Project Reality Forums

it's realistic dood

Murphy wrote:I haven't played the latest iteration of the changed dmg values but I recall K_Rivers screwing around with very similar effect. Basically you are ruining the balance that worked for many years because you want to change something. The overall reception has been negative, so obviously things need to be reconsidered. I hope the players feedback is going to adjust the balance and not just be entertainment for forum readers.

Very well said, it seems like there have been many changes that have occurred within the last 6 months that were neither necessary nor requested. It seems like the dev team isn't willing to accept the honest opinion of their playerbase lately.

DogACTUAL wrote:Glad you finally found a match with 90% of tards in the opposing team to 'proof' your point. Anecdotal evidence at its best, even the typical quick cut montage is there to remove any context. It really rivals the supposed 'video proof' of shotguns being OP in its misleading nature that was posted some time ago.

"Finally a round" - no, it was just weekend PR.

Dog, I'm aware many kills I would've gotten even with the previous damage as well, but here's the catch: I would've needed a lot more bullets to kill, which means that it is a) much easier to pinpoint my location and avoid getting shot at, b ) much harder for me to kill opponents aware of me because they can just prone dive to safe themselves when the first bullet hits and c) I have to hit twice in CQB instead of just once. These factors combined lead to GPMGs being rather balanced, rarely scoring more than 3 or 4 Kills per Death on average, INS or not.

I doubt anyone would see the entire footage I have tbh, which is why I chose to release it the way I did. Accusing me of doing it intentionally to "mask" ""something"", context or whatever else there is, is fucking retarded.

You do realize that more than 80% of those kills would have been guaranteed even with the previous system?

Yeah, and now it's even more simple and less skill dependant, I previously had to hit a pretty specific spot to kill, now I can just hit about a square meter of surface area to drop an opponent instantly.

You do realize that you being able to mow down those enemies had barely anything to do with the increased dmg, but all to do with their total lack of situational awareness and inability to locate you or even be aware that they are getting fired upon?

See above. It's much harder to locate somebody who drops you in one shot than it is to locate somebody having to RATATATATATA in order to kill a person, not to mention that you might have time to react because of recoil/deviation causing 2nd and 3rd bullet to miss. Additionally, the M240 is actually rather quiet compared to other weapon systems, which, combined with me firing my shots very much deliberately knowing the above, caused them to have trouble finding me - and devising a plan to kill me as a consequence.

Your video just reminds me of some videos viirus made way before the dmg changes where he humiliates tards without any combat awareness and keeps farming kills. Those things will always be possible if you have a lacking opponent.

True, but the difference is whether or not it's a walk in the park for me or I have to work for my kills.

Many people IRL still prefer the M14 over the M16 in a load of situations, it always depends on the conditions.

Dog, really, you have NO fucking clue what you're talking about.

Weapons just have different strenghts and weaknesses, depending what their role is, even IRL their is something like 'balance'.

And that's what I would like to see being put back into the game. Nothing more.


But also nothing less.

I think the problem is not the unified damage across different weapons with the same cartridge, i think that is a good change that will become more nuanced when effects of different barrel lenghts and ammo types are taken into account. And it is totally logical and is not standing in the way of balance.

Barrel lengths?!? What the actual?

Of course people being able to one-tap others with your standard issue rifle is totally and logically not standing in the way of balance.

DogACTUAL wrote:Glad you finally found a match with 90% of tards in the opposing team to 'proof' your point. Anecdotal evidence at its best, even the typical quick cut montage is there to remove any context. It really rivals the supposed 'video proof' of shotguns being OP in its misleading nature that was posted some time ago.

Part of me believes that video is what kick started this whole fiasco. The ability to edit myself to look God tier is something that happens after the game has ended. I feel any video evidence should be viewed as a complete round, this will not only show us "how ezpz it is to shotgun ppl at 1.5km" but it will also highlight the situations where X Y and Z weapon would not engage and instead try to maneuver into a proper firing position. I'm sure if we watch the whole round of the video in question you will start to see a trend of the player taking fights he would previously have thought against. I'm also fairly certain that if we had an entire round including deaths, call-outs, and you know the whole freaking SQUAD working together thing, we would see that the players attitude and aggression is indeed dictated by the weapon system they are holding.

