Project Reality Forums

Dr2B Rudd wrote:The only thing that actually PISSES ME OFF a little is the removal of assets off maps, when a new layer would have done the job fine. <- if the DEVs don't want to play Qwai with a tank on it...they can play on a server with teh 32 layer (APCs) Or Karbala, could have added the apache to a 32 layer also. I might just make the layers myself and PM them to DEVs to see what they think...but at the end of the day PR is still the best. (though my copy of ArmA2 is coming today )

I am in fact glad that heavy assets get removed more often and I think maps like kashan and qinling show why it is good.

32 players and thousands of tanks and air vehicles dont go together with 4+ flags and the need for infantry to cap flags.

Such heavy assets maps should have 1 or 2 flags max with a large cap radius and nearly no need for infantry.

And maps like kerbala are perfectly fine with LBs imo. I really dont get the run for apaches all the time I read here... Most of the time it is down and taking away 2+ players waiting for it.
Also insurgency maps dont need many assets for bluefor as they need to FIND AND DESTROY CACHES and dont bomb the shit out of insurgents and get 100 of kills. More boots on the ground mean more eyes to find the caches...
Many BLUEFOR fans play it wrong imo, that's why I play insurgents only from now on...


Regarding Qwai: For me it was the perfect example how asymetric assets can play out fine.
US with fast movement capabilities (LBs and HMMVS) and PLA with slow and heavy assets.
It was awesome really... Now it is just a map like any other map.

waldo_ii wrote:What I'm reading here is that OP wants hard realism, but is too lazy to buy and download ArmA, so he wants his free PR to be ArmA. Anyone who has been on these forums for a period longer than a month knows that weapons cannot be realistically handled in the BF2 engine, and deviation is what is used to represent the multiple variables that affect weapon control. On the second point he has, I'm pretty sure that an M1A2 or CR2 could snipe a dime at 1km, then turn around and engage low-flying aircraft. The targeting systems on modern tanks are quite powerful. If anything, tanks are not as powerful as they should be. They are limited by human controls, low view distances, and a lack of infrared or other targeting modes. Aircraft cannot be realistically portrayed in BF2, and I think PR has pretty much gone as far as it can go. CA certainly has. I'll get back to lasing.

The fourth point ties into what my vision of PR is. OP is demanding that PR be hard realism, taking the name of the mod to its most literal meaning possible. He wants true, realistic portrayal of every aspect on the battlefield as to create a "realistic gameplay." The way I view PR is a mod created for teamwork, and I see tons of that every time I go onto my favorite server. I believe that the PR team have used realism as a tool in order to create a strong teamwork-oriented atmosphere. Sure, jets could probably find their own targets in real life, but the lasing technique created by the PR team represents something done in real life and requires cooperation between the man on the ground and the pilot in the sky, thus spawning teamwork. In real life, you don't stab a guy who got shot in the face with an epipen either, but this arcadey-style medic system spawns squad cohesion. The squad sticks together and thus works together, meaning teamwork. The purpose of this mod is to create a strong teamwork-oriented atmosphere. Hell, it might just be realistic in that. I haven't seen a single other game where players stick together like they do in PR, not even in ArmA, the most realistic game I know.

I agree.

people arnt ever gonna be satisfied. its just like with movies and games, even if you egress and adopt an old way, some people will still cry about it. they need to keep the balance between realism and gameplay.

HunterMed wrote:I am in fact glad that heavy assets get removed more often and I think maps like kashan and qinling show why it is good.

I enjoy the 16 layer for Kashan and Quinling as well. But I want more variation, differnet gameplay dynamics. Making new maps is hard and slow, making new layers is not that hard.

Noobofthenight wrote:I agree with this and the deviation.

Personally, I Liked the instagib 0.7 weapons... They were accurate enough for you to be terrified when you got shot at, now, your best move if you take fire is to actually just sprint in random directions until you find hard cover. It still amuses me that people hit the dirt when taking sniper fire, this is exactly what gets you killed.

