Project Reality Forums

INFINTRY
I am focusing the realism of project reality and found that the recoil and weapon accuracy is not realistic at all. I feel the game should focus more on weapon accuracy and recoil. In the military, soldiers are trained to reduce recoil and accelerate accuracy. I feel it would be more realistic if a solder aims at a target with single shot, the bullet should hit whatever it was targeting. The accuracy should differ between military forces.

Also the accuracy of insurgents should have different accuracy than trained military. Maybe have a trained insurgent class for better accuracy or something.

All sniper/marksmen classes should be 1 shot kill for these weapons are to incapacitate a person to where they can no further function without immediate medical assistance. Height affect should be in motion!
Snipers should have a option for sound masking and better ghillie suites to blend into grass and bushes.

TANKS
All US and British Tanks should have a forcefield called the Trophy System. The Trophy System is basically an active forcefield around a tank or an armored vehicle to defend against RPG rounds. Its not like a Star Wars forcefields like people think. It is basically a computer system inside a tank that can track the heat signatures from a rocket propelled grenade and respond by shooting out a type of BB, form the corners of a tank, to eliminate the threat. Tanks should only be able to use this defense 1 to 2 times in the game.

COMMANDER
Drones should be able to be deployed by Commander and controlled with a remote control to spot enemy troops. It can also be a good way to help a Commander make better decisions. The Commander can lead a squad to a destination without putting the squad in danger and much more.

Commander should not have a primary weapon but can supply around him. Commander should be the primary person in the game to provide support and build commands. Commander should be able to build anything in his area. (not build but place an object)

Commander should be able to give players extra kits upon request(with a limit of 5 kits per game/receive a extra kit ever 5/10 min) for extra support in the game. (Kits requested must already be filled.)(Must have full squad)


I need peoples opinion about my ideas. Criticize me! I want this game to succeed.

Most of these ideas are completely unfeasible and less than useful, and the ones that are sensible have either been suggested or are impossible with the Battlefield 2 engine. Your zeal is a good thing, but you seem to have forgotten the primary tenet of Project Reality: balancing reality and fun, instead of focusing purely on one or the other.

the accuracy is fine - best it's ever been
the deviation is imo a tad excessive, making long range engagements awesome but anything less than 50m a bit ugly and decided more by chance than anything else

tanks- no western tank uses any active defence system. Only the Israelis are evaluating putting Trophy on their tanks after their Lebanon misadventure. Repair stations and placable 50 cal weapons to replace the unfortunate choice of static USI AA guns would be on my list as more easily implementable and good for the whole team

commander - UAV solution is desirable but requires loads and loads of work for something that is not really crucial to gameplay.

Welcome to the Forum!

The accuracy issue you describe is in the game in the avaliablilty of optics

Although I'd like to see UAVs return in some form, they are less important than the kind of leadership the current system has

Warning: Active defence countermeasures have been mentioned a thousand times before and i doubt they can be put in the game.

gclark03 wrote:Most of these ideas are completely unfeasible and less than useful, and the ones that are sensible have either been suggested or are impossible with the Battlefield 2 engine. Your zeal is a good thing, but you seem to have forgotten the primary tenet of Project Reality: balancing reality and fun, instead of focusing purely on one or the other.

Thank you for the feedback. The ideas that I have for PR are quite basic and will balance realism in the game. Sometimes it is necessary to eliminate a specific flaw in a beta/alpha game. That is what I do. Also just one little idea can make one big change of the game. I understand that the Battlefield 2 engine is limited, but that did not stop the developers from making this mod. I am sure they can find out a way to further exceed my expectations. But again, these are just ideas for the development of the game. Thanks again for your feedback.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Welcome to the Forum!

The accuracy issue you describe is in the game in the avaliablilty of optics

Although I'd like to see UAVs return in some form, they are less important than the kind of leadership the current system has

Warning: Active defence countermeasures have been mentioned a thousand times before and i doubt they can be put in the game.

I am sure it has. It would be hard to code an object to deflect a rocket. But it is just way to easy to kill a tank in this game. There has to be a way to defend a tank. It does not have to be truly realistic if there is no way to put a forcefield of some sort...

SMOKE911 wrote:INFINTRY
In the military, soldiers are trained to reduce recoil and accelerate accuracy. I feel it would be more realistic if a solder aims at a target with single shot, the bullet should hit whatever it was targeting. The accuracy should differ between military forces.

Whereas in PR, players are trained to reduce recoil and accelerate aiming by a. Pulling the mouse down and b. not running right before shooting. Accuracy differing between forces? I just see that turning into "WHY DuZ Teh Mareens have teh better aim tahn teh Britss!? Brits r SOOo much Betterer!!!!1one"

SMOKE911 wrote: Also the accuracy of insurgents should have different accuracy than trained military. Maybe have a trained insurgent class for better accuracy or something.

Insurgent forces also eat and breathe weaponry. They arent just untrained guys running around with AK's. [ok ok, they might not be a standard army, but what Im trying to say is just leave it to the player. The ak already has a dif. accuracy anyway] Im sure they know how to handle one relatively well. Not to mention, leave the skill to the players, dont go suggesting we add in higher accuracy classes.

