other mods.
So i dont think i ve been of topic.

Of course i dont decide this. If it happened i am sorry.

CAS_117 wrote: + 50% VD on long axis of map - Reviving - Rally spawn

= Win

@amasing_retard: Just lower deviation, remove all spawns except firebases and main base. That should pretty much do it for fear factor.

Epipen stab= Spawn back at rally is GREAT idea. OR maybe on Firebase.
No stab= Dead and respawn on main base as new soldier.
Or could be no stab= Longer dead time.

For deviation, You can lower it. But before doing that, we have to change the distance marker to show more meters for distance for short range. Currently, soldier at 100 meter away looks about 200-250 meter in real life. By changing 100 meter marker to 250 meter, and lowering deviation will give 2 MOA for M16. See? This will work. It also makes map feel alot more bigger.

Yeah, as many of you stated above, realistic behaviour can't be done. Even if this game was good as war simulator, you can't die in simulator or get tired from walking. Maybe closest thing we can ever do is make it no respawn the whole round.

CanuckCommander wrote: 1) In CA, flares no longer have Heat signatures attached to them. This means that aircraft can't just sit there and pop flares to automatically distract the missile for a sure miss. In CA, you'd have to take evasive maneuvers, and THAT won't guarantee survival. Plus, the homing shells of the tunguska are almost 100% effective if aircraft is in range and NO COUNTERMEASURES can make them miss.

What is the point of flares then?

Or just have them respawn at bases where reinforcements would be delivered in reality.

Kirra wrote:What is the point of flares then?

Same as always. You just need a lot more of them as well as evasion now.