Project Reality Forums

PR's Selling Point?

BSS offers the players looking for clan game-play and serious gaming, a game which you can pick up when you want to as a public shooter, and still get the teamplay an other shooter like BF3 only offers if you invest much time into it.

Although you must play PR to keep some advanced skills, it is a game you can pickup at the weekends and still play with people who all have the same goals like you do.


Not a DEV, but I think my answer is a valid one!

If anything i'd say their selling point is the gameplay is centered around working as a team in a fun way that has some simulation factors.

Selling point:
1. Teamwork oriented gameplay; cannot even spawn on SL so squads are more "encouraged" to stick together as well as many other features "encouraging" gameplay. Often leads to cooperative environment.
2. Lack of BS(except what is limited by game engine); anyone who played Caw of Dooty or BoyFriend3 would know.
3. Community.
4. Continued development. This is not sean connery reaching max level and stop leveling; this is not cod series that just kept reusing same engine with slightly different looks; this is PR that has been through so many improvements an has only come close to 1.0(but still far).
5. PR is made by gamers for gamers.
6. You can play on just about any significant faction in PR.
If I had to pick playing an entire day of *insert name of any mainstream game here except ARMA2* or play an entire day of PR with decent people; I choose PR any day.

The main selling point for me is the teamwork, and the fact you can generally jump into a public server and there will be people communicating and working as a team, and it's not too serious. Other parts I really like are the variety in the factions and maps you can play on, and the slower paced game play.

As far as advertising and accessibility for new players goes, there's a few flaws in the current model. As for the selling point of PR though, for me it's very easy to summarize in one word - teamwork. It's nice that PR is a game in a realistic setting, that it is in most ways more realistic than most shooters, but it's the teamwork that is key. Both in the sense that the game design rewards it (you're much more successful when working as a team), and in the sense that people actually do it. Join a good server and chances are you'll get a decent level of teamwork.

ComradeHX wrote:Selling point:
1. Teamwork oriented gameplay; cannot even spawn on SL so squads are more "encouraged" to stick together as well as many other features "encouraging" gameplay. Often leads to cooperative environment.
2. Lack of BS(except what is limited by game engine); anyone who played Caw of Dooty or BoyFriend3 would know.
3. Community.
4. Continued development. This is not sean connery reaching max level and stop leveling; this is not cod series that just kept reusing same engine with slightly different looks; this is PR that has been through so many improvements an has only come close to 1.0(but still far).
5. PR is made by gamers for gamers.
6. You can play on just about any significant faction in PR.
If I had to pick playing an entire day of *insert name of any mainstream game here except ARMA2* or play an entire day of PR with decent people; I choose PR any day.

1. I fail to see how not spawning on your SL encourages you to stick with him. IF anything that fact you can get suppressed/flanked off on your own encourages you to stick together.
2. Don't bring up mainstream games just to trash them because you think it's cool.
3. The community more or less makes this game interesting enough to come back night after night. Versatility & level of cooperation
4. Continuous support for the game are driving factors that you don't see for many games these days aside from DLC.

The fact it's free after you have BF2 maybe?

SGT.Ice wrote:1. I fail to see how not spawning on your SL encourages you to stick with him. IF anything that fact you can get suppressed/flanked off on your own encourages you to stick together.
2. Don't bring up mainstream games just to trash them because you think it's cool.
The fact it's free after you have BF2 maybe?

1. Rally point; nuff said.
2. Too bad reality(see what I did there) is that mainstream game went to krap like Call of Duty(even BF3 started to play like it in small maps).

Also, PR can be played for free because BF2 can be played(online) for free.

Rally points which are rarely used & don't help gameplay too much. FOB's would have been a better arguement.

***** That would be due to the fact BF & BC got mixed into just Battlefield.

Nope, the whole point was PR is free because they don't charge for it for various reasons. One of which is a licensing problem.



On topic, no game plays, feels or hits the same as PR. If ArmA 3 felt more like PR, i'd never play PR again.

I think majority finds PR fun because they enjoy the gameplay, teamworking is only bonus reason to play the mod, voip communicating is also playing big part.

