Project Reality Forums

I am not the biggest fan of battle rifles. The only good battle rifle is the scoped G3. Otherwise, I tend to avoid maps with iron sight battle rifle maps. Battle rifles are just inferior to the AK platform. Whatever long range benefits battle rifles may have, the AK has them beat in close and medium range combat. Which is the majority of combat in PR. The damage between the AK and battle rifles is about the same, but the magazine size and overall ammo capacity is 50% more for the AK. And the recoil is lower on the AK. Truly intermediate caliber assault rifles(5.56 or 5.45) also have battle rifles beat. Iron sight or Scoped layers doesn't matter. The lower recoil makes all the difference. Battle rifles need something done to them to make them more competitive.

"need something done" ... such as?

I swear if you're gonna suggest MEC use AKMs i'm gonna go nuclear

Nate. wrote:"need something done" ... such as?

Something to make them more competitive. Especially on MEC iron sight only layers.

I dont want to nerf the AK. But it may be the only way. The AK/SKS/STG.44 should no longer be a 2 shot chest kill on armored targets. Only on unarmored targets. Battle rifles should remain a guaranteed 2 shot chest kill on armored and/or unarmored targets. As compensation the AK should have it's recoil reduced a bit.

sweedensniiperr wrote:I swear if you're gonna suggest MEC use AKMs i'm gonna go nuclear

Ok then how about type 56s?

dcm wrote:Whatever long range benefits battle rifles may have, the AK has them beat in close and medium range combat.

Nate. wrote:"need something done" ... such as?

Make all guns single shot recoil very low. Make all guns shooting on full auto recoil multiplayer x10

dcm wrote:The AK/SKS/STG.44 should no longer be a 2 shot chest kill on armored targets. Only on unarmored targets.

They already aren't.

I feel as though our battle rifles are in an "ok" spot right now after the 900 RPM 5.56s got nerfed. Indeed it's neither great, nor terrible, that's the whole point of it being a standard issue rifle. And although I personally am a strong proponent of "G3 only makes sense with a scope" and thus relate to the pain you feel on MEC irons only layers, you'll find others who almost exclusively run it with irons/reddot and swear to that being "the way".

I'm under no illusion that assault rifles, the lot of it, have an easier time in CQB, but what I'm getting the most from you is this uncanny vibe of "It couldn't possibly my fault I lost the engagement, so it has to be the rifle's. To the forums I must go." - something you already did with the M1 Carbine AND the Kar98k btw -, and, I'm gonna be honest, this is pretty rich coming from someone who's not played the game nearly as much as many others and I have. In addition to that, you have rejected off-hand the notion to either fundamentally adjust tactics to what is dictated by a faction's equipment and its capabilities before, so it all comes off to me as "frustrated venting" - which is the opposite of "suggestion/opinion formed after sound critical analysis" we're looking for in a feedback thread.

Frontliner wrote:They already aren't.

I feel as though our battle rifles are in an "ok" spot right now after the 900 RPM 5.56s got nerfed. Indeed it's neither great, nor terrible, that's the whole point of it being a standard issue rifle. And although I personally am a strong proponent of "G3 only makes sense with a scope" and thus relate to the pain you feel on MEC irons only layers, you'll find others who almost exclusively run it with irons/reddot and swear to that being "the way".

I love ironsights. It's my preferred method of aiming and target acquisition. I detest red dots, holo sights and most forms of glass. Not because of some Luddite perspective. But because I love the fairness and balance that stems from organic ironsight gameplay. Irons are just clearer and easier to use too(in game ofcourse, no idea about real life, only shot a few guns at the range and they were all iron sights). The G3's problem is related to it's high recoil and low ammo count. Not so bad with a scope. Awful with irons only.

Frontliner wrote: I'm under no illusion that assault rifles, the lot of it, have an easier time in CQB, but what I'm getting the most from you is this uncanny vibe of "It couldn't possibly my fault I lost the engagement, so it has to be the rifle's. To the forums I must go." - something you already did with the M1 Carbine AND the Kar98k btw -, and, I'm gonna be honest, this is pretty rich coming from someone who's not played the game nearly as much as many others and I have. In addition to that, you have rejected off-hand the notion to either fundamentally adjust tactics to what is dictated by a faction's equipment and its capabilities before, so it all comes off to me as "frustrated venting" - which is the opposite of "suggestion/opinion formed after sound critical analysis" we're looking for in a feedback thread.

I've been around since 2004/05. Back when Project Reality was just an idea on the totalbf2 forums(I think, could've been bf2s or bf central).

