Project Reality Forums

I like the balance in PR:

Pilots say that AA is too effective - but I do AA alot and think that it's not effective enough.

Armour drivers complain that there are too many counters for them (LAT, HAT & CAS) but as an infantry player I find them annoying hard to get rid off.

It would seem to be that we all 'moan' pretty equally about our prefered classes or vehicle weaknesses which indicates a symmetry ingame.

However as an infantry player I am most keen to see what the deployable TOWs do to the gameplay, armour needs infantry now.

I agree, I find the balance in PR absolutley fine.

I also play as infantry most of the time and find tanks are a nightmare to deal with, unless they are cluless to your location. Although once a tank has been engaged it usually doesn't end well for the tank rather than the infantry in my experience.

Can't wait for 0.9, and I hope that the upcomming changes gulf the gap somewhat between armour and Infantry, as they always strike me as being too indpendent rather than supporting each other on the field.

Balance is fine,
Players just have to remember to play together... not calling for CAS when AA around, infantry protecting armors against ATs and Armors supporting inf... stuff like that.

PR balance is mostly fine, it's interinfantry stuff where most of the problems lie, like Sniper vs AR, Marksman vs AR, Rifleman vs AR, in fact, all the problems center on having realistic AR's and unrealistically gimped other infantry weapons. The AR is simply the best weapon in the game at every range and in 9/10 situations which should not be the case.

PLODDITHANLEY wrote:I like the balance in PR:

Pilots say that AA is too effective - but I do AA alot and think that it's not effective enough.

Armour drivers complain that there are too many counters for them (LAT, HAT & CAS) but as an infantry player I find them annoying hard to get rid off.

It would seem to be that we all 'moan' pretty equally about our prefered classes or vehicle weaknesses which indicates a symmetry ingame.

However as an infantry player I am most keen to see what the deployable TOWs do to the gameplay, armour needs infantry now.

Ahh, if you haven't noticed everybody, even me, always needs a reason to ***** about something.

Truism wrote:PR balance is mostly fine, it's interinfantry stuff where most of the problems lie, like Sniper vs AR, Marksman vs AR, Rifleman vs AR, in fact, all the problems center on having realistic AR's and unrealistically gimped other infantry weapons. The AR is simply the best weapon in the game at every range and in 9/10 situations which should not be the case.

well think about it this way, in a canadian infantry section (8-10 soldiers) the AR (2 c-9 gunners) makes up upwards to 80 percent of the entire sections firepower. When he goes down someone takes his weapon and gets it going asap. Its effective range is I believe
600 meters as well, well within the ranges seen in pr. Machineguns dominate battlefields imo. I thinks its fine.
Edit: Ill admit to one thing though, its cqb capability is a bit retarded other than that its good . P.S. Ive used a c-9 in cqb and it really isn't what it was designed for if you get what im sayin..

PLODDITHANLEY wrote: However as an infantry player I am most keen to see what the deployable TOWs do to the gameplay, armour needs infantry now.

while it will be interesting to see , i doubt it.

imho armor will only need infantry when anti-armor weapons are as prevalent as they are in the real world. (rpgs and at-4s are pretty common)

as for balance well my personal stance is make everything powerful . theres a reason something is used on the battlefield today, its does it job well enough to be considered a powerful asset. some weapons / equipment will handle situations better than others , but they should all have a spot at the table.

^ RPGs don't really do anything to main battletanks other than piss 'em off. In real life you have anti-tank teams, so it all comes down to luck. If a tank rolls into an area with no Anti-tank capabilities it's a slaughter for the INF. If they roll in to an area with an anti-tank team the Tank is dead before they knew what hit them. At the time it won't seem like balance, but it is.

I remember waiting on a hill in Jabal with a HAT kit for 10-15 min before finally getting to ambush the BMP. I'm sure whoever was driving that thing was pissed and probably bitched but hey. I set an ambush, waited patiently, and fired when I had a target. That's balance in every essence of the word.

