Project Reality Forums

Is it the lack of the fear of death? The way foliage + camouflage don't really work? The weapon handling? Maybe it's the player limit...

Hearing about all these multiple-hour long firefights in Iraq and Afghanistan where maybe just a few or even no people are killed makes me wonder how the hell you could implement anything halfway close to that into a game. I'd be interested to see if PR2 slows down everything and makes strategy more important, finishing a round without dying or being magically revived would be pretty sweet.

The current "Okay guys we're all dead let's respawn on the rally point" (The only way to survive is to not follow orders) or killing 40 insurgents in 20 minutes way of playing feels pretty unsatisfying. It would be great if the gameplay allowed a player to survive a round without learning the map inside out and taking copious amounts of amphetamines... maybe if we had a way of making players actually retreat when they don't have a chance, some sort of incentive to not do lone suicide rushes.

This probably sounds a bit too realistic and niche for most people, but I think a lot of people who play shooters really do desire something that makes them actually feel like they're in a warzone, it can actually be more thrilling if you slow the pace.

Maybe the bf2 engine is a bit too limiting for Arma-style gameplay, but this is more of question/suggestion for PR2...

inb4 if you want realism join the military

Fear of death.

M.

Its all that, you just wrote.
Thats all what PR needs. (besides a better engine)

I'm sorry, was there a specific suggestion in there some place?

Realism BALANCED with gameplay

(The only way to survive is to not follow orders) or killing 40 insurgents in 20 minutes way of playing feels pretty unsatisfying.

Disagree with teh former, and the latter lol.

It would be great if the gameplay allowed a player to survive a round without learning the map inside out and taking copious amounts of amphetamines... maybe if we had a way of making players actually retreat when they don't have a chance, some sort of incentive to not do lone suicide rushes.

Players aren't moddable.

My squads (I SL alot) routinely run the heck away, I find actually that players are very unresponsive to that order since they don't experience it enough. "Fall back to X"....me and 2 others get there, teh rest all died where we were. "Thats why you run when I tell you to run!"...

The current "Okay guys we're all dead let's respawn on the rally point"

I actually support removal of rally points for blufor, and removal of hideouts for INS, addition of RPs for INS,
Maybe just hideouts for Taliban, but not sure, maybe a rally point that expires in 1minute so that you can get stragglers in to the squad and thats it. Though maps like Mestia might suffer from this.

the fact that if you die you can respawn or if you get shot in the head you can be revived... the possibilities are endless XD

There really isn't any actual suggestion here, how do you propose the game be altered? In any video game there must be a balance between realism and gameplay, PR pushes the limits further than most games, but at the end of the day it is still a game.

Players are hardcoded goes the saying, and it is true. I routinely will pull my squad back from a contact if engaging is not in my favour, but that is not to say all players will.

Would also agree with Rudd that rally points should be removed from the game.

Is this a suggestion? or have you just decided to post here because you are past the 25 post requirement? I see little to no real value in this thread at all move to general discussion??

Expendable Grunt wrote:Fear of death.

M.

But still, I remembering watching Ross Kemp in Afghanistan on TV and he was right up on a rooftop with British troops, the camera was locked on a taliban hiding behind a log with a pkm practically 15m away, that's how close the engagements are, one machine gunner got a bad graze from a richochet though. But if engagements are that close in Afghanistan and are at the same distance in PR what exactly makes them so different? In videos where soldiers are repelling close range base attacks e.t.c. they can stand right up in clear view, whereas you simply can't in PR, fear of death maybe, but exposing your body and being able to pop your head up for relatively long amounts of time with bullets cracking overhead without dying suggests there is something that makes it different other than fear.

EDIT: and to people questioning whether it's a suggestion, it's more that I would like to hear other people suggestions on the topic of realism when it comes to firefights and staying alive... I didn't know it would be more suitable for GD

I play the game for the pew pew and mostly for the kills, I get really upset when I kill less than 3 ppl in 1 round, for the realism, I have the army (in 1.5 month or so). Gotta agree about the fallback thingy, its very rare that the squad leader orders to fallback when every1 is still alive, usually it only happens after 4/6 squad members are already dead.

