Project Reality Forums

Kingy wrote:I think you need to re-read my last two posts.

Oh shit I was posting that at 3am, sorry got confused.

Vista wrote:

I guess """only""" 50 people complained, there goes 45 pages of feedback. Pack it up guys - I guess nothing will be done.

He's joking isn't he? People are complaining all over the place even in co-op. The MG3 is op as all hell. 2 rounds anywhere to the body and you're dead. Pistols and Shotguns are useless. It takes an unreasonable amount of shots to kill.

He's not joking, he also doesn't see a problem with a full shotgun blast point blank (with all 9 pellets hitting the body armour) doing 63% damage while a G3 does 80%. Pistols, SMGs and shotguns being bad is Ok because militaries issue rifles and not shotguns.

At the remark about damage dropoff being too steep, requiring AR 30 bullets to kill someone crossing an open area at distance and it being impossible for a rifleman to punish dumb plays now he just questioned the 30 bullets example.

At the remark of any kind of system like this failing by default due to too many inconsistencies: spread, deviation and hit detection he disregards it because it hasn't changed.

To saying that 1 shot rifles can get you out of dumb situations, where you should be dead, with 1 shot he replies that you can also punish dumb plays easier, it goes both ways. Also HAT apparently gets you out of dumb situations because it 1 shots armour. Not only is the 2nd point false and has many more limitations you were always able to punish dumb plays just fine, no 1 shot rifle needed. What happens now is postioning, deviation and other advantages are often negated by 1 bullet...

1 shot rifles also aren't a problem in INS, it's the INS kits that are bad. They've been shit for many years, it just shows how changing the whole game to make this damage model viable is the idea, not the other way around.

And if you were wondering why this damage model started in the first place it was because the few factions where you can choose between 7.62 and 5.56 rifles nobody chose the former. The offenders here are mostly just M14 (Vietnam) and FN FAL (Ins). Although apparently Falklands were also a problem (???? who would choose the horrible medic SMG vs a FAL on a big wide open map?). So instead of giving that FN FAL a simple scope and reducing the recoil on the M14 a whole new damage model was "thought out" that broke both Vietnam and INS far beyond "nobody was choosing a 7.62 rifle".

Responses here don't represent the playerbase, if more people would hate it more people would complain.



BUT let me just break the game because I heard from fuck knows who that G3 is worst of all time...

There are only 2 explanations for that:

1. Make all good players and clans leave so TZ becomes best.

2. Who ever decided the new "damage model" didnt spend enough time to think about the impact of the changes

Looks more like Nr 2 atm

Please just revert the changes and buff the 7.62 MBRs. We all miss the old damage model. Concentrate on minor buffs/nerfs and new maps. Even a new kit class would be far more useful and interesting than this.

The thing is that tweaks don't look as good in a portfolio of work. This is a massive undertaking for the sake of pushing the ball forward, player reception is a debatable afterthought. A lot more consideration should have been taken before any of these changes were made, this whole rework stinks of poor planning.

Zwilling joined my INF squad and I told him that he can only play with us if he reverts the changes, he refused so I kicked him... Will be a tough thing to convince him...

While I see the premise to the changes made to the infantry weapons damage models, I feel they have failed in practice. I thought the previous damage models were more conducive to fun and balanced infantry combat. The damage drop off changes make perfect sense and I dont mind them, but I think the damage models should be reverted to what they were previously.

Zwilling, I have sooo much respect for your huge effort in gathering real world data to make bullets in the game behave realistically. It sounds like hard, dedicated work and shows you care a lot about the game. I wanna say, though, the changes would make more sense to me if you also made everything else realistic:

• being able to temporarily knock people down by hitting them in the armor
• being able to shoot downed players to make them go dead-dead
• requiring treated wounded to be medevaced rather than being able to continue fighting
• removing FOBs and rally points that allow unrealistic spawning of reinforcements
• requiring all players to complete a thorough training program before deployment so they know the techniques required to stay alive in a less forgiving damage environment

I hate to say this cuz I can understand the deep attachment of putting so much effort into this and I don't want to add to the pile of haters that will just make you resent the community, but Project Reality is a game with all the limitations of a game, as opposed to a simulator:

• many people play to have fun rather than to have a realistic experience
• public server players don't have time to go through or conduct thorough training
• large balance changes require subsequent increasingly-fine tuning, often in other areas of the game - a process PR has been going through for many years and that must now be restarted from scratch
• part of the game's enjoyment is the variety of weapons available, which has been diminished by making several of them (the 9mm's) ineffective
• some people play on potato computers with low FPS or a crappy mouse and can't aim at individual body parts on moving targets as easily as is now required (especially for 9mm's)
• some people play on low resolution (due to small monitor or low FPS on high resolution) and can't spot the enemy as easily to know when they're about to get shot and downed in one hit

If you're looking for a lot of complaints, how many do you need? Can you give a specific number, like...100 people? I'm sure many more players would submit their feedback on the forums if they thought it would help you make an informed decision. I'm only posting now because I assumed the changes would be reverted quickly.

