Project Reality Forums

I don't really get what BlueDrake wants. It's either in his phrasing or his thoughts that feels wrong(or maybe in my engrish).

Is he trying to make current PRM team to create another game for him or is he trying to make all the sources of PRM to be accessible by the "community"(him)?

He wants everybody who has 5 minutes of time to create a map and some models so it would be a bigger game.

But it would be all over the fucking place quality wise because this shit takes enormous ammounts of time - Hence the DEVs make stuff themselves and only accept things that are up to the standard.

Heavy Death wrote:He wants everybody who has 5 minutes of time to create a map and some models so it would be a bigger game.

Does anyone really think it's the lack of original content that's holding PR back?

bromley;217http://tournament.realitymod.com/showthread.php?t=374408583 wrote: PR is a dying game and no amount of publicity or anything is going to change that.

Maybe I got it wrong, but isn't Squad supposed to be the successor of Project Reality?
The text in the quote is from Squads own homepage.

What is Squad's relationship with the Project Reality modification for BF2?

Officially, we have no formal connection. Generally speaking though, nearly all of our developers are retired members of the core Project Reality: BF2 development team, and we are seeking to make Squad the spiritual successor to PR in everything but name.

The tournament
Also, if PR is a dying game, then why are we still seeing new players join the likewise ancient tournament?


New map style is needed
If anything in PR is dying, it is the old setup of using single maps only. What's needed, are maps being logical connected to each other, through roads or bridges and likewise. All part of a strategic layer to fight for. Not sure if it is possible to code it though? this is not a criticism of the game, so please accept my apology if it sounds so. I already love the game.

Squad and the CO player
Squad is a new game, new engine, new everything. I hope. However, rest assure, that if Squad does not crack the nut of putting the CO player in the center of things, in a positive manner, then Squad will die out, sooner than PR.

I have been saying this stuff, in so many different ways, for 10+ years now. The CO player is the very core of this game. Not focusing extraordinary on that function, will only decrease the lifetime of the game in question, PR or Squad.

Why people play multiplayer games
It is really important, as a game designer, to understand, that people spending time to play complex multiplayer games, surely like great graphics and animations, not to mention love the action as well. However, what they all fundamentally desire, is the teamwork with other people. Teamwork under a certain amount of positive stress. They have a desire to both socialize and crack problems together. To organize actions together, orient and coordinate together. A desire to learn new things together. Not to mention to compete as well.

In the center of all these game activities, lies the CO function. So, although PR certainly is old and ancient, in so many ways, it has still managed, quite well I think, to create a tournament, with decent commanders. Although not without going through a steep learning curve, where also the tournament was declared dead.

The commander function is only important as the designer, facilitator and partly mentor, of the very activities, the players fundamentally desire to try out. Please note, I am not saying the players desire a commander, because most of them don't. But the CO function is still vital, for these desires to be brought to the level, where they as players, can excel their abilities and reach out for their aspirations.

PR still has to reach the level where all this takes place. However, it is not unrealistic for it to make it there. Same story with the Battlefield games. Not one of them had ever made it to this level, which is also why they have to keep harvesting money, from their newly updated versions. Updated in graphics, sounds and animations that is, with other minor changes added also. But not updated in gravitating their player base around an explicit and simple milestone, to excel as a team.

It is also why chess, an ancient game, with no computer graphics or any of this, still manages to get new players every single year. Because, although this basic multiplayer game, only has two players, it still offers most of the possibilities, as mentioned above.

PR/BF2/Squad/likewise, are all extended versions, more complex versions, of a game like chess.

BD's ideas concerning tutorials and easing the development process and 'recruiting' are pretty good.
But of course PR needs strict quality control.

Michael_Denmark wrote:New map style is needed
If anything in PR is dying, it is the old setup of using single maps only. What's needed, are maps being logical connected to each other, through roads or bridges and likewise. All part of a strategic layer to fight for. Not sure if it is possible to code it though? this is not a criticism of the game, so please accept my apology if it sounds so. I already love the game.

This was suggested couple of times. But it requires lots of man-hours to make it.

Michael_Denmark wrote:Maybe I got it wrong, but isn't Squad supposed to be the successor of Project Reality?
The text in the quote is from Squads own homepage.