SMOKE911 wrote: All sniper/marksmen classes should be 1 shot kill for these weapons are to incapacitate a person to where they can no further function without immediate medical assistance. Height affect should be in motion!
Snipers should have a option for sound masking and better ghillie suites to blend into grass and bushes.

No. No. and No. Why leave it to the gun to do it when its perfect as it is. Hit a soldier in the head, he goes down. Hit him elsewhere, and he will be wounded/maybe dead. There's already bleeding, loss of run, blur, etc. And ghillie suits? They already dont render far enough anyway and not to mention, if shrubs dont, it wont make a difference. Sound masking? Silencers on spec ops and Snipers? No. Please.


And the commander already has tons of ting to keep him busy, making him also responsible for weapon allocation would be a pain in the a$$

gclark03 wrote:Your zeal is a good thing, but you seem to have forgotten the primary tenet of Project Reality: balancing reality and fun, instead of focusing purely on one or the other.

Really? I always heard it as "go for reality, reality is what makes it fun."

imho, EA tried to balance realism and fun, and we got BF2 as a result. And we don;t want that, do we?

Sure, it may be 'easy' to destroy a tank, but why does it need to be any harder to destroy a heavily armored mobile cannon with a 10x zoomed coaxial belt-fed sniper rifle ?

Tanks are built to kill just about anything, save jet aircraft. Let them explode at the hands of rockets.

@OkitaMakoto, there's a limit to how much reality one can add without detracting from fun. Surely, you wouldn't like sitting on a 9-hour flight to the map's country in-game, a 45-minute drive to the main base, and not being able to spawn if you die once during the match.

$kelet0r wrote:the accuracy is fine - best it's ever been
the deviation is imo a tad excessive, making long range engagements awesome but anything less than 50m a bit ugly and decided more by chance than anything else

tanks- no western tank uses any active defence system. Only the Israelis are evaluating putting Trophy on their tanks after their Lebanon misadventure. Repair stations and placable 50 cal weapons to replace the unfortunate choice of static USI AA guns would be on my list as more easily implementable and good for the whole team

commander - UAV solution is desirable but requires loads and loads of work for something that is not really crucial to gameplay.

That is the most unrealistic part about this game. I love the fire fights long range, but when the player engages close range, the bullets fly everywhere. If you are a rifleman, you have to use the scope at close range, making it troublesome to aim at a closer target. Otherwise you have to spray and pray…

Tanks- In PR, most of the Tanks skins have the active defence sytem on the tank. Realistic??? Yes... Especialy for Insurgency maps.

UAV- Yes it does take a lot of work. Why do you not think it is necessary for the game?

$kelet0r wrote:the accuracy is fine - best it's ever been
the deviation is imo a tad excessive, making long range engagements awesome but anything less than 50m a bit ugly and decided more by chance than anything else

tanks- no western tank uses any active defence system. Only the Israelis are evaluating putting Trophy on their tanks after their Lebanon misadventure. Repair stations and placable 50 cal weapons to replace the unfortunate choice of static USI AA guns would be on my list as more easily implementable and good for the whole team

commander - UAV solution is desirable but requires loads and loads of work for something that is not really crucial to gameplay.

That is the most unrealistic part about this game. I love the fire fights long range, but when the player engages close range, the bullets fly everywhere. If you are a rifleman, you have to use the scope at close range, making it troublesome to aim at a closer target. Otherwise you have to spray and pray…

Tanks- In PR, most of the Tanks skins have the active defence sytem on the tank. Realistic??? Yes... Especialy for Insurgency maps.

UAV- Yes it does take a lot of work. Why do you not think it is necessary for the game?

gclark03 wrote: @OkitaMakoto, there's a limit to how much reality one can add without detracting from fun. Surely, you wouldn't like sitting on a 9-hour flight to the map's country in-game, a 45-minute drive to the main base, and not being able to spawn if you die once during the match.

Thats not "reality", thats deploying to a country to go to war, which I have breaks between PR called RL that last longer than 9 hours. There's already long drives to bases, etc. And pulling the "die once" card to show PR's lack of realism is a joke and holds no water. Its not balancing fun and realism, its going as far with realism as possible within the limitations of the BF2 engine.

[R-CON]OkitaMakoto wrote:No. No. and No. Why leave it to the gun to do it when its perfect as it is. Hit a soldier in the head, he goes down. Hit him elsewhere, and he will be wounded/maybe dead. There's already bleeding, loss of run, blur, etc. And ghillie suits? They already dont render far enough anyway and not to mention, if shrubs dont, it wont make a difference. Sound masking? Silencers on spec ops and Snipers? No. Please.

You are right about the rest. But this quote is totaly wrong. Weaponry is one of the most important objects in the game. The damage is equally important. I understand the damage affect in the game, but high powered rifles should be accounted for.

