Project Reality Forums

I decided to rewrite up my post with more detail, since some of you decided to criticize my writing rather than my points. Sorry for the wall of text, but you've all asked for it! So you all better read it...Or you can skip to the bottom for a shorter version.

I've been playing PR since .6. And with every release I get more and more frustrated with designs that try to "force" teamwork rather than creating a more "realistic" experience. I know this is a game and compromises need to be made due to engine limitations. But I think the DEVs are over compensating in the wrong direction.

I realized that by just describing my experiences, people will say that I have too much bias. A video recording of a game from a First Person Perspective and from a Map Perspective of any public game can demonstrate my point of view. I don't have the equipment to make such video, but if someone is willing to help please feel free to do so. You can argue that a "public" game will be full of 'noobs' and will no be the best example of an organized match, such as a clan match. However, the truth is that nearly all of PR games played are public, and they are clearly a showcase of how the game is generally played.

I understand that the DEVs want to encourage more teamwork, but I don't think implementing hindrances or restrictions is the way to go. Sometimes DEVs can even go overboard with this idea. For example, 50cals and cannons now overheat excessively for a very long time. This was implemented to 'force' players to fire in burst (like soldiers are trained do in RL). However, the consequence of this is that you get a extremely unrealistic 50cal that provide a volume of fire that is NOT EVEN CLOSE to its real life counterpart. You guys catch my drift? This is only 1 example.

My question is: "why are the DEVs constantly trying to MOD player behavior?" When they always make the contradicting point of "you can't mod the players." To me, if you're trying to mod something that can't be modded, then you'll get a conditioned behavior that is not realistic. Since this is a Sandbox game, why can't Devs just make weapons and assets as realistically as possible to the limit of the engine and LET THE PLAYERS ADAPT TO THEM. Players can choose to play realistically or LOSE the game.

This way, if guns are made to handle easier without the 'gamey' RANDOM deviation, if tanks are made as powerful as they are in RL, and if jets are made as capable as they are in RL, then players will naturally work together to WIN. Contrary to PR's current system, this system will reward those who play REALISTICALLY and those who play with TEAMWORK. How do I know this ^ natural behavior will happen? Is it just my predictions? No! I've observed this in the Combined Arms mod. Even though my played time was only during test sessions with the maximum of 20 people on the server, the level of teamwork and realistic behavior displayed is much much greater than PR in most situations.

(The reason I didn't use CA as an example in my original post is that people will likely turn this into a PR vs CA debate with fanboys on each side making jabs at each other. That is not the point of this thread.) The reason I want to use CA as an example is that it tries to go in the opposite direction of PR in the sense that it tries to model weapons and assets realistically and allow players to make the choice. WHAT DO I MEAN BY 'REALISTICALLY?' It's very simple. DON'T NERF THINGS like in PR, let them be as powerful as they are.

Let me give an example from CA in which players naturally worked together. I was in an M2 Linebacker on Desert Rats looking for aircraft to kill. A friendly tank then joined the convoy and begged for my AA protection and offered his Anti Tank protection. Why such a mutual understanding of the need of mutal reliance? We both knew that with the new fire control systems in CA, tanks and jets can see targets very clearly from very far away with the FLIR and engage without any INF to lase targets. I was definitely feeling to some degree, even though it is a video game, a fear for my life. Some of you may argue that "HEY I make convoys in PR all the time too!" Sure you do, but have you ever felt fear when a jet passes over you and make you running to the nearest AAV? In PR, jets have not FLIR pods that allow themselves to identify targets so they fly around the map aimlessly until INF can direct them. With the lack of zoom to compensate for the resolution of a video game, it makes it impossible to destroy targets. Seriously, tanks in PR are more afraid of a soldier with a HAT than a jet overhead. THIS IS NOT HOW IT WORKS IN RL.

