Project Reality Forums

CallousDisregard wrote:Have you made any real effort to make those things happen ?
Or is it just that we are supposed to be impressed with a laundry list ?
If I were you I would demand a full refund.

trusim, alot of the **** you just posted in to a thread thats meant to be about how the community has changed, cannot be done.

Truism wrote:Deviation from shifting point of aim removed.
Max deviation drastically reduced on all ARs, pistols, SMGs etc (greater variation between weapons here too - weapons with foregrips should have less for example).
Some kind of code implemented to stop jack-in-the-boxing with LMGs (which is a bigger problem than dolphin diving has been for a long time).
Support weapons retain large deviation penalties when not deployed correctly.
Point of aim penalties reduced on support weapons.
Mouse slowing increased on deployed LMGs, sniper rifles and deployed DMRs.
Recoil deviation reduced on LMGs proportionate to their weight and caliber.

Coax weapons deviation removed.
Ground vehicles now accelerate more slowly. Max speeds increased to compensate.
All fighting vehicles no longer respawn when destroyed. Transport and logistics vehicles do.

Damage radius on grenades increased again.

Suppression reworked so that larger caliber weapons suppress a wider area.
Suppression time increased.
Suppression is now cumulative. Shots falling in the range will add time to the effect. (hardcoded, could possibly be coded around).
Suppression triggers a camerabone animation to simulate flinching (hardcoded afaik, this is spitballing).
Suppression now drains sprint bar (final wishlist one that's hardcoded).

Medics now spawn with substantially more epipens.
Epipen animation much longer before firing.
Revives no longer revive the person, instead they stop you losing a ticket for the death and having your spawn time increase.
Spawn time increase for unrevived deaths from 2 second penalty to 5 second penalty.
Base spawn time 30 seconds for defending factions, 20 for attacking factions.

Most maps generally much smaller.
Fewer assets per map.
Fog all but removed.

Concept of map changed to a command map.
Symbols are replaced by NATO task graphics in accordance with publically accessible US FMs.
Enemy spotted symbols removed except for FoBs and a single generic enemy symbol.
No unit positions including your own are shown on map.
Maps replaced with topo maps in accordance with the ones someone made a while ago for a suggestion thread.

AAS scrapped as the staple game mode.
New game modes: Attack and Defence, Counter-Attack, Meeting Engagement.
AAD pits a defending team that can't recap points but has strong situational advantages.
CA is like the old CA, differs from AAD in that defenders get less of an advantage until the counterattack ticker drops and can start recapping.
ME is like current AAS.
Randomised spawns default ofc.

Intelligence system completely removed from INS.
Objective is now only 2 caches that are present all map, spawn parameters tightened for them.
Insurgents get spawns all over the city that can be destroyed (hopefully the Al Basrah bug won't rear it's head).
Huge nerf to the Sapper class.
ROE buff to the Civilian class.
Collaborator kept as a seperate class to civilians, gets a pistol.


***

If I wracked my brain really hard I'm sure I could think of more, these are just the ones that came to me. But yes, I put a lot of thought into where PR could stand to improve and how to do it over the years.

If any of the points don't make sense I'd be happy to explain the intended gameplay effect.

gaurd502 wrote:If your suppressed you loose your so sprint? So if I'm running a street and some guy takes a shot that lands near my foot I would start walking? How is that realistic? Some of the other thing like fog I thought was a engine thing or because computers couldn't handle it.

When I joined in .5 it seemed harder, but when I think about it I remember re spawning and getting up by medic a lot more. I would like to see a little less deviation, but honesty it seems fine to me.

About the community thing, I have defiantly seen a change since 75. It seems like there are a lot more idiots who come on the try to screw things up and then leave the server. But lately( In the past week or so) I have been seeing a lot of good games.

Truism wrote:Let's put it another way, you're in a fighting position and it takes fire. At the moment, the best option is always to break cover and leg it - it's impossible to neutralise a position or pin people, only to suppress them. Very different to real life.

