Project Reality Forums

Asymetrical balance has been a topic of a lot of discussion on the forums, and overwhelmingly the forum base seems to feel that it is desirable, and there is not enough of it in the game. Recently in General Chat, someone posted most succinctly what I've felt for ages, but couldn't quite put into words, and inspired me to make this thread. This is what Mat552 wrote.

It feels too much like I'm playing one army with different skins. As much as balance is a good thing, its not realism. The planes, apcs, tanks, and even a few of the jeeps all feel the same.
The mod is great, it really is (as much as I like to knock it for a "lack" of airpower, I will have to live with the fact that the US are somehow NOT going to deploy airpower in every theater in the PR universe, thats fine). The Armies are all very different in real life (assuming there would actually be a MEC formed in the event of a world war) and I don't think they would equip the vehicles exactly alike, and they DEFIANTLY would not all handle exactly the same.

Imagine getting a bunch of pizzas (for free none the less). When you open them, the boxes all say different things. But they smell a little alike, look alike, and when you taste them, they all seem to have the same toppings. Aside from the Insurgent pizza, they all act the same after you get past how the packaging looks. (The insurgency pizza seems to have an inferiority complex after its buddies and is trying to be like them)

PR isn't dead, but it is losing its momentum in much the same way as a suddenly pilot-less aircraft.

This thread is intended to be a suggestion dump for all the possible ways of adding assymetrical balance to PR at every level of play. This means that anything that we have at the moment should not be taken for granted when thinking up suggestions for this thread. The levels of gameplay that need to be changed are (examples in brackets like so): Operations level (different pieces of equipment on kits, sprint times, vehicle handling and weapons), Tactical level (ammo availability, specialist kit availability/respawn times, deviation policies, suppression policies), Strategic level (respawning rules, respawning assets, availability and type of commander assets, permission systems for deploying fire assets, vehicle and kit capabilities).

Obviously the three levels have a significant degree of interaction, and any attempt to change an aspect of gameplay will probably need to include suggestions at at least two of the three levels.

The starting point for this is to assume that all kits have roughly the same equipment loadouts at every level, with fairly minor differences in equivalent classes of equipment. All equivalents recieve the same special equipment, handle similarly and follow similar rules. With this in mind, comparisons between what you are suggesting changes within a faction, and how this will make them behave differently to their competing factions is desirable.

The information I think suggestions need to include is:

What Faction is being changed?
Level of Change:
What kits/vehicles the change is applied to:
What is the change?
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
How is the change realistic?

The format is unecessary.

Rather than theorize why not just make a proof-of-concept server where they test out ideas in the public community and instantly gain feedback as well as seeing how players use or exploit said concepts. I think this would be much better than people trying to guess.

What Faction is being changed?
MEC
Level of Change:
Operations level - Assault Rifle loadouts
What kits/vehicles the change is applied to:
All MEC G3 equipped kits.
What is the change?
All G3's be locked to Semi-Automatic fire, have an increased shift delay when scoped, extra on screen recoil (the sight picture moves further up) and made substantially more accurate with lower penalties for firing and shifitng aimpoint. If this is insufficient, damage could be increased for the G3 to accentuate the effect. All G3 equipped classes lose 2 clips of ammunition.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
MEC infantry would attempt to restrict battles to long range and use defensive positions to limit short range engagements. When assaulting positions, they would be more reliant on grenades than other Armies for clearing very confined spaces and would try to use very long and wide angles to better use their accurised battle rifle, while limiting their succeptability to CQB profficient assault weapons.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
US forces would be reliant on using effective suppression and flanking groups to force engagements at close range. US Officers would be reliant on using cover and and concealment to allow assaulting parties to move into assault distances. On defense, a deep defense would be encouraged to allow falling back out of grenaded areas, before counterattacking to retake the close quarters.
Realism:
The G3 is a substantially more powerful and unweildy weapon than 5.56mm weapons. Broadly 7.62mm weapons were phased out because accurate and powerful fire at ranges over 200 meters was shown to be less needed in "modern" war. 5.56mm weapons were favoured because soldiers could carry more ammunition for them (for suppression etc) and still engage with accurate and damaging fire at relevant ranges. Recent combat experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq (MEC homeland) have led to calls for the reintroduction of 7.62mm weapons at the squad level to allow for accurate fire in the open spaces of the desert. It is logical to assume that the MEC would train in long range marksmanship for the same reason, and that this is why they chose 7.62mm weapons suited to their combat environment - however this is not well modelled in game, with G3 equipped MEC Infantry seemingly less accurate but more powerful.