I managed to play a few rounds last night and I must say the time to kill is kind of annoying. As blufor on Karbala it was basically a turkey shoot (even though our APC squad was playing very poorly), and 5.56 felt exceptionally deadly. We played a round of conventional forces right after and I must say the G3 is an absolute beast of a weapon now. It's pretty much going to win against a NATO weapon every time based on the fact that landing 1 shot decides the outcome of the fight. Why have it that a G3 sends an opponent to black and white with a few moments to drop a patch, it seems like you're just trying to avoid 1 shot kills for the sake of it even though that's what it amounts to.

I've managed to weigh in objectively, but having played a bit I can see where the angst is coming from. It also feels horrible landing 2 shotgun blasts on an unaware enemy square in the back only to have him turn around a drop me in 1 burst.

X-Alt wrote:Another armchair(man) general account.

shit source by the way

Another empty claim. You're all armchair generals here.

Calling it shit source does nothing to counter it, aside from showing your phobia of facts. (when someone cites a source which cites its own sources and you have exactly nothing)

DogACTUAL wrote: For the guys saying the M14 is shit IRL:

Many people IRL still prefer the M14 over the M16 in a load of situations, it always depends on the conditions.
IIRC the M16 was adopted because it was the right tool for the job at that time with the jungle combat and all and to save resources and reduce weight. Dont't quote me on that though because i didn't want to look it up right now to confirm, but that's how i remember it.

Weapons just have different strenghts and weaknesses, depending what their role is, even IRL their is something like 'balance'. For the same reason i have to agree that the PPSH and other SMGs are too weak now, they are supposed to be superior in CQB compared to assault and battle rifles while lacking medium and long range effectiveness.

In that regard you are totally right, overall KE doesn't equal stopping power!

Generally I have only seen armchair kommandos prefer M14, most likely someone who never fired a M14.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/arch ... 15851.html

Btw, the previous life of my current M1A was a standard M1A with a USGI chromed barrel, and it was a 3.5 MOA rifle with match grade ammo.

This is what you can expect from basic, modern M14 with "match grade ammo" on a good day(when it did not have the giant list of problems previously posted).

For reference, 3.5moa is what you can expect from terrible American-made AK clones like IO, a decent one could be a lot better: https://youtu.be/ULWb-83QW_c?t=2m48s

M14(this is about Vietnam here) just is shit if you didn't do everything to try to fix it(by bedding the barrel or changing out the stock completely).

**********************

PPSH damage is fine(assuming it does same damage as 9mm); it's a 900rpm weapon and it handles well with massive magazine.
It shoots 7.62 Tokarev so it would logically do even less damage than 9mm. I'm going to wait until someone actually posts full damage chart.

Murphy wrote:Part of me believes that video is what kick started this whole fiasco.

This thread had more than 20 dozen replies before I posted the video, and a lot of them said the change would amount to the things we're seeing right now as soon as 7.62 can be found on more than 2 classes and especially when the enemy has no body armour.

The ability to edit myself to look God tier is something that happens after the game has ended.

Oh wow, I'm sorry, I didn't know you guys wanted 35 minutes of me walking from place to place. Not that I have the round in its fullest, I didn't know beforehand it would turn out like that, only after the first set of kills did I decide to play like I did and see where it goes. How that footage is anywhere near god-tier is beyond me, I waited, I deviated, I was putting some efforts into not getting caught in a bad spot, but ultimately all I did was that I pressed mouse 1 once or twice and the enemy died.

I feel any video evidence should be viewed as a complete round, this will not only show us "how ezpz it is to shotgun ppl at 1.5km" but it will also highlight the situations where X Y and Z weapon would not engage and instead try to maneuver into a proper firing position.

Yes, previously I probably would've made those considerations; let people come closer, have them run into a spot with no cover, then spray down one or two in a quick storm. But now I have a one-shot fully automatic hardly any recoil weapon with me.

I'm sure if we watch the whole round of the video in question you will start to see a trend of the player taking fights he would previously have thought against.

Exactly. The system empowers the already better BluFor weapons because all I need is one shot to land and the enemy is dead. Even up close all I have to do is spam(which I only had to do once because I came up a ladder next to a Tali - not included in the video). Compare that to the opposition: AK damage drops off tremendously, not to mention their hefty recoil makes it hard to land follow-up shots unless you're right next to your target. Meanwhile my M240 was going *tap* dead *tap* dead *tap* *tap* dead.

