Project Reality Forums

Ok.

Wait... let me get out my angry constipated faces first...


alright...

Now, i have noticed things that i feel are bad for the Project Reality world that people are wanting.

BALANCE.

What the hell is this? Why does everyone want BALANCE all the time? Is it because playing a game and having to THINK and OUTWIT your opponent to hard for you? Are you having troubles using your brain to try and think outside the box and defeat your enemy?

A quote from the abrams thread.

Spaz wrote:

master of the templars;813991 wrote:well he has only read that the Abrams has more people in real life.

Well if you do something like this you need to make sure its not just for 1 army.

Are you kidding me...

I understand if OTHER armies have the same thing, then it's neccisary to balance it because that IS balanced in real life. But if something doesnt work that way in real life, then why?

If anything, the old lack of balance was something that truely brought people to play the game. It made them THINK.

Like so:

Insurgent 1: "Ok... so we can't throw a grenade cause that would be stupid... and... just give away we know they're there...

Insurgent 2: "... Call in a jihad?"

Insurgent 3: "no...

Inusrgent 4: "darn..."

Insurgent 2: "Hmm.... Oh, look we could ambush them from above in that very very small little allyway. "

Insurgent 1: "Yes, lets!"

Insurgent 4: "Can i bring the jihad car as back up?"

Insurgent 1: "ok..... go ahead..."

The point is balance actually RUINS gameplay. It causes people to think "Oh... ok, so really we have equal chances at winning"

Point is, people on the team that seems to "win all the time" lose their focus. They kind of just think "Oh we're going to win".

I've been on that team that for some reason thinks they automatically win and we lose terribly.

So what ends up happening is that people on the "underdog" team tend to think slightly more strategiclly (sometimes) and sometimes come up from behind.

This lack of balance caused major upsets and even AMAZING battles.

Don't vote for "Balance".

Vote for "Awesomeness".


And as i think i've said before: WARFARE is not FAIR.
Some people have big guns, and other people have small guns.
It's not how big you are, but how good you are at it.
(Another sexual innuendo)

(PS: none of that probably made sense. oh well)

(PS2(haha): NO i didn't search. Didn't care to. To tired to click..... i'm sleeeeeee..... *snore*)

I said it just a few minutes ago in another thread and I'll say it again.

Who cares about symmetrical balance?

Asymmetrical balance FTW!

This is why i find insurgency so awesome!

I vote for awesomeness!

Awesomeness is important.

How do you create a poll XD

Just go here

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr ... lance.html

Vote for "These options do not apply to me."

State: Awesomeness!!!

VOTE AWESOMENESS!

(aka. Realistic Unbalanced Warfare that makes me feel like i'm part of that army that doesn't have amazing weapons but still kicks ***)

balance as a team is important in a game

If I was never to win as insurgent I wouldn't play, because Project Reality set out to realistically portray while (AND THIS IS THE KEY PHRASE PEOPLE) Preserve Gameplay

If you want a game where it is impossible for a side to win because they have been castrated in one way...then I don't think PR is for you lol.

Some people have big guns, and other people have small guns.

this is true...and its INGAME. e.g. US get scopes, ins do not...their strategies progress from there.

ITS BALANCE< BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN EVERYTHING HAS TO BE TEH SAME< IT HAS TO BE BAAAALLLAAAAANNNNCCEEED!

the 4 crew tank thing is NOT purely about balance, removing up to eight players from a team to add no real combat effectiveness, compared to a full infantry squad, to man tanks is Un balanced.

Why? this is because afaik there will be a severe disparity between the win ratios of each team.

Hence, balance has been destroyed.

The whole point is that the win ratios have to be similar so everyone has the chance to win.

What the hell is this? Why does everyone want BALANCE all the time? Is it because playing a game and having to THINK and OUTWIT your opponent to hard for you? Are you having troubles using your brain to try and think outside the box and defeat your enemy?

so your saying that two equally strong teams don't use tactics to defeat eachother, but one team with huge gunz and railz and **** does use tactics to defeat the small man with his tiny gun?