[R-CON]OkitaMakoto wrote:Thats not "reality", thats deploying to a country to go to war, which I have breaks between PR called RL that last longer than 9 hours. There's already long drives to bases, etc. And pulling the "die once" card to show PR's lack of realism is a joke and holds no water. Its not balancing fun and realism, its going as far with realism as possible within the limitations of the BF2 engine.

Your absolutely right about that.

On the note of accuracy, I agree with Okita. Leave it to the player's skill, that's about the only thing that can simulate a trained or undisciplined solider. Also, just because Insurgents aren't apart of a professional fighting force doesn't mean they can't be good sharpshooters. Some of the best marksman in the world probably never served in the military.

Not sure about the whole tank thing, not even sure on its' real world application and how doable it is ingame.

As for UAVs. With spotting the way it is, and reconnaissance becoming ever more vital, I would like to see some type of UAV system implemented. Though I don't like the idea of the commander controlling it. I'd rather have a much more distributed system, where individual squads are capable of using a small UAV to scout out an area.

Terranova wrote:
As for UAVs. With spotting the way it is, and reconnaissance becoming ever more vital, I would like to see some type of UAV system implemented. Though I don't like the idea of the commander controlling it. I'd rather have a much more distributed system, where individual squads are capable of using a small UAV to scout out an area.

Yeah. That is a good idea.

Back to the accuracy thing. Forget the lack of accuracy of insurgence, but the lack of weaponry accuracy in the game. Do you agree that a single shot should be more accurate than it is now? I don’t think guns shoot inaccurately unless the calibration is off or height differences.

Stop double posting lol

The weapons are accurate, spend a few seconds aiming while crouching and you'll probably hit what you want.

I'll happily agree with you if you can give data on comparisons between real life weapons and the PR weapons.

I am not just have to explain further by quoting just like I am with you... Anyway. Do you test all classes of military? Each weapon has its own type of recoil and accuracy. I feel the M16 has the best accuracy than all the riflemen weapons. Also, I always shoot crouched or prone. Even know I stand in position, the weapon itself shoots inaccurately with a single shot.(not all the time) That should not happen unless I do not take in consideration about the differences in height and distance of the target. Do you still not understand what I am talking about?

All I'm going to say is, in oppinion, accuracey is as good as it is. I'm no expert but it's good enough for me.

Also with the telescopic sight, that's what you get for 4x.

As for RPGs, isn't it hard enough for insurgants to destroy a Challenger 2 already?

Freelance_Commando wrote:All I'm going to say is, in oppinion, accuracey is as good as it is. I'm no expert but it's good enough for me.

Also with the telescopic sight, that's what you get for 4x.

As for RPGs, isn't it hard enough for insurgants to destroy a Challenger 2 already?

Should be only 2x RPGs. I don’t know if that is realistic or not because US armor is quite tough. If the defense ever comes into play, Dev. can always change hit damage to please players.

There is only two reasons why it could not be in play.

1. Dev. Team is not experienced enouph to advance a code for defence like that.(Witch I do not belive because they have done exceptional
so far)

2. BF2 engine is not compatible. (Doubt)

I just want to know if it is a good idea or not... I keep hearing that it is impossible for the defence to work in the mod. There is a lot of things in the mod that people thought could not happen in the BF2 engine.

I also keep getting hit back with the accuracey a lot. We need a poll with advanced players to see what people say about that.(that is why I ask for all opinions. I love to figure out what people think about new ideas.) So far it seemes its only me that thinks that....

Thanks for the comment Freelance.

All US and British Tanks should have a forcefield called the Trophy System. The Trophy System is basically an active forcefield around a tank or an armored vehicle to defend against RPG rounds. Its not like a Star Wars forcefields like people think. It is basically a computer system inside a tank that can track the heat signatures from a rocket propelled grenade and respond by shooting out a type of BB, form the corners of a tank, to eliminate the threat. Tanks should only be able to use this defense 1 to 2 times in the game.

I've heard of tests for systems like this, but I believe it has yet to be implemented. Therefore making it unrealistic. Here is the real deal with the trophy system as it applies to the US Military: Global Security

There is research being done on close-in-protection systems, but they are not implemented, and will not be at least for some time into the future.

Drones should be able to be deployed by Commander and controlled with a remote control to spot enemy troops. It can also be a good way to help a Commander make better decisions. The Commander can lead a squad to a destination without putting the squad in danger and much more.

If a commander needs recon he talks to his squads in the field. Adding UAVs everywhere would not only be unrealistic for many of the teams, but would needlessly complicate the game.

Commander should not have a primary weapon but can supply around him. Commander should be the primary person in the game to provide support and build commands. Commander should be able to build anything in his area. (not build but place an object)

Adding a commander kit would be a bit ridiculous, but I can see how taking away his weapon would force him to focus on his duties. Regardless, the commander does have to enter combat areas sometimes, and if it comes down to it he might really need that rifle.
As for the build system, in .6 the com was the only one able to place objects. The system was changed for many reasons, but I think the overall view is that the .7 system is an improvement over the old.