Project Reality Forums

CAS_117 wrote: Same as always. You just need a lot more of them as well as evasion now.

Huh? If they dont have heat signatures, they won't affect the incoming missile even the slightest.

You know the carrier shield? Think that except 3m wide

But yeah talk CA here plz: http://combinedarms.myfreeforum.org/ind ... 73e58b08d3

Some of you people talking about people not suppressing. I only suppress if I'm told or if I'm taking enemy fire from a fortified/unknown position. Usually throws them into blur mode long enough for me to get in close. I never have a problem with people not following my orders, even if I'm not SL or commander I'll usually make the suggestion to the CO and do it anyway.

Zimmer wrote: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.

You dont get the point...
Its not about tanks or eryx only.

More deadly weapon = more gameplay affected by a single's man actions.
Yes its realistic. A single mechanic who wasnt repaired fast a scout plane maybe costed to Japan four carriers.

But its a game. The problem is where we put the limit of realism for fun's sake.
And everybody has his own opinion for this.

Nemus wrote:You dont get the point...
Its not about tanks or eryx only.

More deadly weapon = more gameplay affected by a single's man actions.
Yes its realistic. A single mechanic who wasnt repaired fast a scout plane maybe costed to Japan four carriers.

Not at all. If you make everything as it should be in real life, you will simply have the same as you have in PR now, but just magnified on what one lone thing can do. If you enhance everything, then there are also more ways to kill it, let alone what it kills.

On several random points from this entire thread:

I see respawning back at main as a generally bad idea. This is mainly due to how teams in PR are organized. Once you join a squad, you generally don't leave it, unless it sucks. It is for a good reason - you don't wanna leave a good, teamwork-oriented squad to join another, potentially crappy one. Rally points help you stay WITH the squad you joined. In current PR, one of the tasks that SL has is ensuring that the squad stays together: transportation has to be organized for everyone in the squad, dead members have to be brought back close to the rest of the squad, people can't be left behind, etc.

Removing all spawns except for main base would lead to either of two things: a trickle of members back to the frontline, or forced re-squadding back at main. We've already seen the former in the history of PR - it used to be that RPs were a source of a trickle of squad members. Downed infantry would respawn on a RP one by one and then trickle back to the rest of the squad one by one. Players were partly to blame for that - they wouldn't wait around for more squad members to spawn in so that they could move in together. Of course, sometimes, when just one guy dies in an engagement, there's no other choice. That's what would happen, except with a possible added benefit of increased acceptance for random hitchhiking.

The other option would be forming new squads back at main from those who died on the frontlines. This isn't something that most people would like. You'd have to wait for a sufficient number of casualties to form a new squad. People wouldn't want to leave their old squads or roles (ie, infantry, air, armor). New squads would experience squad leader shuffles. Yes, it would be a potential solution to the problem of spawning back at main, but I doubt it'd make the game much fun.


Coming back to something I said earlier in the thread, there's a perceived easiness with which you can kill someone in PR. On one hand, people aren't afraid to die. On the other, however, they think that they can easily kill another. The two are linked together, and often result in situations where people sit there with their scopes up and wanna squeeze off just that one last shot, just one more, so that they kill the other guy.

A bunch of you mentioned the problem with getting people to open suppressive fire. I have that problem as SL, too. However, I also have problems getting people to maneuver. Once they go prone wherever the enemy fire caught them, and start shooting, they won't move. I had situations where I yelled at people to move up to my position, and they would just sit behind me, on some exposed ridgeline, as if I was talking to someone else. This is where the perceived easiness of killing comes in. People think that if they sit where they are just one more second they'll get the enemy, that they'll solve the problem without requiring any ridiculous maneuvers or tactics. It might not even be something they are consciously thinking - when you see the enemy right in your sights, right where you want him, you have a certain automatic reaction...

How do you solve this, given the constraints of BF2? I don't know. If it was that simple, PR would already be a much different game. I've played games (I can't name specific ones at the moment), where incoming fire would throw your aim off everywhere, adding a lot more movement to the already wobbling sights. This is a good way of telling the player "No, you're not gonna make that one last shot, try something different." Of course, that can't be done in BF2. Deviation is the next closest thing, but deviation doesn't produce the immediate feedback, nor is it dependent on incoming fire (someone correct me if I'm wrong).


As to teamwork enforcement, it's always been part of PR. This design decision was what initially turned me away from the PRMM, way back in the day. I came back, obviously.

If you let me put on my robe and game designer hat, there are basically two ways you can enforce teamwork: either by punishing its lack or rewarding its presence. If you can kill a guy with your gun, but you can kill him faster, and easier if you bring 5 friends with guns, that's rewarding teamwork. If you can't kill a guy with just your gun alone, but you NEED 5 friends with guns to do it - that's punishment for lack of teamwork.

Project Reality always leaned towards the latter. It makes sense, too, PR being a very pub mod in nature. Rewarding teamwork works best with games where you expect to have highly competent players, where it serves as a way of creating interesting gameplay. With something like PR, however, punishing the lack of teamwork is one way to take a large stick to all the smacktards that otherwise run loose on vanilla servers. It does limit options of a totally competent team, and makes for a bit less fun experience, but on the other hand it forces all players to rise to at least some standard. Ideally, you want a mix of the two, I'd say, but again, I don't have the answers.