It's not all about insurgency.

gclark03 wrote:It's not all about insurgency.

Of course it's not but it's a perfect example of how a game can be balanced without having symmetrical balance.

Qwai River is good too, the vehicle layouts are different for each team but I feel the asymmetry could be pushed a little further.

A lot of people moan about the gameplay on Barracuda but I love it.

Sånt här får Norrlänningen i mig att sätta sig på tvären...

Well I like that factions got different equipment BUT in maps like kashan where you got two armys with the same type of equipment it needs to be balanced or you need to figure it out in a different way, maybe give the mec 2 extra trucks or something, but I think that would ruin the fun of kashan.

But sure for insurgent and milita maps they can't have the same gear and they should not be balanced in the same way, but for the "normal army vs normal army" maps there should be a balance in there equipment.

But I like it when they are a bit different but to be honest I think that suggestion was really stupied and would not have helped gameplay in any way.

Ok so what was my point? I forgot but I think it was something about keeping kashan and Quinling perfectly balanced beacuse we need maps like that to.

Thanks you for reading my very bad English and if you have anything to say about my grammar please write it to me in perfect swedish.



PS. What I really HATE with most parts in this community is "OMGZ the Abrams needs a leet crows on everthing." (Yes I made a crows suggestion way back but I was young and stupied.) Can't we have a week where you are not allowed to make a suggestion about US or UK?

PPS. Just to make it clear, I love the ins maps and the way that they are balanced and thats all fine but please don't ruin the good old "2 equal armys on one big battlefield" maps I love them more then Bond and I really love Bond.

Spaz wrote:keeping kashan and Quinling perfectly balanced beacuse we need maps like that to.

I must agree here too but they'll never be perfectly balanced. That'd be too CS.

You need some balance. If you had no balance it'd be like the US vs. Saddam's army: basically, your best strategy would be to surrender immediately instead of getting killed before you even know what's going on. You need some sort of balance because if you don't, you're just inviting one team to be the rape victims, and nobody wants that.

You can take a rock, paper, scissors approach to balance. You don't need to have everything identical for everyone, but everything needs a counter. You can't just give one team muskets and the other tanks, and let them duke it out.

Sgt.Smeg wrote:I must agree here too but they'll never be perfectly balanced. That'd be too CS.

The only unbalanced thing I seen about Kashan so far is that the havok is so much better then to cobra. But I hope that you got my point Smeg?

Spaz wrote:The only unbalanced thing I seen about Kashan so far is that the havok is so much better then to cobra. But I hope that you got my point Smeg?

Yeah, I got your point completely.

The M4's & G3's (and other small arms) aren't the same though (they both have their own positive sides), there'll always be slight differences.

Gameplay is a word that could be used in many different ways.

What about the gameplay element of IMMERSION?

Ever heard of it? It's where you feel like you're there and like somethings happening.

Like you look up and see 4 transport helos, an attack helo, and maybe an A10 pass over and you go "Oh..... F**K...".

You hide, you wait, you attack the infantry, but try and stay out of sight of that a10.

Point is places like Op. Baracuda, you have lots of helos, but the chinese have lots of Anti-airs. =/ Balanced. kinda... i like having to sneak on it as a usmc though

Korengal: It's actually quite a nice map, but everyone does still bunch up too much and insurgents move around a bit too much. AMBUSH ><

Al Basrah: ... i actually disliked it after the texture changes... seems too dark and insurgency isn't fun there too much anymore. VCP needs an actual meaningful reason to exist too.

Fools Road: Actually, it's a fine map, but militia needs to go back with some pick-up kits or something.

Qwai: O.o;;; I don't even know what i can say here... i usually love it... but.. something is missing...

Quinling: Fun map, but kind of ruined by the entire "Hey lets keep trading village and mine for 2 hours" thing...