The tournament
Also, if PR is a dying game, then why are we still seeing new players join the likewise ancient tournament?


New map style is needed
If anything in PR is dying, it is the old setup of using single maps only. What's needed, are maps being logical connected to each other, through roads or bridges and likewise. All part of a strategic layer to fight for. Not sure if it is possible to code it though? this is not a criticism of the game, so please accept my apology if it sounds so. I already love the game.

Squad and the CO player
Squad is a new game, new engine, new everything. I hope. However, rest assure, that if Squad does not crack the nut of putting the CO player in the center of things, in a positive manner, then Squad will die out, sooner than PR.

I have been saying this stuff, in so many different ways, for 10+ years now. The CO player is the very core of this game. Not focusing extraordinary on that function, will only decrease the lifetime of the game in question, PR or Squad.

Why people play multiplayer games
It is really important, as a game designer, to understand, that people spending time to play complex multiplayer games, surely like great graphics and animations, not to mention love the action as well. However, what they all fundamentally desire, is the teamwork with other people. Teamwork under a certain amount of positive stress. They have a desire to both socialize and crack problems together. To organize actions together, orient and coordinate together. A desire to learn new things together. Not to mention to compete as well.

In the center of all these game activities, lies the CO function. So, although PR certainly is old and ancient, in so many ways, it has still managed, quite well I think, to create a tournament, with decent commanders. Although not without going through a steep learning curve, where also the tournament was declared dead.

The commander function is only important as the designer, facilitator and partly mentor, of the very activities, the players fundamentally desire to try out. Please note, I am not saying the players desire a commander, because most of them don't. But the CO function is still vital, for these desires to be brought to the level, where they as players, can excel their abilities and reach out for their aspirations.

PR still has to reach the level where all this takes place. However, it is not unrealistic for it to make it there. Same story with the Battlefield games. Not one of them had ever made it to this level, which is also why they have to keep harvesting money, from their newly updated versions. Updated in graphics, sounds and animations that is, with other minor changes added also. But not updated in gravitating their player base around an explicit and simple milestone, to excel as a team.

It is also why chess, an ancient game, with no computer graphics or any of this, still manages to get new players every single year. Because, although this basic multiplayer game, only has two players, it still offers most of the possibilities, as mentioned above.

PR/BF2/Squad/likewise, are all extended versions, more complex versions, of a game like chess.

pr is dying from a player count perspective, each month less people are playing and there are less servers

The servers were lively today.

I do love Bluedrakes passion (and videos and PR of PR) but maybe he should be in the Squad forums telling them what direction to take that game to make it PRs rightful successor or the multitude of other PR clones coming out that were mentioned.
PR could do with some tweaks, maybe some more maps, the ww2 mod of course but nothing seriously major is needed, other than players. More PR. More good Video content put in the right places and spreading the word.
On another note, I cant imagine devs here would not help community wannabe coders create content and help those who had actually put in some study time and work trying stuff.
Viva PR Viva

PR is always worth it... I had been inactive since about late october, and came back this weekend...

Still kick *** gameplay that you can't find anywhere else.

assetruler69 wrote:This was suggested couple of times. But it requires lots of man-hours to make it.

It was, OK. So, if it is ever to be created, we need a larger player base to recruit developers from? They primarily come from the player base, right?

bromley wrote:pr is dying from a player count perspective, each month less people are playing and there are less servers

Well, after Squad started up, wasn't it expected that the player base would be reduced?

By the way, in terms of Squad, the graphics, animations and sounds are absolutely awesome. I love them. But. So far, I still haven't seen any forum threads, where the last 50+ decent commanders, are recommended by the Squad community. Recommendations involving argumentation, in terms of, I dont know, personality, game play style (defender/attacker), ability to organize, to plan and to improvise, not to mention the CO players Win/Loose ratio. Please direct me to that thread, should it be there. Apoligies too, if it excist.

What I instead have read, beside of some great ideas about the commander function, is pretty much the same as I read 10+ years ago, in these PR forums.

As example, take this suggestion from the start of this year, January 21th.