There are occasions where I feel as if my death was unfair. And other occasions where I should not have won an engagement. I am fully willing to congratulate a better opponent if I believe the fight was fair and fun. Unfortunately I have noticed the uptick in cheaters(especially on non US servers), but that's another matter entirely.

The M1 carbine and Kar98k are themselves another issue. I believe I already informed you the weakness of said weapons in the WW2 theater. So there's no need to go back to that subject, outside of the WW2 forums.

"Frustrated venting" is the mother of all feedback. That's where it all begins. You dont like something you make your feelings known. Your food was burned? You send it back to the kitchen.

It seems to me that you can not accept criticism of gameplay mechanics. I dont mean the other developers or contributors, but you yourself in particular. You went insane with rage, in the aforementioned ww2 feedback and suggestions thread. WW2 kills servers. Atleast 20-40% drop depending on the map. Sure kassel is new, and has planes, but when the novelty wears off; it'll be a server killer like most other ww2 maps. Except for omaha for some odd reason.

Back to the matter at hand. Battle rifles are in a bad spot. There is no good reason for anybody who is given the choice to use battle rifles to do so. Sure they may be a fun distraction for factions that can afford the novelty(FSA/TALI/INS), but for the MEC(especially on iron sight layers)they are a hindrance. What makes MEC maps Kashan, Muttrah and Burning Sands better maps than Sbeneh and Fallujah? Scopes. But if given scopes on the latter two maps, the MEC would dominate the opposing factions too easily.

P.S. I do not play Falklands at all. Nor do I use the M14 in vietnam after the removal of full auto. Most of my feedback is based from experiences in modern theaters. Mainly from playing as the MEC.

Suchar wrote:

The middle sight posts on the FAL, M1 Garand and few other weapons are just a bit too wide in comparison to their IRL counterparts. It makes the pixel I am aiming at smaller than the actual sight post, meaning I have half the target on the sight post, bullet could go left or right. Fine point aiming is hard enough already. G3 has a perfect needle.

The recoil is a bit too much or its effects are over-exagerated upward instead of sending rifle into the shoulder. Too much muzzle rise, when I double tap with any rifle, even the M4 the bullets are a foot apart left/right or up/down. I should have a perfect small triangle with 3 fast clicks. We can reduce the recoil on G3, FAL and AKM because the resetting the mouse back onto target simulates part of the recoil effect.

Between the added time of actual recoil taking aim off target, resetting the aim onto target and the confidence factor of confirming target is lined up with that solid gut feeling. At least 3 seconds with G3 and FAL. Especially while prone, many ways for a rifle to be stabilized. Way too much recoil while prone. The "hip fire" which I really consider point and shoot, the deviation here shouldn't extend past the middle 1/3 of my screen.

Need a more circular point shooting deviation effect under 50 meters. AK gets off more accurate rounds than the FAL in this game while FAL has smaller magazine, more recoil and deviation at all ranges. Realism applies the balance and it needs work. You have a good platform, now you need somebody with an FFL to test these things out at different ranges.

dcm wrote:I've been around since 2004/05. Back when Project Reality was just an idea on the totalbf2 forums(I think, could've been bf2s or bf central).

Be honest! I've been around since 2009, didn't make a forum account and post here until I was already moved on from PR to Arma 2 and BMS, but I still help my gaming clan run a COOP server in PR among other games. You may have played PR back in the day, but then you put it down for years and years, and came back in 2021 with a ton of "suggestions" and "feedback", didn't you? No shame in that, but it's at least honest, right?

dcm wrote: Back to the matter at hand. Battle rifles are in a bad spot. There is no good reason for anybody who is given the choice to use battle rifles to do so. Sure they may be a fun distraction for factions that can afford the novelty(FSA/TALI/INS), but for the MEC(especially on iron sight layers)they are a hindrance. What makes MEC maps Kashan, Muttrah and Burning Sands better maps than Sbeneh and Fallujah? Scopes. But if given scopes on the latter two maps, the MEC would dominate the opposing factions too easily.

You forgot your favourite map, Kafr Halab (Alt layer specifically), and Beirut where neither side has scopes and honestly in that case G3 surpasses AK atleast at anything above 30 meters once you single fire it. I honestly can recall a recent encounter of Muttrah where I was using G3 with irons and managed to down an american burst firing m16 at me in close range (Without ADS) could be share luck but any data is good data in an uncontrolled environment.

I personally think G3 is fine on slower pace maps with less, but not absolutely no, CQC action. It encourages a different type of game strategy rather than just charge, like a bat out of hell, into a CQC battle and pray that the element of surprise is in your favour. Just do what Suchar said. "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome"

SemlerPDX wrote:Be honest! I've been around since 2009, didn't make a forum account and post here until I was already moved on from PR to Arma 2 and BMS, but I still help my gaming clan run a COOP server in PR among other games. You may have played PR back in the day, but then you put it down for years and years, and came back in 2021 with a ton of "suggestions" and "feedback", didn't you? No shame in that, but it's at least honest, right?