Kashan: It's the only balanced map i love. Maybe cause when you have respectable A10 pilots, it's fun when you're on both sides. USMC: "Wooot go a10 pilot!" MEC: "MOVE MOVE MOVE *gatling gun* HAHA.. i thought we were going to *bomb explodes* die...... ok well that was fun though XD haha"

Jabal: Omg i've had many of firefights. It's not even really the asset symmetry so much as the fact that the usmc are pretty much in a terrible attacking position kind of surrounded by land that they're trying to attack

Ramiel: ... I've sadly never have had fun on this map. Don't know why... Ambushes NEVER seem to happen... which i deem the insurgents would be good at usually, and insertion and extraction methods... well, often fail.

and.. i was just distracted by the Lvl 80 female only persuasion technique by my girl... soooooooooooo i'm going to go before she hits me XD

Yes and all that is good now what is your point? Why should we change any of that? The "unbalanced" maps are fine and the balanced maps are fine its all great and everyone is happy right? I been reading your post for some time now and I still don't see what you meen all you listed is in the game and it all works with almost no problem what do you want changed?

Spaz wrote:Yes and all that is good now what is your point? Why should we change any of that? The "unbalanced" maps are fine and the balanced maps are fine its all great and everyone is happy right? I been reading your post for some time now and I still don't see what you meen all you listed is in the game and it all works with almost no problem what do you want changed?

Well, he's not suggesting anything, I don't think. We're not in the suggestion section. I think LithiumFox just wanted to get that rant out of his/her system. We're just 'generally discussing' balance.

Also, I think it seems that he/she likes asymmetrical balance but would like to explain it as 'awesomeness' instead.

Awesomeness is important [gets my vote] but this game would die without the correct balance, which i feel has been applied perfectly by the Devs.

Spaz, just replace the word awesomeness with the word asymmetry in LithiumFox's rant and it may be a little clearer.

My point is that there are still some people out there who are asking for MORE balance and complaining about the unbalanced maps. I'm basically saying if we balance the maps even more that the game loses meaning and purpose and turns back to vBF2. and also it's that i want to generally discuss

I understand both sides, and i like to hear what you have to say. So please, discuss opinions, just don't be a ****** about it ><

(and i am a he XD)

EDIT: and yes it was a rant. Basically, when .9 comes around and people are suggesting, make sure that it will be a GOOD idea first. Don't just go by how it sounds, cause really i agreed with the rally point idea, but now i hate it and wish it was just so that i couldn't spawn when they were near, not that it goes away.

Ambushes don't happen on Ramiel because there aren't any choke points thus it is harder to set one up because the US will probably drive down some other street and because the insurgents spend most of their time running from the mosque to the other side of the map only to get killed on the way there. What they really need is for more spawn points throughout the city and/or for a spawn point to appear somewhere on the cache when it appears. This will keep the US actively engaged. There have been many times on Ramiel where I have been able to take out a cache with no resistance simply because the cache is way too far away from where the insurgents are.

As far as the tanks go, hardly anyone mans the extra positions on the tank anyway. However given the right conditions it might be favorable to do so. Regardless, you can beef up the tank a bit but have the enemy make up for said beefy tank by having more tanks which has been a real world strategy for a long time. There are other ways to balance it out. You could also do things like have the M1 TUSK on urban map (as it is an urban warfare tank) with a four man crew but have M1A2 tanks on the armor vs armor maps and have those be the normal three man tanks. You can change the variants based on map type which is not only more realistic but more fun.

LithiumFox wrote:I'm basically saying if we balance the maps even more that the game loses meaning and purpose and turns back to vBF2.

I never said that we should balance them more, all im saying is that we need to types of maps. I would cry if the removed the "vbf2" maps beacuse I love it so much when you got two sides with the same gear. But Im not saying remove the "unbalanced" maps I think maps like qwie and baracuda are great but all im trying to say is that we need the maps like kashan and qunling