Next I want to talk about realistic behavior in combat exhibited in CA. This happened during INF combat in the bunkers of Desert Rats. In CA, weapons have no deviation and there's realistic ballistics that was originally created for PR. Since weapons are extremely accurate with no deviation save for recoil, I found myself dying more than usual. Of course, I was still acting under the behavior left over from PR, in which I dolphin dive and try to out snipe the enemy. However, that did not work out well because the guns were so accurate and responsive as they are in RL. The circumstances forced me to quickly adapt and take cover every time I heard a CRACK going over my head as I knew that there was no RANDOM deviation that will help me luckily dodge bullets anymore. In fact, I don't think I needed the suppression effect to FORCE my head down. I naturally felt the need to keep my head down to SURVIVE! Just to show that I'm not biased with CA, I just want to say that PR 0.86 did do something right with the LMGs. The effects of more realistic weapons modeling are already showing! People are keeping their heads down due to these LMGs.

Where you AIM IS WHERE YOU HIT! Another problem with PR's deviation is that it truly breaks immersion. Every time I shoot I'm being reminded that I'm in a video game because the bullets just don't want to hit where I aim. I have to wait a few seconds to settle and cross my fingers that my round will find the target.

My post is already getting longer than I like. But still there are so many examples, such as the problem with Rally Points that ironically promote Squad Level Teamwork, rather than Team Level teamwork. Back to my point about a video of the MAP/MINIMAP of a game. A video of that would most likely show how each individual squad have their own objective and they will show patterns of unrealistic behavior. Unlike RL, the battlefields of PR apparently do not have defined front lines. INF and Armor squads go all over the map behind enemy lines unscathed and undetected WAYYYY too often and WAYYY to easily. Of course, you can argue that "you can't mod players." However, give the Apache its FLIR, give Tanks its FLIR, give Jets FLIR, give INF more responsive rifles, see if people still behave as though the 6-man squad is an entire army.

My original post is below. It is to supplement my new addition.

I HAVE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH and decided to make a post about it.

I've been playing PR since .6. And with every release I get more and more frustrated with designs that try to "force" teamwork rather than creating a more "realistic" experience. I understand all the underlying factors such as "you can't mod the players," "hardcoded," etc.

I'll try to avoid writing a wall of text, but there's so much to cover. First, let me ask everyone this question. What is realistic about Project Reality anymore?

1) INF combat?

A: CQB is fully of spray and pray because walking speeds with sights up are too slow. Range combat is a pain because of random deviation. People are not afraid of dying and still are running and gunning. Weapons and weapons handling are not realistically modeled. Just to name a few.

2) Armor combat?

A: Tank turrets can snipe a dime from 1km away, and then turn around to kill an attach helicopter within half a min because of mouse controls. Symmetrical balance not = reality. Just to name a few

3) Aircraft combat?

A: Dogfights are extremely unrealistic. No BVR missiles. What kind of jets these days rely on INF to lase targets? Just to name a few.

4) Gameplay/ Teamwork?

A: How can you have realistic gameplay if the assets (weapons, tanks, jets, etc.) are not modeled accurately to real life counterparts? How can you encourage realistic behavior when given players unrealistic circumstances?

Of course i understand there are engine limitations, but ever heard of that phrase "something is better than nothing." Well in PR's case, it is more like "something in the wrong direction, is better than something in the right direction if it promotes 'teamwork'."

--------------------------------------------------------- SUGGESTION
If I may make a suggestion, I believe that it would greatly benefit PR if we just simply everything. Go back to its roots. Right now, PR is trying too hard to hinder a fun experience for players. For example, the deviation system feels unintuitive and makes the game less immersive as it makes guns harder to handle than they really are. Instead of making everything balanced, assets should be made as realistic as possible. SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY SIMPLIFY. Make everything realistic to real life counterparts and let the players decide on realistic behavior instead of forcing them to do so with too many restrictions. That is just a few suggestions of a million things that could improve PR.


I know this post isn't comprehensive, but I'm sure the community will help me fill it in. I appreciate the DEV team's hardwork, but I just think that effort is made in the wrong direction. This post isn't meant to offend and Pls excuse any mistakes since I did this in a hurry.

Lastly, I'd like the community to help me make a list of things that PR got right and wrong.