I started playing PR around .2/.3 minimod. Ran a server back then too, up until .7. That I believe is when the devs fucked up the gun mechanics so bad; that PR was unplayable as infantry. I remember alot of complaints on the forums back then too. My head admin quit PR out of rage and disgust. I was busy IRL so I quit PR for years and shut down my server. Came back around .9 something. Back when the insurgents team wasn't so damn underpowered. Didn't like 1.0 that much. 100 player servers were nice but damn they did my boys dirty. Left and came back periodically for every major update since then. Always making a new account/ingame handle. Because I can not be arsed to remember logins and passwords and it's just easier to make a new account anyways.

P.S. .4/.5 was the golden age of PR. I have fond memories of playing the star wars cantina music right as I was about to ram the bomb car into a tank or apc.

Let's stay on topic here, please.

It would be nice if FALs on Falklands and Goose green dealt damage similar to ww2 rifles, maybe they wouldn't feel like such useless peashooters anymore

Man I had an awful, awful round on sbeneh ins last night. Mec iron sights night layer. The syrians won 3-0, perfect game, no caches lost. The closest I ever got to the cache was with a Saiga. Those AKs were tearing us up.

LiPOTO wrote:It would be nice if FALs on Falklands and Goose green dealt damage similar to ww2 rifles, maybe they wouldn't feel like such useless peashooters anymore

Wouldn't be a bad idea tbh. But just to the chest. I dont want a tarkov type situation where everyone is going for leg meta.

I forget do the brits and argies get body armor on falklands or not?

Coalz101 wrote:You forgot your favourite map, Kafr Halab (Alt layer specifically)

Kafr Halab Ins is mostly AK vs AK. Yes there is the option of battle rifles for each faction on alt layer, but they are rarely used. I only see Insurgent officers and Syrian combat engineers using FALs because they have to. I dont play kafr aas at all.

and Beirut where neither side has scopes and honestly in that case G3 surpasses AK atleast at anything above 30 meters once you single fire it. I honestly can recall a recent encounter of Muttrah where I was using G3 with irons and managed to down an american burst firing m16 at me in close range (Without ADS) could be share luck but any data is good data in an uncontrolled environment.

The AK74(and derivatives) is my least favorite assault rifle platform in the game. But even so, I'm competent enough with it at 50-200m. I do find RUS vs MEC maps more balanced as a rule. I dont know why though.

Muttrah is another story. If Americans had full autos like the IDF does then you wouldn't have survived. The three round burst(bullshit!) limiter really clamps on the combat potential of the US factions. Chad Fully Automatic > Virgin Burst Fire.

I personally think G3 is fine on slower pace maps with less, but not absolutely no, CQC action. It encourages a different type of game strategy rather than just charge, like a bat out of hell, into a CQC battle and pray that the element of surprise is in your favour. Just do what Suchar said. "Improvise, Adapt, Overcome"

Slower pace means with Scopes. As was stated earlier; The G3 on scoped layers has no problem matching and/or exceeding the combat potential scoped assault rifles.

I cant slow down. I like my combat fast and furious. That is why when I'm ever on mec. I always go for Breacher, MG3 or MP5. The G3 just aint that good on the cramped streets of muttrah or fallujah or wherever.

Demanding gameplay changes due to being unable to adapt play style to the current circumstances does not sound convincing, at all.

Suchar wrote:Demanding gameplay changes due to being unable to adapt play style to the current circumstances does not sound convincing, at all.

Really? Then why did you boost the cycle speed of bolt action rifles? Before the buff the kar98k especially, was so damn unusable. I had to formulate ambush tactics to succeed. Now I dont have to rely on getting the jump on the enemy as much anymore. I can go toe-to-toe with garands in cqb. Same is true for modern day factions that use bolt actions. The lee-enfield is especially good.

dcm wrote:Really? Then why did you boost the cycle speed of bolt action rifles? Before the buff the kar98k especially, was so damn unusable. I had to formulate ambush tactics to succeed. Now I dont have to rely on getting the jump on the enemy as much anymore. I can go toe-to-toe with garands in cqb. Same is true for modern day factions that use bolt actions. The lee-enfield is especially good.

I don't know if you've seen someone shooting a bolt action like an enfield with proficiency, but they current ingame RoF is pretty close to on par with the reality of a seasoned shooter with bolt actions.