Personally i havent done almost any teamwork ever since rallypoints were removed (made useless), yet im still enjoying the mod enough to play it.
Only reason to do teamwork now is if its the key thing why you like the mod. For those players who's reason to play PR is not teamwork, there is no reason doing teamwork now when there is no reward for doing it. Previously squad-spawnpoint made even these players stick with their squad and do teamwork.. spawnpoint was their motivation to do teamwork.

Also from squadleader point of view, i used to squad lead all the time when squad-spawnpoint was still useful, when it got ruined i found it too stressful to micromanage squad members every footstep in order to get them do any kind of teamwork at all. I believe so did many other squadleaders.. this resulted on lack of squadleaders who really tried to make ppl do teamwork, nowadays many of our squads in regular servers has leaders who doesnt lead at all, these squads have no teamwork at all.

Most of gameplay changes we did on 0.9 and ever since, has been bad and resulted in players leaving, this gives quite good picture about what players like and doesnt like.

For me it was the teamwork and the fact that people use VOIP a lot. Thats was the first thing I said when I told friends about the mod.

"Its a mod of Battlefield which makes it a lot more realistic. Almost all the players use there mic and theres a lot of teamwork going on. Sometimes even between squads." Something along these lines.

Also for me theres this game from a few years back that still is locked in my memory. I was squad-leading for one of my first times on Kashan. I stopped the truck that I was transporting our squad in and noticed an Ambrams tank watching the valley over near the village. Back then we also still had CO's most games. I radio'd the contact report and in came the A-10 when I lased that tank.

Stuff like that is golden ^_^

Teamwork and Communication while shooting other people is fun.

I think a wrong turn was made when the commander rolewas diminished a while back. Teamplay is the only thing that holds it together along with dev corrections here and there. The game is what we make it really. When there is sporadic teamplay, which is becoming more the norm nowadays, it makes for a **** game. I long for the MATURE and RESPECTFUL player base to return and replace what we have now. Or maybe I just need to find another game.

The main selling point (aside pretty much everything posted before) is that there is no other action-teamwork game out there like PR. Either there is hollywood action, or clunky awkwardness.

Many owners of BF2
Unparalleled teamplay
Combined arms
Variety of weapons
Map size
Variety of factions

I would say in that order

...mongol...

DDS wrote:I think a wrong turn was made when the commander rolewas diminished a while back. Teamplay is the only thing that holds it together along with dev corrections here and there. The game is what we make it really. When there is sporadic teamplay, which is becoming more the norm nowadays, it makes for a **** game. I long for the MATURE and RESPECTFUL player base to return and replace what we have now. Or maybe I just need to find another game.

I think there's no Commander because people dont' see a value in anything that doesn't have a gameplay feature built into it. There is no Commander kit, he has no special powers, aside from authorizing Area Attacks and using the UAV (apparently thats small potatoes). Apparently being a guy empowerd with deciding the flow of the entire battle isn't enough.

Apparently we'll see more commanders when we need them to do absurd **** like drive Logistics trucks all over the place and build Firebases and call in other **** we don't need.

Fact is that a Commander has a purpose that has never diminished in its core, its only become less attractive to people who have no patience for staring at maps and thinking abstractly.

The Commander is the mastermind of the battle, he directs the overall strategy, gives squads coordinating instructions, and makes the broader deicisions about attacking, falling back, defending here or there and ensuring that all units are working towards a common goal and that no squad leader is taking initiative that wastes assets that might actually serve a better purpose elsewhere.

People don't like that idea. They don't want a guy who tells them what to do. They want a guy who spawns uber assets and marks enemies seen on the UAV so that they can choose to attack them. He's seen as a radio bridge between squads, a coordinator of logistics (maybe) and in general a nuisance to the fun of being a squad leader.

This isn't helped by numbskull commanders who don't know that they're spending the entire battle talking on the all-talk VOIP net.

Commander is just a guy who's in charge. Thats all he is. A squad leader doesn't need an officer kit to be in charge and he'll frequently be as effective without his kit as he is with it, only really needing it for peculiar scenarios like rally points and markers or calling in airstrikes.

Commanders only need the acknowledgement of his authority to make stuff happen and the wherewithall of countless hours of PR experience to know what to do. I don't think much has changed this. The only bad decision they made was briefly to require a commander to be in his outpost to do his business, which limited his ability to go forward. They've added the very useful Commander Rally which nobody ever uses.