Yet another rant post about how PR is going in the wrong direction

The simple fact of the matter is Project Reality has chosen to focus on teamwork instead of realism. All of the changes made, deviation, suppression ect. have been made so that you have to rely on your squad instead of going around rambo. As for Air and Armour combat, these things are constantly being tweeked. In fact, if you've noticed, Armour has been given deviation on both the main and coax guns, so whining about how tanks can hit a dime at a mile means you haven't tanked in some time. Furthermore, with heavy assets it is very difficult to make them asymmetrically balanced without still having balance.

Here's an idea, come up with ways to actually help instead of blanket statements like "Make everything realistic!!!!!" because that won't happen due to engine limitations and the fact there is a spawn system.

Resuggestion,
Please use the Search Function and the *** List before posting suggestions.

And so some of us are holding their breath to see how TR turns out.


There are two types of realism, actual realism and functional realism. Each have their own philosophy - actual realism says that if you model everything perfectly accurately, then the relationships between things and thus the game will be realistic and people will act with the same priorities and so on as their real life counterparts (producing a realistic outcome). Functional realism says that you cannot make everything realistic, so you take short cuts and introduce deliberately unrealistic things to force people to act like their real life counterparts.

If you look at a PR battle from above, zoomed out, the functional realism the devs opted for works perfectly and everything looks very realistic, but from the first person perspective, things don't look or feel realistic at all which is very frustrating.

i really agree canuck, i would definitely prefer realism over teamplay. i believe realism would create teamplay

Tirak wrote:
Resuggestion,
Please use the Search Function and the *** List before posting suggestions.

*Snip*

I kinda Agree, I mean it seems like their just putting in Eyecandy. I like .75 aloooot more then .86 tbh. It had way more teamwork, and All these new animations are just there to take up time. Irl you're not gonna do the same thing everytime you get a gun out or reload.




Please respect all members of the forum,

CanuckCommander wrote:




2) Armor combat?

A: Tank turrets can snipe a dime from 1km away, and then turn around to kill an attach helicopter within half a min because of mouse controls. Symmetrical balance not = reality. Just to name a few



A: How can you have realistic gameplay if the assets (weapons, tanks, jets, etc.) are not modeled accurately to real life counterparts? How can you encourage realistic behavior when given players unrealistic circumstances?

...that is realistic....dolphin diving snipers...probably close to realistic if you want NO deviation like in RL...jets raping every thing by them selves, just like BF2 wake island, realistic too. about the tank sooting the chooper, if the chopper was low in his range then it deserved to die.


i like the focus more on team work than on realism, too much realisim= super powerful weapons, super weapons = lone wolves


of course no deviation on a marksman rifle would be nice, but how much of a team player would that marksman be if his squad wanted to move around up and close to the enemy, he wouldnt wnat to help at all, he would much rather run off with this leet gun and go rambo

somethings i really agree with here, however instead of using such vague words try coming up with some solid suggestions. simply saying simplify isn't going to help.

Deviation: deal with it like the rest of us have, i'm having no problems nailing targets at 200m with the rifleman under fire from said targets. i'm really getting sick and tired of people who complain about the deviation just because it makes their kill count go down a little. Patience is a virtue, it doesnt take all too long for deviation to go away. too bad i didnt record the game but i managed to take down a whole squad with a squad mate running as sniper and myself with a rifleman scoped at about 200 meters in under 5 seconds. not that hard. i've had my entire squad taken out in under 10 by just one chinese rifleman.

PR has long since unofficially turned away from realism in terms of physics and properties. it has since then turned towards simulating realistic behavior within the players to compensate for the engine limitations which inhibit the dev's abilities to create an ultra realistic field of combat. It is true as people have said, realism breeds realistic behavior, however that means realism to 95+% which is not possible under ANY game engine. this is why functional realism is used to cope. if we were to use realism to breed realistic behavior we would need to simulate more than just the weapons and environment you are temporarily in but also the players birth, growth, enlistment, training, deployment and death or return home to waiting loved ones. only 1 of which is possible in a half hour to 1 and a half hour game.

why do we need to simulate birth and growth? because it is in this portion of life where you learn what life is, love, emotion, etc. without it one would not understand why they are fighting.

why training? because on the battlefield it is discipline and muscle memory that will do the fighting.

why simulate death? because if we didnt, the player would not fear death and thus not behave realistically and simply opt for a respawn, than to take cover and retreat.

complain all you want but this stands, it is not possible to simulate these things within a game thus functional realism is the only option. the realism cannot be simulated, because to do it would require it to BE real. You want to game with absolute realism? get off your computer, and go to your nearest recruiting center.