I'm also fairly certain that if we had an entire round including deaths, call-outs, and you know the whole freaking SQUAD working together thing, we would see that the players attitude and aggression is indeed dictated by the weapon system they are holding.

You couldn't be more wrong but hey, sure, let's just feed our own narrative instead of arguing about the fucking balance, you know, the fucking point of the video. And honestly, all of what you asked is in the video, like, are you kidding me?!

The squad worked together, I was playing on my own though. To quote Alon: "Can we get another person or Frontliner to help us?!", to quote myself: "I wanna farm more kills".
Scoreboard was displayed at the end, discounting the two M14 EBR kills. 4 deaths, 2 of which with/without the M240 depending on how you want to phrase it.
I received three contact callouts, two of which I saw myself, and one of which I couldn't kill because I had no Line of Sight, so that one wasn't included.

Anything else you need to know?

I managed to play a few rounds last night and I must say the time to kill is kind of annoying. As blufor on Karbala it was basically a turkey shoot (even though our APC squad was playing very poorly), and 5.56 felt exceptionally deadly. We played a round of conventional forces right after and I must say the G3 is an absolute beast of a weapon now. It's pretty much going to win against a NATO weapon every time based on the fact that landing 1 shot decides the outcome of the fight. Why have it that a G3 sends an opponent to black and white with a few moments to drop a patch, it seems like you're just trying to avoid 1 shot kills for the sake of it even though that's what it amounts to.

It sounds like you're saying exactly what we're saying but given how you just tried to take my video apart it doesn't add up whatsoever. Are you pro change now or against it? Seriously, make up your mind.

Frontliner wrote: See above. It's much harder to locate somebody who drops you in one shot than it is to locate somebody having to RATATATATATA in order to kill a person, not to mention that you might have time to react because of recoil/deviation causing 2nd and 3rd bullet to miss.

Double tap would have worked just as fine in most of the situations in your video and wouldn't have really revealed your position anymore than it did there.
And tbh i would totally notice even single shots of that machine gun at those close distances and locate you very quickly.

You can see that those guys in your videos are total nubs by their reaction, or rather the lack thereof to friendlies getting shot and taken out right beside them.
A reasonable player would atleast turn around and look what happened, but they didn't even notice anything except for a few guys.

Of course people being able to one-tap others with your standard issue rifle is totally and logically not standing in the way of balance.

Yes, the G3 and other battle rifles are a bit OP now, even though they have less ROF and more recoil.

But guess what? In a game that leans heavily on realism you are always going to have things that are OP, that's where asymmetrical balance comes in.

The only difference is that you accepted all the other stuff that is OP in PR, but reject every change that brings with it a significant buff because it is new and alien to you.

-You accepted that british APCs suck hard against every other APC and that they have no chance against a BMP 2/3.

-You accepted that the Leclerc has way faster reload than the T72S.

-You accepted that the MIG29 outturned every other jet easily and a single F18 barely had
any chance against it once it was chased by it (before the new flight model).

-You accepted that that the MG3 was by far the best machine gun.

-You accepted that BLUFOR gets scopes for their standart issue rifles while the insurgents do not.

Shall i go on?

I know you are going to say that some of those things were not ok for you but you just didn't say much about it, but let's be real here. You were playing PR and didn't even care about that because you found ways around those things and learned what you needed to do to balance out the disadvantages. And it was actually quite engaging to have to come up with solutions to those disadvantages.

Every single change to this game (that is not equally applied to everything) will result in something becoming more powerful, there is no way around it. What is really funny to see though is that every buff that happens is always met with hostility, like the buff itself is an unintended side effect, when it is quite the opposite.

Look, i am not saying that this change is perfect, there are some issues, for me it is mainly that some CQB weapons are almost at BB gun levels now.
But please just try and see if you can get used to the new dynamics and find ways to counter the buffed up things.

The only and most unbiased way to actually determine if these changes broke the balance would be to look at the whole metadata of all the rounds that were played and see how much the overall W/L and K/D ratio for the factions on certain maps has changed.