And yeah, the removal of assets is a seriously bad idea in my opinion.

If I wanted to play infantry combat, I'd go play the insurgency mod, for example.

And Arma2 has it's problems Rudd It is not very user friendly. I like the look of it though!

that is somewhat realistic isnt it? if you're being shot at out in the open you're gonna want to run for some cover. IRL soldiers wouldnt just drop to the ground in the middle of the road if they get shot at, they duck and run for the nearest cover.

waldo_ii wrote:What I'm reading here is that OP wants hard realism, but is too lazy to buy and download ArmA, so he wants his free PR to be ArmA. Anyone who has been on these forums for a period longer than a month knows that weapons cannot be realistically handled in the BF2 engine, and deviation is what is used to represent the multiple variables that affect weapon control. On the second point he has, I'm pretty sure that an M1A2 or CR2 could snipe a dime at 1km, then turn around and engage low-flying aircraft. The targeting systems on modern tanks are quite powerful. If anything, tanks are not as powerful as they should be. They are limited by human controls, low view distances, and a lack of infrared or other targeting modes. Aircraft cannot be realistically portrayed in BF2, and I think PR has pretty much gone as far as it can go. CA certainly has. I'll get back to lasing.

The fourth point ties into what my vision of PR is. OP is demanding that PR be hard realism, taking the name of the mod to its most literal meaning possible. He wants true, realistic portrayal of every aspect on the battlefield as to create a "realistic gameplay." The way I view PR is a mod created for teamwork, and I see tons of that every time I go onto my favorite server. I believe that the PR team have used realism as a tool in order to create a strong teamwork-oriented atmosphere. Sure, jets could probably find their own targets in real life, but the lasing technique created by the PR team represents something done in real life and requires cooperation between the man on the ground and the pilot in the sky, thus spawning teamwork. In real life, you don't stab a guy who got shot in the face with an epipen either, but this arcadey-style medic system spawns squad cohesion. The squad sticks together and thus works together, meaning teamwork. The purpose of this mod is to create a strong teamwork-oriented atmosphere. Hell, it might just be realistic in that. I haven't seen a single other game where players stick together like they do in PR, not even in ArmA, the most realistic game I know.


If you want realism like you imagine, suck it up and shell out the $50 for ArmA 2. That seems to be the game for you.

I think if I want to play Arma, I would not even bother to post here. I would just go play it. However, I love PR and I want to help improve it!

CanuckCommander wrote:I think if I want to play Arma, I would not even bother to post here. I would just go play it. However, I love PR and I want to help improve it!

as i've said before however, the devs want realistic behavior, and yes it is true that realistic environments bring it about however, this stretches far beyond just weapons, vehicles and assets, there must be the simulation of life for that to work and above all else death. untill these things can be simulated within a game creating realistic behavior through a realistic environment will not be possible. these are the limits of human technology, that's why the devs use functional realism.

without fear of death nor feeling the value of life, how can you expect each player to act as they were there for real? in game your life is worth 1 ticket and 30 or so seconds, much less than reality. in life you fear death because we do not know what comes after it, perhaps paradise? hell? simply rotting in the ground and the existence of your being disappears forever? will anyone remember you? in game we get a spawn timer and a map. OOOOoooh scary.

i don't mention respawning as an issue because some religions believe in reincarnation...lol *brings up spawn menu, clicks on kit "chipmunk" *

CanuckCommander wrote:I think if I want to play Arma, I would not even bother to post here. I would just go play it. However, I love PR and I want to help improve it!

Then try actually suggestiong something instead of saying simply I don't like this...

jigsaw-uk wrote:Then try actually suggestiong something instead of saying simply I don't like this...

EVERYONE PLEASE GO READ THE FIRST POST AGAIN. I HAVE REWRITTEN IT. (caps to stand out sorry).

Maybe you didn't read carefully, but I did suggest something. I clearly labeled it SUGGESTION even in my original post. I suggested that PR should not trade too much realism for artificial teamwork.