What Faction is being changed?
MEC
Level of Change:
Operations level - Request kit loadouts
What kits/vehicles the change is applied to:
Marksman.
What is the change?
MEC Marksmen keep the awesome G3/SG1 but the deviation rules of it are chaged to make it act more like a hybrid sniper-precision-designated marksman rifle because every man and his dog on MEC is now packing the equivalent of a DMR.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
MEC would gain greater access to precision rifles used by the other classes for sniping, giving them greater control over enemy stationary positions like .50's, granting them an edge in ranged standoffs like those found in the Kashan bunkers (for example).
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
US snipers would move into a countersniper role better suited to their higher zoom weapons, while stationary assets would be placed in cover, and would be used for point defense more than they currently are.
Realism:
Questionable. The heavier DMR variant might be more unweildy than the stock G3, but not the point that it would act like a full blown sniper rifle rather than the DMR it is. Having said that, H&K accurised G3 family weapons are noted for being the benchmark in precision rifles, like the MSG and PSG. Making them more accurate than M14's and QBZ's wouldn't be that much a reality stretch.

What Faction is being changed?
MEC
Level of Change:
Operations level - request kit loadouts
What kits/vehicles the change is applied to:
MEC Sniper.
What is the change?
MEC Sniper Rifle's sight in times are reduced and zoom level slightly as well, he gains 2 extra bandages, and 2 extra smoke grenades, gains 1 pistol clip, but loses 4 clips of rifle ammunition. His binoculars are changed to GLTD's. His deviation is not as good as a conventional sniper's from prone, but is better crouching and standing.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
Because the MEC already have precision firepower in their DMR and Rifleman kits, but need to control how the battle is fought, they have an increased need for accurate intelligence about future enemy movements so they can pre-empt them. This rebuild makes the MEC Sniper a scout sniper better suited to recon than sniping, and encourages their use as mobile flanking assets than as stationary snipers.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
US units would have to maintain greater vigilance than they currently do. Countersnipers have a greater role to play and vehicles will have to take less for granted than they do at the moment. Very light patrolling may sometimes be desirable to counter MEC Scout/Snipers.
Realism:
Currently none of our snipers are really built from the ground up for scouting not sniping, despite the prevailence of scout/snipers in real life. Encouraging a diversification in our snipers is realistic move in this way.

What Faction is being changed?
US Army/Marines
Level of Change:
Strategic Level - Commander Assets
What kits/vehicles/asset the change is applied to:
Fire Support - JDAM
What is the change?
The size of JDAMs are scaled down to 500 or 1000lb and put on a 10 or 15 minute timer in combined arms maps against MEC. Therefore they do less damage and produce less dust, but are more available. Additionally, the commander could place them on the map as though they were GPS set.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
US squads pinned from a fixed position by accurate G3's would be relieved by these sorts of strikes. The use of JDAM dust clouds would become more common, and a larger part of gameplay for US forces needing the ability to move into close quarters with MEC infantry. Commanding might actually become an appealing and semi-active role.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
MEC forces would have to keep themselves spread out as much as possible, at all times, and normally have a reserve force to move into JDAMed areas. The ability to reinforce would become a very big part of MEC gameplay. MEC tank sniping would become much rarer.
Realism:
The US armed forces in the Middle East are very well known for their use of airborne munitions in a wide variety of situations. More than any other military in the world, they rely on support assets to help infantry. This is presently not well modeled in the game, and this would help with that.