Mark_Buckwe8 wrote:well think about it this way, in a canadian infantry section (8-10 soldiers) the AR (2 c-9 gunners) makes up upwards to 80 percent of the entire sections firepower. When he goes down someone takes his weapon and gets it going asap. Its effective range is I believe
600 meters as well, well within the ranges seen in pr. Machineguns dominate battlefields imo. I thinks its fine.
Edit: Ill admit to one thing though, its cqb capability is a bit retarded other than that its good . P.S. Ive used a c-9 in cqb and it really isn't what it was designed for if you get what im sayin..

Yes but the C9/M249/Minimi is pretty damn heavy and cannot be spun round instantly, nor held perfectly straight for anything longer than a second, whereas in game in CQC you can spin round and blaze away in a matter of nano-seconds and at long range you can be standing up holding the weapon perfectly still for hours on end.

At long range I find ARs fine - it's in close quarters where it's unbalanced.

Also RPGs and AT-4 are no where near enough to take out an MBT, they'd struggle to take out IFVs too.

archerfenris wrote:^ RPGs don't really do anything to main battletanks other than piss 'em off. In real life you have anti-tank teams, so it all comes down to luck. If a tank rolls into an area with no Anti-tank capabilities it's a slaughter for the INF. If they roll in to an area with an anti-tank team the Tank is dead before they knew what hit them. At the time it won't seem like balance, but it is.

I remember waiting on a hill in Jabal with a HAT kit for 10-15 min before finally getting to ambush the BMP. I'm sure whoever was driving that thing was pissed and probably bitched but hey. I set an ambush, waited patiently, and fired when I had a target. That's balance in every essence of the word.

+1. Very well stated. IRL, troops must wait hours to days to weeks to engage a target. The fact is, is that the term "balance" is relative. You can try to make things fair by the rock, paper, scissors approach. I personally think that balance is BS. In a fight, one side normally has an advantage, but thats where human resourcefulness comes in. That what I love about PR. Not so much emphasis on balance as skill with the mind and the rifle.

Well, I'm a dedicated medic so most of my game play balance experience usually results in infantry warfare. I'm interested to see how the new CQC deviation model works now, because before it was a nightmare for me to clear any room. For the record, I think the PR devs have done an exceptional job in balancing out all of the various aspects on the battlefield. There is a way to solve every scenario with the proper application and co-ordinated teamwork. Looking so forward to 0.9!!! Is it Friday yet?

Kasp

Herbiie wrote:Yes but the C9/M249/Minimi is pretty damn heavy and cannot be spun round instantly, nor held perfectly straight for anything longer than a second, whereas in game in CQC you can spin round and blaze away in a matter of nano-seconds and at long range you can be standing up holding the weapon perfectly still for hours on end.

At long range I find ARs fine - it's in close quarters where it's unbalanced.

Also RPGs and AT-4 are no where near enough to take out an MBT, they'd struggle to take out IFVs too.

yeah I agree it is unbalanced in the cqc, I edited that at the end of my post, but I don't know how that would be balanced and still making it the killer it is a range, that it should be?? Is it possible to slow its turning speed or something?? Who knows it could be perfect in 0.9 haha

I think the balance for the deployed FOB TOWs will be the fact that it is static and once any enemy sees it, it has not chance to catch a tank off guard. That and the fact that unlike the MG nests you are dang near standing in the open when you fire it.

Being a frequent Huey pilot in PR, I'm glad they changed it so the flares drop to the sides and back of the helo, instead of just dropping in a random clump in front.
That should make them a little more effective, at least, while not making helicopters immune to AA.

Before they dropped 360º around the aircraft, but won´t know the full effects of the change until the position of the heat object is known.

I agree with your post pretty much, ploddit, but I don't fly helicopters and never uses AA. But I think 50.cal vehicles, apcs, bmps and jets are too effective against helicopters because they only know that they are getting shot at when it is too late. Now that rally are getting removed helicopters job is much more important. Infantry will need transports more often.

Less chance of AA locking onto a forward flare and killing everyone in the back.

There is balance because most of the times the enemy has it too. Nato gear had since the late 20th century insane supremacy over competitive gear, mainly because the Russians were not able to upgrade it. If we would make it real, we would have f-15s which have been yet to be shot down in air to air combat and modern Nato tanks which are almost indestructible for their real life counterparts.

In game you have very destructive weapons, but so does the other side.
A saw doubles, if not triples an enemy squads rate of fire, but your team has an equivalent.