CanuckCommander wrote:Maybe you didn't read carefully, but I did suggest something. I clearly labeled it SUGGESTION even in my original post. I suggested that PR should not trade too much realism for artificial teamwork.

Again, you have simply written a wall of text saying what you think is wrong without offering a substantive viewpoint on how this can change for the better (and yes I did read the whole thing).

Your "suggestion" makes no sense and takes no account of the realities facing the PR team working on the BF2 engine. Many things in PR cannot be reflected with utmost accuracy as they would in RL due to the limitations of the engine. You specify weapons handling as one of these things to "simplify" but you clearly don't understand that deviation was implemented to simulate the complexities of weapons handling, as accurate weapon handling cannot be implemented on the BF2 engine. You also say that all vehicles should be as realistic as possible without worrying about balance but if that was the case then I assure you that gameplay which is another high priority for this mod would just fly out the window.

Now I agree that combined arms have some great ideas and the sooner we get more of them in the better, but apart from that even your re-written post is simply a confused rant about what you think is wrong with PR without offering anything to improve it.

Tirak wrote:Yet another rant post about how PR is going in the wrong direction

The simple fact of the matter is Project Reality has chosen to focus on teamwork instead of realism. All of the changes made, deviation, suppression ect. have been made so that you have to rely on your squad instead of going around rambo. As for Air and Armour combat, these things are constantly being tweeked. In fact, if you've noticed, Armour has been given deviation on both the main and coax guns, so whining about how tanks can hit a dime at a mile means you haven't tanked in some time. Furthermore, with heavy assets it is very difficult to make them asymmetrically balanced without still having balance.

Here's an idea, come up with ways to actually help instead of blanket statements like "Make everything realistic!!!!!" because that won't happen due to engine limitations and the fact there is a spawn system.

Resuggestion,
Please use the Search Function and the *** List before posting suggestions.

Yet another mindless rant about people trying to share the opinion and suggestion on the game. Tirak, PR is not a dictatorship. It's not Nazi Project Reality. People have a voice and are allowed to share it. If you don't think his suggestion is accurate than try debating the flaws of it.

Last I heard, the name of the MOD was Project Reality. Not Project Teamwork. Focusing purely on Teamwork rather than reality is false advertising. While the game is far more realistic than all other BF2 mods and BF2 itself. All the guy is suggesting is that PR focuses more on the reality and leave the teamwork to develope through the realism modification such as more accurate weapons = more players feeling the need to use cover to move around. Just like in real-life and cover each others movements.

In Real-life, team work is needed to survive combat and complete missions. By implementing reality, why wouldn't players pick up on that?

Demonic wrote: Last I heard, the name of the MOD was Project Reality. Not Project Teamwork. Focusing purely on Teamwork rather than reality is false advertising. While the game is far more realistic than all other BF2 mods and BF2 itself. All the guy is suggesting is that PR focuses more on the reality and leave the teamwork to develope through the realism modification such as more accurate weapons = more players feeling the need to use cover to move around. Just like in real-life and cover each others movements.

In Real-life, team work is needed to survive combat and complete missions. By implementing reality, why wouldn't players pick up on that?

I wish I were as articulate as you are. Man you make my points so clear. Thx eh?

If you make overpowered jets/tanks/helos you will not get teamwork automatically. I'm sure 25% of the PR player base would just use the jet without any teamwork at all.

Brummy wrote:If you make overpowered jets/tanks/helos you will not get teamwork automatically. I'm sure 25% of the PR player base would just use the jet without any teamwork at all.

Overpowered? Relative to PR yes. Not to RL though. How about realistically-powered?

Yes the assets would get the love, but who said INF isn't getting love as well? Javelins + manpads will give INF a fighting chance against aircrafts and tanks. And yes, these weapons will kill in 1 hit, not 2, not 3 as it currently is in PR.

Here's my point though. If those PR players use assets without teamwork, they will most likely lose to a team that does teamwork. I'm sure after a few rounds of losing, people will do whatever it takes to win, and in this case it'll be teamwork.