For me deviation is practically spot on, but there are some elements to what you say which can be taken into consideration.

WRT Armor, it could be possible to have the keyboard used to control the turret, however it can sometimes be difficult to hit a moving target, and players find it hard to fine tune their targeting when trying to hit a target. IRC when we went to Bovington, you get a joystick. You aim at the tank or contact, lase the target for distance, and then fire, with the computer automatically adjusting your fire for range. this would be a more realistic approach, but would be harder for new players to understand, and make tank combat for the individuals who play PR very often.

WRT aircraft, there is very little point of having BVR missiles that can be used to engage targets beyond 20 miles on a 16km map. It simply has no place on the current maps. However, I anticipate a lot more aircraft capabilities being available on the more combined arms maps such as Kashan, rather than the smaller infantry ones.

Your last statement is just confusing. Pr isn't a simulation, and so it's difficult to model everything to it's real life counterparts. What you have is a pretty good adaptation all things considered of the "roles" that tanks and aircraft have.

I thought Project Reality was about making the game realistic as possible while preserving game play?

For every single realistic thing in PR there's always a reverse "gamey" way to use it, for example super accurate SAWs. Powerful and accurate, yes and also the latest super Rambo weapon in a lone wolf's arsenal after sniper rifles.

I really feel your pain Canuck. When you've played a game for so long, going through to its roots, you feel like you've become a part of the growing up process. Then, after several modifications later, whether you like them or not, the game has changed. Hopefully the changes are to your liking, but sometimes they go against everything that you desire. Almost like kids when you think about it

One thing I must say, and point out, is that with PR your vocie may not be heard, but at least you have a voice here. Try giving some input to AA3, or Arma. I'm sure no one from the dev team will give notice to your ideas. At least here, we, the community, are givin the opportunity to present supporting ideas and suggest material for future patches.

No, we may not like some of the changes, or direction that the mod is going, but like any good parent, you must be accepting and loving. If you push to hard, they won't listen to you anymore, just a little gentle nudge in the right direction may be all you need to get your 'kid' back on track.

message brought to you by the love hug factory

CanuckCommander wrote:I HAVE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH and decided to make a post about it.

1) INF combat?

I disagree, spray and pray is only really used because of crappy BF2 hit registery. I don't spray and spray and I get on fine.

2) Armor combat?

just a fact of life that players use a mouse to control things. CA is testing out a WSAD system but its not perfect

3) Aircraft combat?

Hopefully CA testing will fix this

4) Gameplay/ Teamwork?

to an extent I agree. E.g. air assets should indeed have more realisitc loadout. CA hopefully will give some stuff to .9 that will make armour/vehicle combat very different. And Deviation will hopefully be reduced if CA ballistics are implemented.

Don't forget the DEVs are making a game they want to play, not necessarily what you want to.

The only thing that actually PISSES ME OFF a little is the removal of assets off maps, when a new layer would have done the job fine. <- if the DEVs don't want to play Qwai with a tank on it...they can play on a server with teh 32 layer (APCs) Or Karbala, could have added the apache to a 32 layer also. I might just make the layers myself and PM them to DEVs to see what they think...but at the end of the day PR is still the best. (though my copy of ArmA2 is coming today )

A bit OT.
I'd kind off like to see regular factions on some of the insurgents maps. like West falluja, with Mec against Brits or USA, a giant street. Don't know if that would be easily implementable though...

Dr2B Rudd wrote:The only thing that actually PISSES ME OFF a little is the removal of assets off maps, when a new layer would have done the job fine. <- if the DEVs don't want to play Qwai with a tank on it...they can play on a server with teh 32 layer (APCs) Or Karbala, could have added the apache to a 32 layer also. I might just make the layers myself and PM them to DEVs to see what they think...but at the end of the day PR is still the best. (though my copy of ArmA2 is coming today )

I agree with this and the deviation.

