Project Reality Forums

Hey guys,

There is a little debate going on within the PR Team about adding new weapons/kits to factions which would require some place holders in order to do so right away,which in time we would look at replacing the place holders with the proper items, and we would like your input on the matter.

The main example right now is giving the RPG-7 to the MEC faction (since many ME countries use the RPG-7) as Alternative Light Anti-Tank (2x PG-7V HEAT Rockets) and Heavy Anti-Tank (3x Iranian Tandem HEAT Rockets), along side their current RPG-26 (LAT, 1x) and Eryx (HAT, 1x) primary kit weapons, to give players more options when picking their kits.

The issue with doing this is that the MEC Faction doesn't currently have a RPG-7 in its kit geometries. As such picking the Alternative LAT would mean that a guy is holding an RPG-7, but has an RPG-26 on his back, and picking the Alternative HAT would mean the guy is holding an RPG-7V2, but has an Eryx on his back.

We will naturally in time try to replace these place holder kit geometries (or w/e else) with the correct item but we can't say how long this will take since we have many other fish to fry and not that many cooks to fry them.


There are other features at play as well here which I wont go into details now but what I will say is that it goes a bit beyond just kit geometries and these other features would mean place holder weapons for some factions, for an entirely new set of kits for all factions.


Thanks for reading!

Voted features, so we can finally get fast ropes(without rope).

Eh, this is too tricky to just answer for one thing. It has to be a case to case for me so I'm not going to answer the poll. Take the example you gave, I'd rather see you wait until the kit geoms are decent; having kit geom with rpg-26 with rpg-7 with weapon i would NOT like to see. However, a placeholder where the guy has NOTHING(not another model AT) on his back is fine imo. There's something about having one weapon in your hand and another on your back that just bothers me...I can see why you're having this trouble.

Is it not easy just to remove the rpg/eryx from the back and just use that? Alternatively use rifleman(?) git geom?

However, including a cool new vehicle on map, but the camo doesn't match the terrain (Canadian leopards for example - and yes I know they aren't exactly new) I am totally fine with.

Features , indeed! My choice is for realism , even if the immersion be a little broken now by the lack of aesthetic , I know that later our talented devs solve this!

Building on the theme , I saw that there was a project for the RPG -29 , there was some progress? , I think it would be an excellent future substitute for the RPG - 7V2 .

We've always had features that weren't fully ready yet, placeholder textures, placeholder assets, placeholder factions, etc. . Just saying, Canada still uses Leopards with Woodland Camo on Kashan - fair enough, it does look silly, but if the only thing holding you back is something of cosmetic nature, then I don't consider it an issue worthy to delay a release.

sweedensniiperr wrote:Is it not easy just to remove the rpg/eryx from the back and just use that? Alternatively use rifleman(?) git geom?

Its pretty easy to set the Alternative LAT/HATs to use a Rifleman kit geom. Problem with that is when the player isn't holding the weapon in his hands, you can't tell he is a LAT or HAT which is both a problem for friendlies wanting to know who in their squad has the LAT/HAT and where they are at a quick glance and enemies trying to take out the LAT/HAT in their squad.

For me, quality will always go first. I'd rather have PR with only 4 but complete factions instead of 20 but not finished ones.
But I have to agree with sweedensniper, it is different from case to case, for example the problem described in the OP is not really going to be an issue if it's added but for other things it might matter.

i think its important to find a balance between the two. PR needs to keep moving forward, we cant afford for it to stall out like it did before 1.0. we need to keep adding new features on a reasonable time table. if the next update already has a good number of new features then wait for the kit geometry to be done. if the next update is light on features throw in a few of the not quite polished ones. that being said, i believe your next update will have 4 new maps in it. 4 new maps will hold us over in terms of new features for a few months.
the new maps coming out will keep up busy for a few months while you finish the geometry.

I vote for aesthetics, why, simply because I would like the core mod to keep the same high level of quality as previous releases (mini-mods excluded) since I have grown tired of broken stuff and beta maps (not only in PR) but a vast majority of early access games and content - please take this into consideration before making your final decision.

For me it is not only about aesthetics but also gameplay. Having the RPG-7 HAT but showing the Eryx can be very misleading. If i spot a RPG-7 wielding soldier while being far away in a tank, i wont care. If i see an Eryx i am going to get the fuck out.
It is also very annoying to see in my opinion. I am totally fine with placeholders as long as they arent that apparent. For example the SRAW/NLAW instead of Javelin. It is wrong, but in game you dont see it so only a rather small number of people will even know it is wrong (same with M20/SMAW as placeholder for CG). However if you have one AT in the hand and a completely different on the back, it is a different story. Every player will spot that and be confused. We already have that on some kits. The USA/NL alternative LAT has M72 but shows AT4 on the back. Not that huge on gameplay since both are just LAT, but still causes bug reports and confused questions in game.
I say lets wait a bit longer and get our kit-exporters to work

Picking features over aesthetics could turn into such a slippery slope... obviously there are times where minor compromises make sense, but I'm not so sure this is one of them. I really wonder whether the kit geoms would ever get done tbh if valued so low.

Well this is more than anything a case of "we're 99% done, it doesn't break the game, don't delay it for something so minor".

This is not really as black and white as a poll is. Really depends on the very specific case

IMO in this specific case Features > Aesthetics Since its only cosmetic....

As long as the team actually follows through with the aesthetics after implementing the features, I don't see the problem. I know a lot of people in the community appreciate new features in such an old game and they would be mature enough to understand certain things are just placeholders.

greg3000 wrote:IMO in this specific case Features > Aesthetics Since its only cosmetic....

It's not just aesthetic, Mats has a point:

[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:For me it is not only about aesthetics but also gameplay. Having the RPG-7 HAT but showing the Eryx can be very misleading. If i spot a RPG-7 wielding soldier while being far away in a tank, i wont care. If i see an Eryx i am going to get the fuck out.
It is also very annoying to see in my opinion. I am totally fine with placeholders as long as they arent that apparent. For example the SRAW/NLAW instead of Javelin. It is wrong, but in game you dont see it so only a rather small number of people will even know it is wrong (same with M20/SMAW as placeholder for CG). However if you have one AT in the hand and a completely different on the back, it is a different story. Every player will spot that and be confused. We already have that on some kits. The USA/NL alternative LAT has M72 but shows AT4 on the back. Not that huge on gameplay since both are just LAT, but still causes bug reports and confused questions in game.
I say lets wait a bit longer and get our kit-exporters to work

'[R-DEV wrote:Mats391;2102278']For me it is not only about aesthetics but also gameplay. Having the RPG-7 HAT but showing the Eryx can be very misleading. If i spot a RPG-7 wielding soldier while being far away in a tank, i wont care. If i see an Eryx i am going to get the fuck out.

Exactly!

At least for MEC Ligth AT, give a RPG-7, it is not so big deal the kit geometry.

For this specific case, features.

Because it's already weird when holding the RPG-7 makes your model look like it has two RPG-7(the launcher on the back does not disappear, last time I checked).

I'd rather have quality over quantity, complete the feature and then put it in.

If it proves to be unbalanced then remove an asset from the other team's arsenal or something similar and wait for the completed feature.