I just want to make it clear that it is wrong to have of this common misconception that "Deadly Assets = Bad Gameplay."

CanuckCommander wrote:Overpowered? Relative to PR yes. Not to RL though. How about realistically-powered?

Yes the assets would get the love, but who said INF isn't getting love as well? Javelins + manpads will give INF a fighting chance against aircrafts and tanks. And yes, these weapons will kill in 1 hit, not 2, not 3 as it currently is in PR.

Here's my point though. If those PR players use assets without teamwork, they will most likely lose to a team that does teamwork. I'm sure after a few rounds of losing, people will do whatever it takes to win, and in this case it'll be teamwork.

I just want to make it clear that it is wrong to have of this common misconception that "Deadly Assets = Bad Gameplay."

I indeed meant overpowered in PR.

I'm not talking about who gets the love, etc. Fact is, how often do you see an A-10 used properly in a pub? I haven't seen it very often.

Now if you make a realistically powered Apache, A-10, people will not use it with teamwork or realism or whatever. They will just rush at the assets with their mighty pilot kits and try to kill everything they see with their leet weapons..

The scale of the maps and the player numbers available really do mean that Real-real-realism isn't sensible. Arbetary conservatively calculated missused statistics show that the ratio of Iraqi casualties to Allied air power during the Gulf War would be equivable to one jet for every 120 people. Not 4 jets per 64, or whatever. Engagement ranges are tiny on PR. The engine simply isn't up to the task of fullscale war.
Compromises HAVE to be made to account for the engine. The compromises that have been made, I feel, are pretty damn good.

Brummy, at times I think like that too. "Is PR:CA exemplifying such good, realistic teamwork purely because of the vehicle and infantry changes, or does the fact that the players who play it with mumble (or TS as the case is atm) are just naturally more teamwork inclined than pubbers affect it at all?"

I believe it's a bit of both, personally, but in that case I guess all the "asset whores" who play it aren't the lone-wolfing kind some forum goers have taken us to be

Now... On to the rest of the post. (WARNING, WALL OF TEXT)

In lieu of going into a huge history of why my opinions are such and how they've evolved (I just deleted about three long paragraphs of text ), I'll get straight to the point. Project Reality is an amazing game, and the R-team–Devs, Cons, testers, Mods (And yes, even Coms )–all deserve a pat on the back, e-cookies, hookers and blow, or w/e for their accomplishments. To have evolved for over 4 and a half yearsand come to this has taken alot of work, especially considering no one's getting paid for their work. However, there mare some things I have objections with, and somethings I really, really think need to be improved.

Point by point wise, I'll start with deviation.

THANK YOU for learning the lessons of 0.8. The deviation there was horrible, not to the point that it was unplayble, but that playing it involved sneaking with your squad within 50 meters at least of the enemy before even attempting to open fire.

I really enjoyed 0.85 deviation, though I think that the deviation after having fired a shot should be reduced to about 2/3s of a second from what it is now, and that deviation time could be reduced slightly, but I've got no problems with the current minimum deviation.

As of 0.86, the deviation on LMGs is perfect, the scopes are great, and I think they are one of the best things to have happened to pr in a while. Because of this, though, I think rifles should be given a smaller minimum deviation and deployment time. Nothing drastic, but they should get a small improvement in this category.

Ok, done. Onto tanks.

I'm not too unhappy with tanks. For the majority they are fine, but I have to say the WASD control, stabalization, and Flir should be immediately, and they would improve tank warfare considerably.

I'd also say that Field of Vision should then by upped to at least 1500 meters on some maps, since I've found that that's one of the big contributing factors to having their crew decide for themselves to travel as a convoy. The other reason brings me to my last point,

Aircraft.

Currently, pr aircraft are severely limited in their potency. Yet, at the same time, their survivability is outrageous when they fly over enemy AAs if they know they are there.

I'd like to BVR missiles with radar, AG radar, and Fire and Forget missiles being pilot operated.

