Project Reality Forums

dont get me wrong i enjoy using the LMG it's fun. However for the small amount of people of the servers then its ridiculous. As you can just snipe with this thing and there arent enough insurgents to deal with the LMG so anything down the road just gets killed if the gunner is any good.
The rally points definitely need changing as you cant lay one now without it being destroyed. Before you say u shud lay it further back- it makes no difference and gets destroyed pretty quickly.

As already stated in numerous threads and in this one also, you need to rethink your positioning, further back does not mean where you have come from, but more so you set rally in a position that is not likely to be infiltrated by said enemy.

Both of the points you are making simply call for a rethink of strategy, and to just simply say my strategy is fine is a bit off really, as it clearly isnt?

Strategy is about adapting, and if you have a decent medic in your squad and good squad cohesion, then your want to spawn on a rally point would be greatly reduced.

well you should be able to place a rally within a 100/200m of a firefight. If you cant then that just means a lot of walking, which makes things boring. even if you have a good medic you're bound to die at least once during the round. This is why this game gets the nickname of walk simulator from vanilla guys. This new release has just backed up this point.

05grottim wrote:well you should be able to place a rally within a 100/200m of a firefight. If you cant then that just means a lot of walking, which makes things boring. even if you have a good medic you're bound to die at least once during the round. This is why this game gets the nickname of walk simulator from vanilla guys. This new release has just backed up this point.

the radius for a rally going down is 50m

100m-200m away for a rally is fine. If they break through to ur rally...its cuz they flanked you

Yes, and or youve placed it in their path...

Also, A rally going down is a very good indication that your area is compromised, so it can be a very good tool to assist you in clearing an area....

All of you that are getting 'raped' by LMGs are doing something wrong. It's simple. I've played quite a few rounds .86 and I've never been killed more than 2 times in a game by an LMG.

well clearly you're just an amazing player who doesnt die because when you're insurgent you almost always get sniped by these LMGs now.

Not at all grottim, its just you evaluate situations before you barge headfirst into a barrage of Brits....

Anyway, think that we have established the views on the mattter, with regards to a hotfix, their may be one coming yes, but it doesnt mean major gameplay changes are going to be reverted really.

u dont have to be anywhere near the brits for them to snipe you with this LMG. You have to be all the way down the street and the LMG can see u and kill u.

There already are LMG discussion threads, please use those instead of this thread.

the new LMGs just force you to move through cover instead of running out and about free of worry in my opinion.

I'm fine with them but the only thing that i am bothered by is the new rally point system and also the deviation. i dont think battle stress and weapon sway should be represented by unrealistic deviation.

EDIT: and i want my ak47 accuracy increased

z0MbA wrote: i dont think battle stress and weapon sway should be represented by unrealistic deviation.

how should it be represented then?

Couple words about rally points...

In previous versions of PR (before overrun was implemented) a rally point was used as a forward spawn point and in most situations was placed somewhere on a route between captured objective/main base/forward outpost and the next objective in AAS order.... and was safe most of the time, unless the enemy found it
After overrun was implemented that kind of rally point placement is most likely not going to work and there is a quite big chance of being overrun (especially if placed on a route between captured objective and next objective)... and it happens because if you move from captured objective to the next objective captured by the enemy then the enemy is doing exactly the opposite and is heading your way to the objective you just captured. To minimize the chance of overrun the rally point must be placed far away from the route between those two objectives or even further in the back behind captured objective where it is relatively safe on most maps... but, should it be used like that? Rear spawn point instead of forward spawn point I can't really say...

(I can provide a graphic explanation if I make it overcomplicated and I didn't make myself clear enough )

Maybe people complain about rally points because they get used to the previous system and place it in an unsafe location ... or maybe because rally point placed by full 6 man squad is too easy to overrun by 2 people just passing nearby... probably both reasons are true. Thinking about the way to improve it is better then complaining IMO...

gazzthompson wrote:how should it be represented then?

Sway - Yes Battle stress - No


I like the rallies the way they are now, leads to less spawn camping and is a nice indication when you have got company and need to relocate

gazzthompson wrote:how should it be represented then?

i guess there isnt any other better way. maybe just ease up on the deviation a little.
Also, the blast radius of LATs is really small IMO

lollll taking the LMG off. LOL

No way.

I enjoy it.

[R-CON]Ragni&lt wrote:Couple words about rally points...

In previous versions of PR (before overrun was implemented) a rally point was used as a forward spawn point and in most situations was placed somewhere on a route between captured objective/main base/forward outpost and the next objective in AAS order.... and was safe most of the time, unless the enemy found it
After overrun was implemented that kind of rally point placement is most likely not going to work and there is a quite big chance of being overrun (especially if placed on a route between captured objective and next objective)... and it happens because if you move from captured objective to the next objective captured by the enemy then the enemy is doing exactly the opposite and is heading your way to the objective you just captured. To minimize the chance of overrun the rally point must be placed far away from the route between those two objectives or even further in the back behind captured objective where it is relatively safe on most maps... but, should it be used like that? Rear spawn point instead of forward spawn point I can't really say...

(I can provide a graphic explanation if I make it overcomplicated and I didn't make myself clear enough )

Maybe people complain about rally points because they get used to the previous system and place it in an unsafe location ... or maybe because rally point placed by full 6 man squad is too easy to overrun by 2 people just passing nearby... probably both reasons are true. Thinking about the way to improve it is better then complaining IMO...

I actually think Rallypoint should be removed beside FOB and vehicle respawn time should be lowered. Nothing greater to 5 minutes so people "reinforcement" spawn at main base and must use transport to get back to the battle.

[R-CON]Ragni&lt wrote: and it happens because if you move from captured objective to the next objective captured by the enemy then the enemy is doing exactly the opposite and is heading your way to the objective you just captured. To minimize the chance of overrun the rally point must be placed far away from the route between those two objectives or even further in the back behind captured objective where it is relatively safe on most maps...

How about the fact that, according to all of the"safe location" theories in this thread, the enemy is also looking for a "safe location" so they might just go in the same "safe location" than you and your rally is overrun instantly.

I think the new rally system is a step backward along with all the "2 squad members instead of 3" changes! Where in the hell is it supposed to favor teamwork?! I see a lot of 2 man locked squads these days!

Also, it really annoys me that 2 lonewolf being 100m from each other and not in the same squad can overun my rallypoint where my whole squad is standing. That doesn't make any sense to me. Sure that could've happended in 0.85 but it was a lot less likely! And btw, I don't think we can say that, having 2 lonewolf, 100m from each other,near my whole squad and my rallypoint, is a "compromised" location...

There are a couple of other things from 0.86 that I don't like but I do understand the changes and I'll get used to it... but the new RP system and the "2 squad members instead of 3" changes need to be reverted to what they were.

Tim270 wrote:Sway - Yes Battle stress - No

Weapon sway is impossible (other than visually, there is no practical effect). Did you really think that dev's though deviation and a still scope was the ideal solution to the issue and chose it over weapon sway?

Here here, 05grottim.


Also, wtf is with the hideouts/forward outposts becoming unspawnable when "2 people are close by". Seems that "close by" is 150m which is fking ridiculous.

Either way whatever the hell the distance value is, what's the use of a hideout on insurgency if it's over run once BLUFOR are even remotely nearby... wait a minute that makes sense-> The hideout's over run... no one can spawn hence the cache is undefended... add to that the new lazer M249 for BLUFOR, AK and RPG nerfing for insurgents etc etc and it all makes perfect sense. Yeah 0.86 rocks!

This thread has gone on long enough.



Locked.