Project Reality Forums

Stemplus wrote:I don't really think that he made a mistake, since he only said that getting out of the tank is stupid, which is true. Cutting the engine is unrealistic (since it takes a bit of time and you never get this close anyway), but very useful in PR, however, you don't need to get out of your tank to listen to other tanks. Just go to F3 and duck. It's even better because you'll be able to take out any enemy attack choppers (Most, if not every HMG on the tank is for anti-air purpose) or take out bombcars if you spot them before your gunner will. And arguing about experience (AKA I'm so l33t pr0 in this game) is just silly because he played it longer (lol he's it's developer). It's like you would argue with DICE that you know BF2 better xD

Who the fuck cares if its unrealistic? Its a video game. There's hundreds of things unrealistic in PR.

Who the fuck cares to make Project Reality realistic? Current DEVs aparently Anyway, you should really read my post again, because you don't understand it. " Cutting the engine is unrealistic, but very useful in PR" is an answer to CrazyHotMiLF post. Your quote is taken out of the context.

Good to see most players (including a dev, dafuq) don't know how to use armour. This is why most of my kills are easy, anyone who actually wants to be effective as a tanker needs to stop and consider the most important aspects of winning a tank battle then work back from there.

I'm not going to say anything else other then ppl who are saying "noobs engine off" have probably been killed by Mani and Myself over and over again.

I'm not a tank expert, but I'm sure if a professional tank commander played PR they would be mystified at how tanks are represented and used in PR. It's not going to be possible to simulate tank combat and combined arms in PR, the engine is far too limiting.

With that in mind discussing how to 'realistically' play tanks in PR is like two children playing on bycicles discussing the merits and demerits of F1 fuelling and tyre-change strategies and then trying to implement them in their mock races. Good fun, and innocently sweet, but completely oblivious to the actual challenges/intricacies they are trying to represent.

The true discussion shouldn't be how to 'realistically' model tanks and tank systems in PR. It should be how to realistically represent the role of a tank on the PR battlefield.

That applies to all 'arms' of PR btw, I'm not picking on tank people.

If you're trying to represent a realistic combined arms battlefield, you can't just add nice things to one arm and expect it will not throw the overall representation out of whack.

no one's trying to force realism onto the game for the sake of realism

A lot of issues with armour are solved with larger servers + squads, destructible terrain that isnt too destructible, bullet penetration physics, longer draw distances, and slat armour upgrades. That would serve to fix most issues, but unfortunately not all of that is possible so we are kind of stuck.

Slats would prevent tanks from being perpetually scared of handhelds, and thus be more likely to do the whole "be actually on the flag" deal (which ive been trying recently on certain maps with some success, bradley at the bunkers overwhelms the enemy 100% of the time, I swear, multiple bmps in burning sands city urban is awesome, too.), larger servers would have more infantry at once, thus working with infantry would be more feasible, larger squads could mean the combining of AAVs and armour pieces, even multiple AAVs at once, currently, armour is overwhelmed by a single CAS helicopter. Sometimes I sneak under overheads, and find strelas or stingers in the backseat of my IFVs, but thats the best I can do usually, though that is good fun. LOL imagine multiple AAVs at once, CAS might actually have to coordinate or be quick when striking armour. Longer draw distances would again make armour more agressive, and less fearing of HAT weapons. Destructible terrain would shift dominance to armour, as infantry could hide less, and bullet penetration would serve the same purpose, also at such long ranges tank vs tank fights would be interesting, missing might occur.

At that point armour might even be too effective, which is why ludicrous weapons like the javelin and specialized super anti tank platforms like the KORNET, TOW humvee or Weasel exist.

I suppose I can dream?

Murphy wrote:Good to see most players (including a dev, dafuq) don't know how to use armour.

lol yes quite, I "don't know how to use armour" because I thrown upon the use of cutting the engine because its unrealistic, mainly the jumping out and wondering around what most players do to do it which is totally against their interest since they are very likely to be killed doing so.

Did I ever say anything about not using sound to my advantage? When ever I tank, I work with the team (unless no one is talking which is quite unlikely) and use the troops on the ground ears to listen out for any tanks out there for me since they can constantly do it, without loosing the periscope sight with thermals, and without loosing the ability to quickly act to any situation, also not to mention that sitting in the 50cal turret, even when crouched isn't totally safe, anyone from up high can shoot down in, and any explosion around the vehicle, like a tank shell hitting it, can easily kill you or at the very least wound you.

You can say what the hell you like but just because I thrown upon the use of cutting the engine due to it being unrealistic, mainly from a developer POV more than anything, doesn't reflect anything on my skill level....


Anyways since this topic has gone waaay of topic to the point where it has nothing to do with feedback on tanks any more and just turned into a "I'm better than you" topic, even after being warned a few posts back, I see no reason why this should continue... Locked.