What Faction is being changed?
US Army/Marines
Level of Change:
Operations Level - kit loadouts.
What kits/vehicles/asset the change is applied to:
Rifleman and Officer.
What is the change?
Mentioned kits gain 2 extra smoke grenades.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
US squads would gain the ability to advance through open ground to a greater degree than other armies, encouraging their fire and maneuvre style, as well as set piece moves in time with the above JDAM change.
This is another counter to the souped up G3s at range.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies used against the side:
Suppression still makes advancing a nightmare, and anyone hit by those meaty 7.62mm rounds is going to have to stop for medical aid. Accurate fire and well placed Automatic Rifleman arcs are going to thin and stall US advances that are not well supported. Well sighted, unsuppressed defenses will screw these advances over and leave the US open to counter attack.
Realism:
It's two extra smoke grenades...

More coming on this issue

Rather than theorize why not just make a proof-of-concept server where they test out ideas in the public community and instantly gain feedback as well as seeing how players use or exploit said concepts. I think this would be much better than people trying to guess.

If I either the programming skills, or the belief that I could get full servers to test it, I might, but all these things seem to be better left to more capable groups like the Beta Testers and the DEVs. The PR community has a lot of intelligent people who could give a lot of suggestions that the DEVs might benefit from being able to access in an organised thread like this. And on the other hand, a thread like this gives the DEVs an easy opportunity to respond to suggestions by explaining why they haven't been implemented in the past, or what went wrong when they tested it.

Actually 7.62 rounds arn't as damaging as 5.56 rounds.
7.62 rounds go through the target and don't do much damage compared to 5.56 rounds which usually tumble around in the body destroying much more flesh than a 7.62 round.

panther501 wrote:Actually 7.62 rounds arn't as damaging as 5.56 rounds.
7.62 rounds go through the target and don't do much damage compared to 5.56 rounds which usually tumble around in the body destroying much more flesh than a 7.62 round.

not true.
the 5.56 yaws (not tumbles) in certain ballistic situations.

What I didn't mention, was the second half of the myth where the "tumbling bullet creates massive explosive wounds tearing up flesh so bad that you could hit a guy in the leg and blow it clean off" ... or at least that was the myth in Viet Nam. The claims have moderated somewhat since then, but you still hear people saying "the bullet tumbles through and shreds everything in its path" and other such garbage.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02 ... bling.html

panther501 wrote:Actually 7.62 rounds arn't as damaging as 5.56 rounds.
7.62 rounds go through the target and don't do much damage compared to 5.56 rounds which usually tumble around in the body destroying much more flesh than a 7.62 round.

Also, this effect only happens at specific ranges. There are reports of guys in Somalia back in the early 90's taking a clip to finally bring down because 5.56mm rounds have such terrible stopping power outside the ranges they tumble (yaw?) at.

I actually fully agree with the changes suggested above.
The PR devs do need to move towards assymetric kit loadouts and faction differences rather than the l85's/M16's and QBZ's being almost identical rifles. Now I'm not saying make it assymetrical for the hell of it, but rather make the differences of each rifle apparent rather than carbon copies.

Very well written post. I can assure you that more asymmetrical balance is planned for future releases. Trust me, there are plenty of devs that are very sick of mirror balanced bullshit and are doing everything they can to get rid of it.

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Very well written post. I can assure you that more asymmetrical balance is planned for future releases. Trust me, there are plenty of devs that are very sick of mirror balanced bullshit and are doing everything they can to get rid of it.

excellent news!

I like the Idea I sometime get sick of how much army are alike. I would like to add my 2 cents worth on this issue. I don't know if it is a bu or not but the Lee Enfield normaly fires a .303 round and to me it would do alot more damage than a 5.56 but at the moment in PR it seems to be doing less or the same why is this?

[R-DEV]Jaymz wrote:Very well written post. I can assure you that more asymmetrical balance is planned for future releases. Trust me, there are plenty of devs that are very sick of mirror balanced bullshit and are doing everything they can to get rid of it.

Since we're on the subject... What about Insurgents and Militia? Also Please dont remove G3 full auto it's already gimped enough as is. I'd rather have an M16 sometimes then a G3.

P.S. L1A1 SLR's anyone?

DavidP wrote:Since we're on the subject... What about Insurgents and Militia? Also Please dont remove G3 full auto it's already gimped enough as is. I'd rather have an M16 sometimes then a G3.