I know everybody's making this difficult for you with the way they're complaining. If you reverted now, it'd look like you were giving in to pressure, and the rude people would rub it in. Just think long-term, though. Everybody will forget about this eventually, whether you revert or not, and when they do, what's going to be left of the game?

Will everybody get used to the new balance and start to like it? Will it feel like a more authentic, therefore a more enjoyable experience that people keep wanting to come back to? Will the casuals leave to find another game, and be replaced by a new crowd of sim-enthusiasts, who will improve the community with their presence? What do you think?

Maybe it's too early to tell, and we need to record some gameplay footage that demonstrates the issues better than arguing about it can.

Seriously though wtf. New update and no damage changes? I took a single shot as syrian rebel from a .308 and went black and white. Couldn't see **** died shortly after from blood loss. Not fun. Revert please.

the upper leg / armored damage is ridiculous, 5.45 only 45dmg in the upper leg at 10m, 37 dmg in the plate? are you smoking crack? i don't give a fuck who you are any bullet above 9mm/shotgun pellet is going to put you down fast if you're hit in the leg, and if you take one in the plate you won't just keep driving on like nothing happened. it def shouldnt take 3 rounds in the plate to incapacitate someone with 5.45. i understand its not going to kill them but that's what the wounded state should represent, someone who is incapacitated and needs assistance.

@Mineral

We aren't doing public poll on the subject atm. Not cause we don't think the results would be important, but we first still have to figure out within the PR team what we feel of the current implementation. Things aren't black & white.

The only other change I've seen in this game to receive this much criticism during the time I've been playing the game was the turret traverse change, heck criticism isn't even the correct word, more like outrage. Before I went to bed the vote was up for 20 minutes give or take and was at 0 : 15 already. Even the turret change had a few people who were in favour of it(me, for example - but I can understand the other side who rightfully said it affected the game's playability too negatively for little benefit).

If you need to "feel" the currently implementation more I'd say the best choice would be to join any server playing INS. Getting killed from 200+ meters in max 2 shots from any infantry rifle whilst simultaneously getting dunked by armoured assets rolling around with thermals and up to 1000 rounds of 7.62 caliber coax machine guns next to cannons and autocannons while you have 4 RPGs at your disposal team-wide is a real treat, there is most definately not a better way to simulate a one-sided slaughter.

On AAS it's manageable, but even there you screwed up by removing the guaranteed one-shot on the bolt action(sniper) rifles because they just so happen to not use Lapua Magnum etc., which was their only saving grace. Factions like Hamas/ARF or Militia, whose main appeal was gear diversity, saw themselves stripped from their MP5s, PPShs and similar because they suck.

I know there is much debate on the subject, but please give us the time to handle this right.

You're kidding, right? The update is out for over 2 months, what more is there to do? what data is there to collect still?

And what an asinine way to manage things. You don't know which direction you want to go as a team. That's fine, individuals have their own way of seeing things. But I have to ask: Why you think it's suitable to leave the changes the way they are instead of reverting while your team is figuring out the details? You have the goddamn launcher. You have to simply remove a few lines of code(and add the skill damage back in). That's all. I'm tempted to say that even I could do that.

Here's what you should do. 1.) You revert the change. Doing so gives you ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD YOU COULD EVER ASK FOR TO GET THE TEAM ON BOARD WITH THE NEXT ITERATION while WE can finally play properly again and stop bitching.

<No, there isn't a 2.). Literally all you have to do to calm us down is revert>

Frontliner wrote: <No, there isn't a 2.). Literally all you have to do to calm us down is revert>

My guess is they would like to make changes to it rather than revert, which I support.

Here's some Skorpion footage. I encourage everyone to record gameplay that demonstrates the new balance, as it's more convincing.

Mushrooms wrote:Here's some Skorpion footage. I encourage everyone to record gameplay that demonstrates the new balance, as it's more convincing.

knife/stones >>> Scorpion

Frontliner wrote:@Mineral

Here's what you should do. 1.) You revert the change. Doing so gives you ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD YOU COULD EVER ASK FOR TO GET THE TEAM ON BOARD WITH THE NEXT ITERATION while WE can finally play properly again and stop bitching.

This 100x

Notwithstanding the people who defend the idea are the minority. I wish someone would justify the change based on gameplay aspects, i've read all 476 posts on this topic during these two months and no one managed to do it.

During the 10 years that i played this, this is the first time that i felt the need to come and complain here in the forum, due to the neglect in which this subject is being treated

A change like this that affects everyone on all maps, should not be implemented without being properly debated and tested. I wonder why the fuck are they still considering keep this silliness going

Wing Walker wrote:They must be just waiting for you to volunteer your personal time to work on it...

What an ungrateful prick.

Ah yes expressing your own disgruntlement makes you an ungrateful prick, you know who volunteered his own personal time and made a more reasonable damage model? Vista.


Don't go around calling people ungrateful pricks, that makes you look like an idiot, if you want to act like a kid on the internet do it somewhere else.