DogACTUAL wrote: The only and most unbiased way to actually determine if these changes broke the balance would be to look at the whole metadata and see how much the overall W/L and K/D ratio for the factions on certain maps has changed.

Metadata wont have much significance imo, cause you never have two equal skilled teams fighitng each other. For example in the tournament people did lot of agreements cause maps/assets wernt balanced.

@Zwilling, wil you keep working on this or will your revert to the old system?

Allahu Akbar wrote:Another empty claim. You're all armchair generals here.

Calling it shit source does nothing to counter it, aside from showing your phobia of facts. (when someone cites a source which cites its own sources and you have exactly nothing)

xDDDDDDDD Comrade

I've fired M1As by the way, not bad at all.

X-Alt wrote:xDDDDDDDD Comrade

I've fired M1As by the way, not bad at all.

#notyourcomrade
eeks dee

Yeah you shoot 50m paper targets, still having zero counterevidence to any of the problems listed.

Again:

This is what you can expect from basic, modern M14 with "match grade ammo" on a good day(when it did not have the giant list of problems previously posted).

For reference, 3.5moa is what you can expect from terrible American-made AK clones like IO, a decent one could be a lot better: https://youtu.be/ULWb-83QW_c?t=2m48s

M14(this is about Vietnam here) just is shit if you didn't do everything to try to fix it(by bedding the barrel or changing out the stock completely).

Respond with counter evidence or you remain irrelevant.

DogACTUAL wrote:for me it is mainly that some CQB weapons are almost at BB gun levels now.

I'm sure you can find a way around that too.

DogACTUAL wrote:Double tap would have worked just as fine in most of the situations in your video and wouldn't have really revealed your position anymore than it did there.
And tbh i would totally notice even single shots of that machine gun at those close distances and locate you very quickly.

You can see that those guys in your videos are total nubs by their reaction, or rather the lack thereof to friendlies getting shot and taken out right beside them.
A reasonable player would atleast turn around and look what happened, but they didn't even notice anything except for a few guys.

"You played against noobs therefore your footage doesn't count" Dog_Actual 2017

Cry me a fucking river.

Yes, the G3 and other battle rifles are a bit OP now, even though they have less ROF and more recoil.

But guess what? In a game that leans heavily on realism you are always going to have things that are OP, that's where asymmetrical balance comes in.

asymmetrical balance =/= imbalance.

The game is imbalanced, straight up. I don't care how much better BluFor is in reality compared to INS or Talis, I want both teams to have a fighting chance even though BluFor has better gear. Only if you have a fighting chance the game is balanced. And currently odds are stacked against INS way too heavily.

The only difference is that you accepted all the other stuff that is OP in PR, but reject every change that brings with it a significant buff because it is new and alien to you.

I reject the new infantry damage handling because it disempowers the already weak factions and gives BluFor easy two and one-shot capabilities. A 1.3 newcomer wouldn't know, but in 0.95 Insurgents actually had more kills than BluFor frequently. Compared to that INS is now a walk in the park.

-You accepted that british APCs suck hard against every other APC and that they have no chance against a BMP 2/3.

"You accepted that stuff is OP"
"British APCs suck"
I'm sorry, but u w0t m8?

-You accepted that the Leclerc has way faster reload than the T72S.

Yeah, but it's not like the reload speed is fundamentally broken. If the Leclerc gets caught in a bad spot they'll loose the fight regardless of their reloading speed. It would be a different story if the Leclerc would still win even though they got caught in a bad spot. THAT is broken. Being able to reload 2 seconds faster is not.

Edit: Ooops, accidentally submitted.

-You accepted that the MIG29 outturned every other jet easily and a single F18 barely had
any chance against it once it was chased by it (before the new flight model).

I knew about it even though I don't fly and wasn't fine with it.

-You accepted that that the MG3 was by far the best machine gun.

I have no idea what you're even on about. "By far the best"? Compared to which other MGs?

-You accepted that BLUFOR gets scopes for their standart issue rifles while the insurgents do not.