So yeah, that's my $.02 of opinion, reproduced in a rather large amount of text, based on nothing solid in particular.

I see respawning back at main as a generally bad idea. This is mainly due to how teams in PR are organized. Once you join a squad, you generally don't leave it, unless it sucks. It is for a good reason - you don't wanna leave a good, teamwork-oriented squad to join another, potentially crappy one. Rally points help you stay WITH the squad you joined. In current PR, one of the tasks that SL has is ensuring that the squad stays together: transportation has to be organized for everyone in the squad, dead members have to be brought back close to the rest of the squad, people can't be left behind, etc.

Removing all spawns except for main base would lead to either of two things: a trickle of members back to the frontline, or forced re-squadding back at main. We've already seen the former in the history of PR - it used to be that RPs were a source of a trickle of squad members. Downed infantry would respawn on a RP one by one and then trickle back to the rest of the squad one by one. Players were partly to blame for that - they wouldn't wait around for more squad members to spawn in so that they could move in together. Of course, sometimes, when just one guy dies in an engagement, there's no other choice. That's what would happen, except with a possible added benefit of increased acceptance for random hitchhiking.

The other option would be forming new squads back at main from those who died on the frontlines. This isn't something that most people would like. You'd have to wait for a sufficient number of casualties to form a new squad. People wouldn't want to leave their old squads or roles (ie, infantry, air, armor). New squads would experience squad leader shuffles. Yes, it would be a potential solution to the problem of spawning back at main, but I doubt it'd make the game much fun.

Firebases are ok as well. It's just that you can't squeeze a platoon of soldiers out of a single room of a single building the way you can with rally points. But even then firebases spawns should stop once a casualty is taken within 200-300m of it. Spawning mid fight is just a no-no.

From what I've learned from firing Galil AR, Israeli 5.56x45 automatic rifle used in Estonian Armed Forces, and playing airsoft in my free time, the process of firing is very much unlike it's implemented in the game.

I think the more realistic approach to simulate the firing process is to use a "moving sight", the way it's implemented in the America's Army game: AMERICA'S ARMY: SPECIAL FORCES - HOME PAGE It's not perfect, but I think is more realistic.

In real life, not only catching the moment the sight goes over the target is important, but also using the sights correctly (you may get confused or forget to pay attention, especially when in a stressful situation!), breathing and weapon holding etc.

Since "moving sight" does not constitute all the elements of accurate weapon firing modelling, the deviation is still needed to some degree. And it does usually take about 3 to 5 seconds to aim more or less precisely to hit a full torso target from 100-150 m (much more to hit accurately into a certain part, i.e. head or center of torso etc.).

deemoowoor wrote:From what I've learned from firing Galil AR, Israeli 5.56x45 automatic rifle used in Estonian Armed Forces, and playing airsoft in my free time, the process of firing is very much unlike it's implemented in the game.

I think the more realistic approach to simulate the firing process is to use a "moving sight", the way it's implemented in the America's Army game: AMERICA'S ARMY: SPECIAL FORCES - HOME PAGE It's not perfect, but I think is more realistic.

In real life, not only catching the moment the sight goes over the target is important, but also using the sights correctly (you may get confused or forget to pay attention, especially when in a stressful situation!), breathing and weapon holding etc.

Since "moving sight" does not constitute all the elements of accurate weapon firing modelling, the deviation is still needed to some degree. And it does usually take about 3 to 5 seconds to aim more or less precisely to hit a full torso target from 100-150 m (much more to hit accurately into a certain part, i.e. head or center of torso etc.).

This is a good idea, however, does BF2 allow a moving sight?

Royal_marine_machine wrote:This is a good idea, however, does BF2 allow a moving sight?

No.

CAS_117 wrote:But even then firebases spawns should stop once a casualty is taken within 200-300m of it. Spawning mid fight is just a no-no.

Agreed.

Bullets always come from the middle of the screen in the BF2 engine.

Alex6714 wrote:Have you tried?



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.

Pr has tried what your saying before, in 0.6 the weapons where even more deadly then they are now, And because the weapons where so effective it ended up being more productive tactics just to work by your self and lone wolf.

And that exactly what happened. There was very little team work compared to what we have now,

Im too tired too debate this, so just believe me when i say you don't want things to go back to the way things where in 0.6.

And if the deviation where to be removed then, team work would decrease rather then increase.

RHYS4190 wrote:Pr has tried what your saying before, in 0.6 the weapons where even more deadly then they are now, And because the weapons where so effective it ended up being more productive tactics just to work by your self and lone wolf.

And that exactly what happened. There was very little team work compared to what we have now,

Im too tired too debate this, so just believe me when i say you don't want things to go back to the way things where in 0.6.

And if the deviation was removed then, team work decrease rather then increase.

0.6 wasn´t perfect so its not a good example of what I am trying to say.

But just so that you know, I played 0.6, I started playing 0.6 beta and the 0.6 time was imo the best in terms of getting a good game with some people working together. I am talking about the average pub game here. Experiences differ, but some of my best memories of working together in squads were in 0.6, especially mestia and the like.

My memories of 0.6 before deviation was people really did not work very integrated like they do now, people tried to say as far apart as possible usually working solo because it was safer not too have huge groups of people together because one well hidden sniper could kill and entire squad.

Your right though experiences do differ for server to server.

My personal opinion is that PR with deviation is a hell of a lot better then it used to be, And a lot more interesting.