We NEED a commander - Feedback & Suggestions - Squad Forums
Okay so i've been only playing for like 5 hours but what i've seen is the extreme lack of coordination. Not in the squads (even if sometimes the squad leader is playing like shit), but in the team.

The point is we need a commander that commands to squad leaders and can have an overview of all squads across the map. The commander shouldn't be playing as a soldier on foot but rather be in a HQ in main base or somewhere else where he doesn't fight.

With the implementation of aircrafts and tanks, we will see not only uncoordination with the squads, but also with pilots of tanks and aircrafts.

The way i see things goes like this : a squad leader requests for example an air support to the commander. The commander approves or not. If he approves, then he gives an order to the pilot. Other example : Squads took a point and go immediately to the next one, leaving the last point took to the enemy. With the commander, none of this could happen since he will simply gives the order for a squad to stay and defend the point.

Of course, this commander status could be optional, if in a team, no one wanna do this, than there will be none. What do you think ?

My point is, that Squad never started out with a gravitation, around the top decision making function. And so, its basically PR all over again, from start that is, however, this time with drastically improved graphics, sounds and animations. But not game play.

So, who knows, perhaps some of the players having left PR, for Squad, will return again? Hopefully not, and I dont mean that in a negative way, but as in Squad figuring out how to make that commander function a center of the game play.

Why are you the way you are michael. Cant you just chill?

Wow. We’ve got a troll on the trail here.

I don't wanna sound disrespectful Wicca, but I think you can do better than this. Derailing a dialogue with me, in order for you to control it later on, should probably be executed in a manner, where you make me feel safe first. Then, only then, open up a flank in our conversation and from here on you can develop the derailing dialogue with me.

You are a great PR player Wicca. You have commanded 100 player teams.

Make me proud.

Micheal, don’t stop to engage Wicca, we can’t get bogged down. He’s just spraying and praying.

Wicca, please give constructive criticism. Don't get in our way.

Bluedrake42 wrote:I started the Project Reality: ArmA III project as an intent to show that the idea was still achievable, and that it could easily be done with the right motivation. I was hoping after a certain point it would rekindle interest from the primary team, and someone would take our work and run with it... or do literally anything.

However once it was obvious that wasn't going to happen... then there is no reason to continue the project. It would have been easier to simply create a new brand, instead of trying to help expand the original Project Reality community.

...

I literally rebuilt PRA3 from scratch for you... twice... and would have happily handed over everything we made for official R-Developers to continue the project.

The one thing that I was struck by was the contrast in the arguments here. Why would you want to hand it over to the "PR team" (aka BF2 mod developers) if you had already built PR:ARMA3 up from the ground? Why wouldn't you and your team continue working on it and making it a success?

I have a lot of respect for what you contributed to community building and your ambitious side projects, but I can't wrap my head around that reasoning (with regards to the PR:A3 project).

[R-DEV]Psyrus wrote: I have a lot of respect for what you contributed to community building and your ambitious side projects, but I can't wrap my head around that reasoning (with regards to the PR:A3 project).

Because the ARMA engine sucks **** lmao

[R-DEV]Psyrus wrote:The one thing that I was struck by was the contrast in the arguments here. Why would you want to hand it over to the "PR team" (aka BF2 mod developers) if you had already built PR:ARMA3 up from the ground? Why wouldn't you and your team continue working on it and making it a success?

I have a lot of respect for what you contributed to community building and your ambitious side projects, but I can't wrap my head around that reasoning (with regards to the PR:A3 project).

Because if I'm going to make something from scratch, why would I just make a clone of Project Reality. I would rather just make something completely unrelated... instead of just copying something else.

That project was supposed to be a gift, like a community revival of the PR:A3 project... just like what was strongly hinted towards when Epoch made the discontinue announcement.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f380-p ... pdate.html

Since we don't want all of our work to go to waste we have decided to publicly release the source code under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License, thus allowing it to live on. You can find it here on Github.

Now is your chance to continue the development of the mod (or have someone else do it for you) assuming you follow the terms of the agreement.