I complained about the INS v BluFor balance before you even played the game.

just take a good look at this Thread at this point now...

a side from feed-back,

we have ppl who fight each other like kids...

we have ppl that don't know what they are talking about and yet talk and argue like they know everything....

im sure the Dev's love to watch this.... instead or giving us an answer on what they gonna do next... keep the Thread open for more none sense and trash talk's....

how longer this will take ? there are enough proof out there that the system is not working with PR.

bring the Old Damage back and everything will be fine again...

again nothing were wrong with the Old infy Wep damage system... no body complained about it. so please revert this change ASAP...

Regards.

DogACTUAL wrote:Snip-

don't take it personally !

Frontliner wrote:Yeah, but it's not like the reload speed is fundamentally broken. If the Leclerc gets caught in a bad spot they'll loose the fight regardless of their reloading speed. It would be a different story if the Leclerc would still win even though they got caught in a bad spot. THAT is broken. Being able to reload 2 seconds faster is not.

And this is really what the difference is. 1 shot rifles and 900 rpm rifles get you out of a bad situation in 0.5s, a faster reloading tank doesn't.

The new damage model will never ever work as envisioned because the old engine won't allow for it. We already have so much RNG at infantry combat: bullet spread, deviation and horrible hit detection. These things alone disable any advanced model, because 4 shots at a distance really turn into 6, a shot aimed at chest hits an arm and does half the damage or it hits the head and is a kill.

People have survived 3 RPK shots without armour and 5 AK shots with armor, current garbage model brings even bigger gap to armor vs no armor combat and is just incredibly inconsistent.

There is no getting used to randomness.

I think the biggest complain by the majority of players is having 1-shot automatic rifles. The solution should be quite easy, just reduce dmg values, shots to lower body -> black and white, same to unarmoured torso. I guess most people will be fine with that.

DogACTUAL wrote:
But please just try and see if you can get used to the new dynamics and find ways to counter the buffed up things.

There is no counter against one-shots. Pls dont tell me to flank more, stay in cover or play better. Its just fucking stupid to add something like this.

schakal811 wrote:
There is no counter against one-shots. Pls dont tell me to flank more, stay in cover or play better. Its just fucking stupid to add something like this.

There is a counter.

Devs can buff blufor massively and all INS(not counting AAS...etc. of course) has to do is just not spawn in, ever, until timer runs out.

solidfire93 wrote:just take a good look at this Thread at this point now...

a side from feed-back,

we have ppl who fight each other like kids...

we have ppl that don't know what they are talking about and yet talk and argue like they know everything....

im sure the Dev's love to watch this.... instead or giving us an answer on what they gonna do next... keep the Thread open for more none sense and trash talk's....

how longer this will take ? there are enough proof out there that the system is not working with PR.

bring the Old Damage back and everything will be fine again...

again nothing were wrong with the Old infy Wep damage system... no body complained about it. so please revert this change ASAP...

Regards.

This this this this this.

Make a God damn vote already or something!

Okay, then let's cut through all that shit and get to the point. I will just quote myself, please tell me how you can disagree with this:

The only and most unbiased way to actually determine if these changes broke the balance would be to look at the whole metadata of all the rounds that were played and see how much the overall W/L and K/D ratio for the factions on certain maps has changed from before the update.

Maybe you could also have a look at the different weapons and their K/D ratios before and after.

DogACTUAL wrote:Okay, then let's cut through all that shit and get to the point. I will just quote myself, please tell me how you can disagree with this:

The only and most unbiased way to actually determine if these changes broke the balance would be to look at the whole metadata of all the rounds that were played and see how much the overall W/L and K/D ratio for the factions on certain maps has changed from before the update.

Maybe you could also have a look at the different weapons and their K/D ratios before and after.

In the last weekend, in an INS match the insurgent team was busted, obviously the guy against the lethality of the weapons came and said that the fault was the update, he just forgot to stay to see this same team losing three times in a row In the three subsequent AAS matches in which they played with regular factions and with vests .... then the fault was not of the tards ..., considering the relative ease with which it is possible to heal in PR some people simply do not want to worry about Have a really careful movement, since after receiving a 7.62x51 to 50m in the middle of the chest and without vests, they want to can still hide or run and use their magic patches to soon after Enjoy their balance, since any form of asymmetry will be considered as unbalanced by them.


It should be this kind of mentality that dictates the mechanics of games like bf3 / bf4 or suggestions like "'increase the warrior's fire rate because ... balance"