P.S. L1A1 SLR's anyone?

At the moment, I'd always prefer the M16 to the G3 because the ability to hit someone accurately is always more important than hitting them harder. I can't kill at all with the G3, but go on rampant killing sprees with the M16 as MEC in Kashan Skirmish. Removing the auto function and offsetting it with a major accuracy buff wouldn't be a loss at all imo.

P.S. Hell yes!?

I'd like to see maps with uneven sized, assymetrically equipped teams.
For example, on a 64 player server, the US would have a maximum of 22 players; and the Insurgents would have 42 players. EXCEPT, the US would have body armor/ protective equipment plus hi-tech gear with more firepower; and the Insurgents would have old/ antiquated equipment with less firepower & no armor BUT strength in numbers. This would make for very asymetric tactics - people would have to cooperate differently, depending on whether they were fighting for the US or Insurgent team.

Janush Rambowski wrote:This would make for very asymetric tactics - people would have to cooperate differently, depending on whether they were fighting for the US or Insurgent team.

Yeah I agree that uneven sized teams would produce interesting gameplay. I think the problem is that you can't make people to "roleplay" the differences in tactics and training for example. It might easily lead to lower populated team getting wiped out as the supposedly (almost) untrained insurgents are employing some effective squad tactics combined with good marksmanship skills.

Maybe some in-game variables like increased deviation to simulate lacking training or other such things could help with the issue. I'd welcome these kind of maps.

mordis wrote:Maybe some in-game variables like increased deviation to simulate lacking training or other such things could help with the issue. I'd welcome these kind of maps.

Insurgent kits already have increased deviation, particularly on the AK.

What is the change?
All G3's be locked to Semi-Automatic fire, have an increased shift delay when scoped, extra on screen recoil (the sight picture moves further up) and made substantially more accurate with lower penalties for firing and shifitng aimpoint. If this is insufficient, damage could be increased for the G3 to accentuate the effect. All G3 equipped classes lose 2 clips of ammunition.
How the change would effect tactics/strategies for the side the change is made to:
MEC infantry would attempt to restrict battles to long range and use defensive positions to limit short range engagements. When assaulting positions, they would be more reliant on grenades than other Armies for clearing very confined spaces and would try to use very long and wide angles to better use their accurised battle rifle, while limiting their succeptability to CQB profficient assault weapons.

I have to disagree with that. This would turn the game into some form of rock paper scissors command & conquer with each side getting weird cartoony asymettries. This is fun for games like command & conquer however reality mod should stay away from that.

ANd giving them 2 less magazines because the rifle performs better? This is drifting towards Team Fortress 2

Truism you are correct in the novel Black Hawk Down and in some other documentaries I have watched the 5.56 bullets used by the Delta force and by the Army Rangers actually went right through the Somali militia soldiers and they still kept coming. Many Delta Force Snipers used and still use (the M14 was brought back into service) the M14 most notably for its larger and heavier bullet that would when shot, and when a target is hit could actually make the person fall to the ground and the bullet upon impact with explode so to speak in the body and thus be stuck inside.

Some of the changes are interesting, i still feel that the G3's if they have in real life the automatic option, and single shot option to still be utilized. The G3 is a very accurate weapon, and taking away a single shot option just because in this game engine is has proven to be more accurate than the ACOG M-16 doesn't really keep up with the balance and reality concept of the mod.

The G3 is piss poor on automatic anyway, it's your loss if you decide to use it. If you get within 5 meters of a guy you have a chance, but it's not something really worth using the vast vast majority of the time.

Removing the auto function and offsetting it with a major accuracy buff wouldn't be a loss at all imo.

P.S. Hell yes!?

If the g3 is accurate like that in real life and if it has a switch for atuo fire then it should keep it like this.

In real life the guys who decide what guns their military uses are not dumb. They are supposed to give them equipment that works. So bending the gun performance around some starcraft asymetry is a very baaaad suggestion.

if the game loses its most direct conenction to reality on a basic player handheld gun level then all the achieved top level gameplay goals are not worth it.