Project Reality Forums

I'd love to hear people's opinions on this matter.

Essentially Project reality in the past planned for and created superpower factions, but has left out a few countries which have actually gone to full scale war.

Example, Egypt v Israel.

Now I know Egypt is sensitive to the topic of the 6 day war for example, and it would be in poor taste to belittle the military efforts even though the campaign didnt go their way. However in the interest of preserving a level of fidelity and respectability, I think it's actually MORE insulting to boil these countries down to the "MEC" (Middle East Coalition.)

Yes, some countries often allied in conflicts, but in Project reality's battles, the maps only simulate a specific engagement, with specialized resources, and cannot represent the entire sharing of vehicles or equipment in an alliance.

Also when we saw the new vehicles and equipment in the Falklands minimod by Rhino, it was exciting to see such verity simply because the Argentinian faction stayed true to itself.

So basically, wouldn't it be better to try to phase out the MEC and replace them with their individual countries?

I'm not arguing, so don't expect me to force this thread to stay alive, if it's a mute point then so be it, but I would like to encourage other people to discuss it. I'm not captain war archive man, my knowledge of history is limited, so i may have gotten my facts wrong, but i still would like to see more faction verity in game.

And i want to know if the mec was initially intended to be a temp placeholder, and if the DEVs basically just went "ah whatever, just leave the mec in, it's less work"

because it takes people to make and then maintain those faction.

The dev team hasn't made a faction since as long as I can remember it. All came forward from the community.

So as long as individual nations aren't made by the community. MEC is here to stay.

See when you get DEV tags its becuase you have a skill that has been proven. So lets say if I made textures for vehicles and that vehicle gets implimented in game, then I get DEV tags. That means any community member who made something, and continues to do so remains a DEV or at least an R-CON.

What I'm saying is, the people who are on the DEV list already have the skills to make new factions proven by the vetting process in moving from community dude to r-con, and then dev status.

So if the team reached a decision to make a faction during a meeting, im certain it would get done.

So mineral, your answer really isnt satisfactory.

Like IDF vs Hamas arent the most politically delicate factions available aside maybe from pedobear vs hello kitty...

We avoid sensitive factions? We are one of the only games that feature Iraqi Insurgents, Taliban, Hamas and Syrian Rebels. We will also add the Syrian Army in near future. All those can be considered sensitive due to the ongoing conflicts. Then comes the Falklands which caused some drama already if i remember correctly
The Ukrainian community factions is also something we look forward to add to the game once it is done.
As for splitting MEC it has already been discussed and in the end it simply is not worth it. You need new kits, soldier, some new textures and maybe even voices. Then you need maps they fit on. Right now most MEC maps are fictional.

Also the MEC is a nice nostalgic remnant of PR's origins in BF2

Psyko wrote:See when you get DEV tags its becuase you have a skill that has been proven. So lets say if I made textures for vehicles and that vehicle gets implimented in game, then I get DEV tags. That means any community member who made something, and continues to do so remains a DEV or at least an R-CON.

What I'm saying is, the people who are on the DEV list already have the skills to make new factions proven by the vetting process in moving from community dude to r-con, and then dev status.

So if the team reached a decision to make a faction during a meeting, im certain it would get done.

So mineral, your answer really isnt satisfactory.

Because they are working on bigger things. What is the point of adding an Egypt faction? What benefit do we all get? They also have to make maps then, add new vehicles, code them its a pain in the ***. And no, if it were that easy they would have Polish, Finnish, Norwegian, falklands and ww2 done.

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:We avoid sensitive factions? We are one of the only games that feature Iraqi Insurgents, Taliban, Hamas and Syrian Rebels. We will also add the Syrian Army in near future. All those can be considered sensitive due to the ongoing conflicts. Then comes the Falklands which caused some drama already if i remember correctly
The Ukrainian community factions is also something we look forward to add to the game once it is done.
As for splitting MEC it has already been discussed and in the end it simply is not worth it. You need new kits, soldier, some new textures and maybe even voices. Then you need maps they fit on. Right now most MEC maps are fictional.

Cool, good to know. But is it possible that Saudi Arabia and Iran have been deliberately avoided?

Psyko wrote:So if the team reached a decision to make a faction during a meeting, im certain it would get done.

So mineral, your answer really isnt satisfactory.

If we would sit down like that the conclusion would be: no, we have enough work fixing and updating the other 15+ factions we have already. Many of us are indeed on the team out of community factions. I did That doesn't mean we all crave new factions. Most of them we made because people live in those nations. Or because a certain gameplay element was missing (for me example with SAF, more complex opfor factions). That doesn't mean we like working on factions just for the sake of having more.

Psyko wrote:Cool, good to know. But is it possible that Saudi Arabia and Iran have been deliberately avoided?

Except for copyright the PR has no boundaries put on itself by conflict, political points or anything like that. I cannot remember a single discussion about any type of avoidance because conflict.

Fabio Chavez wrote:Like IDF vs Hamas arent the most politically delicate factions available aside maybe from pedobear vs hello kitty...

when I was writing the first post, my thoughts were that sensitivity was likely the reason for avoiding certain factions.

We have established that it is indeed not the case, so any faction can be made and there is no restrictions. (apart from battle size i guess, or yield of military power in real life)

I keep thinking the DEVs are super invested in continually expanding the game, but actually the DEVs are pragmatically invested in patching existing holes. This is a good thing.




Does this mean If If someone made a Saudi or Iranian faction, it could replace the MEC on maps such as Kashan desert?

Depends on gameplay reasoning mostly. When we finish SAF we might put them on Bijar instead of MEC. Not sure yet. Will depend if we can either alter the gameplay with that change for the better or keep it the same with a more 'fitting' faction.

Wait, what is SAF? Is that South African forces?

Syrians right? We can assume the decision hasn't been finalized.

Psyko, if you put a team together and come out with a quality Iran or Saudi Arabia faction I'm sure that replacing the MEC on some maps would be readily explored. A game that allows you to play as the Iraqi Insurgents, Taliban, or Chechen style militia is not a game scared of Iran or SA.

LiamNL wrote:Wait, what is SAF? Is that South African forces?

Syrian Armed Forces.

mat552 wrote:Psyko, if you put a team together and come out with a quality Iran or Saudi Arabia faction I'm sure that replacing the MEC on some maps would be readily explored. A game that allows you to play as the Iraqi Insurgents, Taliban, or Chechen style militia is not a game scared of Iran or SA.

my skills and time are as limited as everyone else. I tried hopelessly down through the years to be part of the mod but failed, i'm just not as good at this stuff as the DEVs are. I learned years ago its extremely difficult to "manage" a group of skilled people when you dont share their skills. If i thought I was capable of doing it, I wouldn't be making a thread about the topic, I would be actively invested in actually doing it personally. The old cliche, "know your limits" applies here.

Aw , was hoping for some random original faction instead of the next middle eastern peoples thingy

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:Except for copyright the PR has no boundaries put on itself by conflict, political points or anything like that. I cannot remember a single discussion about any type of avoidance because conflict.

Yea! the PR team will never shy away from controversy in our pursuit of historical accuracy! Well, of course, except for nazis; screw that can of worms.

Fabio Chavez wrote:Like IDF vs Hamas arent the most politically delicate factions available aside maybe from pedobear vs hello kitty...

What guns would pedobear and hello kitty use? That's the real question.