I realise many people have played the "teamwork" card, but it hasn't reduced teamwork. If anything, it's increased it. Tanks and AA alike have been forced to cooperate to a common goal. However, that would be impossible if flares remained as they are.

Flare count should be upped, but reduced in effectiveness dreastically. By this I mean use Combined Arms' way of modeling them, with the carrier defense mechanism brought into them. Against any competent AA team, the Aircraft are now extremely vulnerable, to the point that if they manage to get away once, it's bec ause they dumped all their flares and were flying a few clicks off in the distance already.

Now, if any aircraft wants to operate safely, they'll still need to be called in by friendly players in order to survive unkown threats. However, rather than being called in to make their ordnances at all useful, they're being called in to make them useful on targets that they wouldn't be able to find on their own without dying.

To sum it up, Infantry mechanics still experience problems, but they are often minor, and the overall system is pretty good. It's my opinion that the changes I've suggested should be given some thought and tweaked accordingly.

Heavy assets (in which I've lumped tanks, IFVs, APCs, and AA vehicles) have a fairly decent base, but could be changed in a realistic fashion to encourage teamwork.

Lastly, Aircraft (I've also once again generalized helicopters and planes) should both get their realistic potency. This realism, which is unrightly called as a card discouraging teamwork, actually improves it in so many areas. They are the biggest losers in PR, and get very little attention paid to them in each build, though they need it the most.

McLuv wrote:Brummy, at times I think like that too. "Is PR:CA exemplifying such good, realistic teamwork purely because of the vehicle and infantry changes, or does the fact that the players who play it with mumble (or TS as the case is atm) are just naturally more teamwork inclined than pubbers affect it at all?"

I believe it's a bit of both, personally, but in that case I guess all the "asset whores" who play it aren't the lone-wolfing kind some forum goers have taken us to be

Now... On to the rest of the post. (WARNING, WALL OF TEXT)

I'm not talking about asset whores or anything, It's the fact that CA at this point isn't really the same as pubbing in PR. CA players all visit the forums, and are all mostly around here for some time.

However, in a regular PR Pub server you get these newer asset whores straight out of vBF2 who just aren't thinking the same

I realise many people have played the "teamwork" card, but it hasn't reduced teamwork. If anything, it's increased it. Tanks and AA alike have been forced to cooperate to a common goal. However, that would be impossible if flares remained as they are.

It hasn't reduced because lasing was introduced, if PR's air assets would now obtain their full ability, then I believe that pubbing on Kashan, Qinling, etc. will fail horribly. Just look at transport helos. 2 minutes into the game and at least half the helos will have crashed. I played Kashan a few days ago and this F-16 pilot suddenly flew down into north bunkers, in a right angle.

I still think that pubbers will just rush to the planes and use them without the required teamwork for it to be efficient.

I know what you mean, but I don't think it'll be any more forgiving of them. It doesn't allow planes to go on their own without any support, it encourages support of each other, just through different means.

And yes, players who don't want to work as a team aren't beneficial, and will end up loosing... always.

The Project Reality team is monitoring the Combined Arms mod closely. We understand your concerns, CanuckCommander, and much of what you have described is what we understand as the acceptable median between cooperation, fun, and realism that we can achieve. Should a workable proof of concept come out of the Combined Arms mod, we will investigate and determine whether it fits into the scheme of Project Reality gameplay: that also abides by the rules we have set down.

I would address each of your concerns individually, but all of them have been discussed time and again with no general consensus on the best course of action. Just keep in mind that we are not twiddling our thumbs and we are constantly trying to improve gameplay and the overall experience for Project Reality players.

Brummy wrote:I'm not talking about asset whores or anything, It's the fact that CA at this point isn't really the same as pubbing in PR. CA players all visit the forums, and are all mostly around here for some time.

This is something we have to consider. Combined Arms may work and be fun in a controlled environment, but so is Checkers. Now play Checkers with a 4-year old. I am by no means relating the average PR player to a 4-year old, but factoring in the relative complexities of the aforementioned games, I believe it is an adequate metaphor.