Additionally it will increase the importance of moving properly and realistically from cover to cover as well as having overwatch. Since at the moment uncovered moves are not only viable, but the norm as a result of running away when shot in the open being too easy. This is partially caused by deviation being too high, partially caused by sprint being too available in a game with hitreg as bad as BF2.

The best two changes since 0.6 have been suppression and the LMG buff, but being shot at still isn't as big a drama as it should be and uncovered moves are still viable. I don't think I've seen anyone stuck to a piece of cover by fire in my time playing PR.

On the point about fog, fog is mostly an issue because maps are too big with too much in them. Space is poorly utilised in the game at present and big maps generally tend to promote bad and unrealistic gameplay because force density is so incredibly low. Putting 60 people on 2x2km maps doesn't work, some of the 4x4 works, but only because there's practically a regiment of tanks per side on the map with air support. Expecting any kind of realistic combined maneuvre with infantry in support of tanks and so on is completely unreasonable when there's so much ground to cover and so few forces to do it with. More limited, tighter and realistic objectives would promote more realistic tactics, as well as making tactical decision making more important (more wrong answers to tactical situations; principles and considerations specific to situation become more important) - finally more limited scoping would allow the fog to be lifted.

Finally, yes, the game had major realism issues during and prior to .6, but the feeling was that the intention was to tighten everything up and make it more realistic. Post 0.7 it's been more about trying to introduce unrealistic things to promote a style of gameplay, which coincidently isn't realistic. Bearing in mind I only played 0.5 at the end of the version (tempted in by the same promotional video as everyone else), but the fundamental concept of the game was very different at that point. If anything PR seems to be a portfolio game to float a studio off at the moment, so it's trying to court mass market appeal.

Again, I could be very wrong on everything. World According to Truism stuff again.

Truism wrote:T-t-t-triple post.

The only thing I'd say is that ongoing attempts to encourage non-military players to use realistic tactics by introducing unrealistic things will fail indefinitely. Real tactics are a product of real life capabilities. Tactics are inherently emergent so unrealistic tools will produce unrealistic uses for them.

This is something I don't think I fully understood when I was posting about these things three years ago. Back then it frustrated me that individual soldiers didn't work properly, and I could see how it would shape a metagame, but didn't fully understand how that would relate to tactics because I had no tactical grounding. I probably made some terrible suggestions back then because of a flawed understanding of how capability shapes tactical possibility.

Truism wrote:It holds that in a competition people will choose courses of action within the bounds of their capabilities that offer the greatest chance of success and the least of failure. Death is negative reinforcement, winning rounds is positive reinforcement, getting kills is positive reinforcement, losing is negative reinforcement. Winning a war is more positive than winning a round of PR, dying is more negative than dying in PR. I'm of the opinion that if the rewards and punishments are proportionate, and you do your best to simulate psychological factors where appropriate (eg. suppression negates combat effectiveness), then the result should still be about the same since the weight or risk/reward is the same balance as real life.

That's a big if though.

'Limeni[BiH wrote:;1552355']Avoid playing on UKWF or =]H[= during the day you'll get really disappointed in PR , NWA is good for gaming during the day but at night play on TG or PRTA and you'll see good teamwork.

Bringerof_D wrote:yes a scaled down version of those factors will work, but as a result the realism of all other factors must also be scaled down. It's like making a cake or something, less of the ingredients would still make a cake just a smaller one, but the amount of ingredients must remain proportional to each other.

'Limeni[BiH wrote:;1552355']Avoid playing on UKWF or =]H[= during the day you'll get really disappointed in PR , NWA is good for gaming during the day but at night play on TG or PRTA and you'll see good teamwork.

Shots1721 wrote:Guys let me clerify this has nothing to do with the server, every server is different and that's that...as for the info concerning a realistic influence to the community is sounding pretty good at the moment.
Yes it sounds likethe engine can;t cope with some of the idea's Truism is pointing out but the influence psycologically towards the players can be done, i'm not a computer wiz, but a few tweaks here and there could make the average player think twice before engagement, flanks, ammunition, targeting, reconnaisance etc.

Keep these points coming in, i say a week or so and i'll give all the suggestions on the suggestion forum too see what they think of this.