Personally, I Liked the instagib 0.7 weapons... They were accurate enough for you to be terrified when you got shot at, now, your best move if you take fire is to actually just sprint in random directions until you find hard cover. It still amuses me that people hit the dirt when taking sniper fire, this is exactly what gets you killed.

And yeah, the removal of assets is a seriously bad idea in my opinion.

If I wanted to play infantry combat, I'd go play the insurgency mod, for example.

And Arma2 has it's problems Rudd It is not very user friendly. I like the look of it though!

I shall refer Cannuck and one or two others of you in this thread to my post here:

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


Or to summarize it: we don't believe we're going in the wrong direction. Some elements might not be perfect, some might need a lot more work. But we're not making a complete pigs ear of it because if we were this wouldn't be the most played version ever. Just because you disagree, that doesn't make you right

Dr2B Rudd wrote:The only thing that actually PISSES ME OFF a little is the removal of assets off maps, when a new layer would have done the job fine. <- if the DEVs don't want to play Qwai with a tank on it...they can play on a server with teh 32 layer (APCs) Or Karbala, could have added the apache to a 32 layer also. I might just make the layers myself and PM them to DEVs to see what they think...but at the end of the day PR is still the best. (though my copy of ArmA2 is coming today )

i believe this is being done amongst others.

What PR-dev's need is a new engine with lot of freedom of movement and no restrictions.

I have no problems with deviation, SAWs and Medics limited to squad - perfect!
Assets removal .....not so happy....no transport heli for brits in Al Basrah, of course the brits should defend the VCP, to keep one bridge inatct, but that level of teamplay on Pubby servers is very very rare!

Dr2B Rudd wrote:The only thing that actually PISSES ME OFF a little is the removal of assets off maps, when a new layer would have done the job fine. <- if the DEVs don't want to play Qwai with a tank on it...they can play on a server with teh 32 layer (APCs) Or Karbala, could have added the apache to a 32 layer also. I might just make the layers myself and PM them to DEVs to see what they think...but at the end of the day PR is still the best. (though my copy of ArmA2 is coming today )

Yes please. And mate we are gonna have to play some ArmA 2

CanuckCommander wrote:1) INF combat?

A: Disagree with you, there is nothing wrong with spray and pray im sure if I met an insurgent 20m away from me in Basrah i'd be spraying... Also I rarely spray and pray and I have no problems.

2) Armor combat?

A: Well here you are wrong. There is now deviation for tank main gun rounds and co-ax rounds and your point about mouse control is less a problem with PR and more a problem with almost every FPS ever made. A WASD system would be very difficult to use but in the long run could probably be done.

3) Aircraft combat?

A: Precision strikes on high value targets do require laser designation, usually be special forces. PR uses this technique to encourage teamwork and to avoid jets pwning everything on the ground with impunity.

4) Gameplay/ Teamwork?

A: Well they are for the most part modeled accurately, if you feel that the models are inaccurate how about you learn how to model and do it yourself? Compare vanilla BF2 models to PR models and the step up in quality is striking. The way that they behave in game is to encourage teamwork whilst maintaining a focus on a realistic portrayal of each weapon within the constraints of the BF2 engine. Again if you have any specific methods for improvement in this regard im sure the Dev team are all ears.

Tbh I think threads like this should be locked, the OP has not offered any solid methods for improving the game just a list (a very short and inaccurate list) of things that he feels are wrong with the game. Constructive criticism please. I also disagree that PR is going in the wrong direction.

CanuckCommander wrote:since I did this in a hurry.

Also how about actually putting some time and effort into your thoughts, could at least have the decency to spend some time on your thoughts on the game when the Devs spend so much time making the game that you have enjoyed for years.

CanuckCommander wrote:I HAVE FINALLY HAD ENOUGH and decided to make a post about it.

Well I and im sure many others have had enough of these threads popping up. Instead try putting some time and effort into making improvements to PR rather than just whining about it. Link to the suggestions and community modding sections for you.

RHYS4190 wrote:What PR-dev's need is a new engine with lot of freedom of movement and no restrictions.

Need a few more brain boxes like you and we wil be allright

Edit: User was warned for "flaming/insulting other members". This attitude will not be accepted here.
Dunehunter