For PR2 we can have a HUGE amount of players, HUGE MAPS and no respawn, no revives, only healing.

steve_06-07 wrote:no respawn, no revives, only healing.

Count me out then. If I wanted that much realism, I'd just buy ArmA 2.

Cobhris wrote:Count me out then. If I wanted that much realism, I'd just buy ArmA 2.

I read somewhere that PR is more popular online than Arma 2... Am I misremembering?

If that's true then there's probably not enough players to make it realistic PvP

switch to general dissucusion?

what he saying is PR is still a bit arcadish which a agree with we still have flag's and because of the timer flag bleed extra we are forced to fight and just rush in and spam until we eventually brake through the enemy's defense,

Arma your given more freedom if you are getting blasted away your allowed to retreat to a better position with little penalty. where as in PR and the game mode's so rigid and inflexible that you can't afford to do that. your forced into fighting in a doomed situation and to take lot of causality's in the process.

IF PR2 is made, we will get a more dynamic battle feild but for now PR can not achive such a goal on the BF2 engine.

The difference?

Attack helos don't require perfect hovers to hit something, A-10s don't need lases, no one waits 5 seconds to start shooting, tanks have FCS, trees don't stop tanks, helicopters carry 14-56 people, don't break the sound barrier on a dive, and planes don't speed up if you climb.

In would say the biggest difference is fear of death, of course. Second to that, the lack of foliage on larger distances and they way models stick out from the terrain too much. In Pr every map is a open desert in that sense. Third, lack of many factors affecting soldiers aim. Real soldiers walk for hours with tons of gear in a tropical climate withouth getting a good nights sleep in weeks. It is probably quite much more difficult to aim correctly under those circumstanses. Also, the sights are never off in PR. Im not talking about deviation, but how in real life i would guess many taliban, insurgents and even soume bluefor does not have their sights properly adjusted, as the sights alignment change by having the rifle with you all the time, bumping into things etc.

Finally, especially for the insurgents and the taliban, they have much less gun training than the average player ingame. Think about it, we have shot literally millions of bullets killing thousands of enemies each, the PR players are bound to get pretty proficient at it eventually (in Pr only of course, we would be lost at a real battlefield). An insurgent squad that had hit the shooting range, for one-two hours every night for two years would probably be pretty dangerous to the coalition also.

There are so many reasons - the lack of a commander because of decisions the PR devs made means tactics are only made at a squad level; the lack of an automated 'duck' response when a bullet misses you; the ponderous speed of the crawl; the inability to lean; lack of obstacles and cover on all maps.

But having said all that there is imo one reason why PR has moved further away for 'realistic' firefights - the deviation decision made in 0.85. In 0.8 the deviation was huge unless you waited for the perfect shot or got your whole squad to open up on a target - at longer ranges it worked really well, at short ranges you had the situation where two players would stare at each other for 2 full seconds before being able to fire. The latter should have been fixed. Going to 0.85, however. instead of tightening the maximum deviation massively so that short range combat was short and brutal, long range combat accuracy was reduced to almost the maximum potential accuracy of an assault rifle in a vice. So shortrange combat was as silly as ever and long range combat was a sniper war. Bad decision imo for PR and why we have the murderous kdr situation we have today.

Fear of death and deviation are the main ones.

I think respawning is the biggest factor. When you know you can play again in 60 seconds, you tend to risk dying if it means having some fun in the process.

Insurgency specifically has some other reasons why firefights are quick to end. In real life a coalition soldier will have a lot of friendlies near by. There would rarely be a time where one or two soldiers run off on their own and get engaged by more enemies than they can handle. Which happens all the time in PR.

Also on the side of the insurgents, there really is only one goal in PR, kill the coalition forces. In real life they would not be stuck defending a weapons cache like they are in PR. The could fire, run, drop their guns and then go wave at the coalition with immunity. Their whole thing is scaring the local population, while harassing the coalition forces, when it's convenient for them to do so.

But, i don't want to play a completely realistic game. It wouldn't be fun. There are elements of reality that should be added to PR. But, in general the setup of the game and its unrealistic objectives create a fun and action packed game.

fear of death, pain.
and the chance to die, or even worse: become paralyzed, impaired, traumatized for the remaining years of ur life etc.

so yea ill stick with pr and my marketing studies