We worked on a new version, and fixed all the issues we originally thought the project was having. Built a solid prototype, and started showing the original developers our progress. I mean you can't see any of that now... because the original Project Reality: ArmA forums have been deleted, but we did this three years ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNj8q8yytxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY9Icxn_IO4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4PcDlASXSw

Had 100 player servers going regularly. A big list of foundation features, that were compatible with the original Project Reality: ArmA development roadmap. Offered multiple times to give the project to RDEV. No one from RDEV ever acted on it.

After a while, it just gets to the point where we're like... why are we even working on this then. This isn't our game. What was the point of even opening up the original Project Reality: ArmA III repository if RDEV didn't even have any intention to support a revival of the project.

Seems pretty pointless. Which btw... if we're asking for pointers on the problems PR is having with population and development momentum... well then that's what I'm telling you it is.

If the Project Reality community can't continue as a single cohesive unit, then honestly I wouldn't want it to continue at all. If the only way to continue the project is to make branched clones, then that would just be a waste of time.

Because we've thought about it, and we've come to the conclusion that if we can't do it with the support of the original community, then why even do it at all. You'd just have a billion little "unofficial" communities trying to make their own clones, destroying the gameplay, possibly even cashing in with cheap monetization schemes, all masquerading as the unofficial "official" successor to the original game. Just splitting the community and trying to shit on all the other competing clone projects... trying to scramble to capitalize on the Project Reality power vacuum.

Which is exactly what happened.

So TL R if we're going to create a new game from scratch, it would be a waste of time (and a huge headache dealing with all the other fighting duplicate project communities/clones) to just make another clone of Project Reality. I'd rather just create something completely new that has nothing to do with the original community.

Which is what we decided to do now, and what I like doing.
Iron Armada on Steam

Don't get me wrong I would like Project Reality to get its sh*t together and do something again, and I would love to work on Project Reality again as well, but not if its going to become this civil war of community clones. Genuinely I don't want anything to do with that. It stresses me out, and most of the "unofficial" cloned Project Reality projects usually end in toxic political disaster.

I want the Project Reality brand to get its stuff back on track, and to organize all these different clans under a single banner again. I don't think anyone likes the state of things currently, and I guarantee if you were to do a survey... you would find a huge group of people that feel the same way, and would be more than willing to do anything they could to help.

Michael_Denmark wrote:Wow. We’ve got a troll on the trail here.

I don't wanna sound disrespectful Wicca, but I think you can do better than this. Derailing a dialogue with me, in order for you to control it later on, should probably be executed in a manner, where you make me feel safe first. Then, only then, open up a flank in our conversation and from here on you can develop the derailing dialogue with me.

You are a great PR player Wicca. You have commanded 100 player teams.

Make me proud.

Banter, is always welcome! You should be happy i'm doing it with you! Just because I commanded 100 players doesn't mean anything. Join me in a game of PR Michael!

Bluedrake42 wrote:Because if I'm going to make something from scratch, why would I just make a clone of Project Reality. I would rather just make something completely unrelated... instead of just copying something else.

...

Offered multiple times to give the project to RDEV. No one from RDEV ever acted on it.

After a while, it just gets to the point where we're like... why are we even working on this then. This isn't our game. What was the point of even opening up the original Project Reality: ArmA III repository if RDEV didn't even have any intention to support a revival of the project.

Thanks for sharing your in-depth thoughts. It's been a long week so apologies that I can't address each part of your post, but I did read it all and appreciate the depth.

I think the above quoted parts highlight where the communication breakdown happened. The repo was opened up so that motivated people like yourself and your team could take over it and become the PR ARMA3 team. The PR:BF2 devs almost never had any interest in the ARMA version, and since the core PR:A3 team abandoned the project, there was never anyone over here waiting for something to be "handed to" us, as it's not in our interest in working on completely separate projects simultaneously.

I know there is all that e-drama between the PR team and various members in the community (yourself included), which I've never been a big fan of, but it is what it is... but I think if PR:A3 had continued under your leadership, there could have been real branding synergy between the two mods.

In any case, work is still ongoing on PR and while the active player base is a fraction of what it once was, the number of team members is still quite strong and PR is continuing as it always was: A way for BF2 modders to come together to make something that they wanted to make.

By the way, all the best with your game-creation ventures, the various projects you're working on seem interesting to say the least