I see no reason to not have a Commander right now other than an unwillingness to have one or a lack of desiring candidates.

The only thing thats diminished the Commander role is the attitude people hold towards it. The mainstream sentiment is that its of no material value. The only things the devs can do to change that is arbitrarily create gameplay mechanisms that require him, but this doesn't guaratee that the role will be used correctly. Ultimately this is entirely player driven. If players don't take the role and use it correctly then it won't properly be realized no matter the developer choices.

I always end up in PR because there is no other game like it. It still provides PvP organized gameplay like no other, even if some claim to be downgrading.

I also would like to say that COs should be backed up by admins just like in PRTA. After all, that's how the game was supposed to play out. It seems to me that in the past few years some players have been induced with the "freedom for all" mentality bending the concept of games in the name of "fun", "killing is teamwork" or "exploits are there to be exploited".

I'm not afraid to say that I don't like this "hippie" mentality that wrecks the concept of teamwork oriented games. If that's their selling point, then that's the product that the general clientele is expecting. It seems to me that players assume that they have a democratic right to ***** about things that shouldn't be in their control.

Which leads me to the word "alienation" that is being whored out a lot lately by pubbies and ironically is itself alienating a lot of admins and other SLs/COs that got soft-heartened about what others think. If the latter don't cultivate respect, then it's only obvious that the chain of command is going to show a lot of cracks.

This is mostly directed to admins (including PRTA) who have a big role in how the games pan out in their servers. Expose your heads more and assume responsibility when you feel that the gameplay is being hurted by exploiters, disobedient SLs and/or lonewolves. Even if it means kicking a full squad or half the team in the process.

PFunk wrote:I think there's no Commander because people dont' see a value in anything that doesn't have a gameplay feature built into it. There is no Commander kit, he has no special powers, aside from authorizing Area Attacks and using the UAV (apparently thats small potatoes). Apparently being a guy empowerd with deciding the flow of the entire battle isn't enough.

Apparently we'll see more commanders when we need them to do absurd **** like drive Logistics trucks all over the place and build Firebases and call in other **** we don't need.

Fact is that a Commander has a purpose that has never diminished in its core, its only become less attractive to people who have no patience for staring at maps and thinking abstractly.

The Commander is the mastermind of the battle, he directs the overall strategy, gives squads coordinating instructions, and makes the broader deicisions about attacking, falling back, defending here or there and ensuring that all units are working towards a common goal and that no squad leader is taking initiative that wastes assets that might actually serve a better purpose elsewhere.

People don't like that idea. They don't want a guy who tells them what to do. They want a guy who spawns uber assets and marks enemies seen on the UAV so that they can choose to attack them. He's seen as a radio bridge between squads, a coordinator of logistics (maybe) and in general a nuisance to the fun of being a squad leader.

This isn't helped by numbskull commanders who don't know that they're spending the entire battle talking on the all-talk VOIP net.

Commander is just a guy who's in charge. Thats all he is. A squad leader doesn't need an officer kit to be in charge and he'll frequently be as effective without his kit as he is with it, only really needing it for peculiar scenarios like rally points and markers or calling in airstrikes.

Commanders only need the acknowledgement of his authority to make stuff happen and the wherewithall of countless hours of PR experience to know what to do. I don't think much has changed this. The only bad decision they made was briefly to require a commander to be in his outpost to do his business, which limited his ability to go forward. They've added the very useful Commander Rally which nobody ever uses.

I see no reason to not have a Commander right now other than an unwillingness to have one or a lack of desiring candidates.

The only thing thats diminished the Commander role is the attitude people hold towards it. The mainstream sentiment is that its of no material value. The only things the devs can do to change that is arbitrarily create gameplay mechanisms that require him, but this doesn't guaratee that the role will be used correctly. Ultimately this is entirely player driven. If players don't take the role and use it correctly then it won't properly be realized no matter the developer choices.

I really like the purpose of the commander role, id really like tos ti 3hrs on the UAV and spot targets.

But SLs dont give a fuck. So i dont want to look through the UAV just to see stuff from above, I want to interact with squads, lead them, coordinate multiple squads and so on.

Team must listen to your plan, if they dont, theres little point of being a commander. Maybe next time ill command on PRTA since i believe thereis a rule that you hav to listen to people above.

If we had the FOB restriction we would have more COs i think.