Project Reality v0.6 to v0.75 constructive criticism.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

You can get smaller more frequent jdams on the very big maps like kashan or qinling. They are underused and that is down to poor teamwork which is a great counter/price to the power they offer

Engineers dont have to repair tanks since the cp post can do that for them if the tanks want to travel backwards. I agree its a tiring to play as engineer all the time, ideally squads should rotate their crew


Hat could use a longer reload time just to control its frequency of use, its easy to spam it without any real worth otherwise

Agree on random/dynamic events but thats hard to achieve in a structured game

[[R-DEV]Outlawz7]

Maybe H-AT should only get one missile, it'd at least save a tank from being killed by one soldier.

[Zimmer]

Even if PR is an online game I also think its to linear and insurgency just attracts everything excepts teamwork.

I would love a more advanced form of AAS where the CP's are more random or set by players.

Right now on some of the more use maps its easy to know where the enemy is coming from. As some maps like Qwai with government office the CP is just to small. for example. And we need some more Quality maps who is played more just now teh same maps as its always qwai, Ejod or Al burjl (Forgot the name).

[eggman]

I think some of the changes made their way into PR because I wasn't around to be an ornery prick and argue every last little detail of game play changes with ppl

Real life precluded my involvement in v0.7 and v0.75. I think some GREAT and simultaneously "controversial" changes made it into the mod in my absence (that I might have otherwise argued against).

BUT... I think some changes made it in that:
1. seem like change for the sake of change
2. seem to not consider ripple effects
3. are justified in the name of realism, potentially sacrificing game play

The team has done an awesome job on PR v0.7 and v0.75, but there is a LOT to be said for someone playing a "gatekeeper" role on game play changes. Even if that person is not always right, forcing people to think through the proposed changes and forcing significant discussion and dialogue on the changes almost always created a better end result. And uh.. believe me that gatekeeper role can be a really challenging one and the discussions we have often get very heated.

I am hoping that real life will allow me to get more involved again in the near future.

I agree with some of the things mentioned in the original post.

The post I just wrote reads as incredibly arrogant.. but a spade is a spade.

[gclark03]

Why are so many of us determined to nerf Heavy AT to oblivion? Think of the disadvantages which already exist:

1. Unbearably long, if realistic, loading/reloading time.

2. Crouching requirement which makes HAT an easy target for nearby infantry, especially infantry with optics.

3. Unrealistic weakness of HAT round. 1 shot should disable, but NOT completely destroy, any MBT.

4. Situational nature of the kit. By the time someone gets the HAT kit and finds the tank, its gunner has probably sniped the person anyway. If the tank has not noticed the HAT, either its infantry support has killed him or the tank has rolled away to pursue a target, screwing up the HAT's aim. Even if the enemy is taken by surprise and the tank is hit, not only is the tank still alive and (usually) well, but the HAT soldier's position is common knowledge.

And the advantages of the tank?

1. Mobility.

2. Incredible firepower, durability, and zoom.

3. The ability to not only survive a major hit, but repair later on. A HAT only needs three shots from a tank's coax to die, whereas the tank can withstand 2 AT missiles before destruction.

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

HAT is used on every target and on every map even when there are no tanks. The reload time is only like 30 secs, it could be double or more and still be reasonable for the influence it garners.
A tow humvee has a spawn time of 20 mins but the hat is 5

[[R-DEV]Mosquill]

Bring back the engineer truck, remove it's auto-repair ability, give the engineer's wrench a limited amount of ammo and make the engie truck be able to rearm the wrench. That's the best way imo.

Also, if you give a wrench to the crewman it will make two man tanks 10x deadlier, will result in many non-realistic and rediculus situations and it will reduce the overall gameplay quality.

[LeoBloom.]

Originally Posted by Death_dx

1)Perhaps most realistic solution would be the HAT not insta-blowing the APC, instead making it inoperable and wounding if not killing operators.

Was gonna suggest the same thing.

[gclark03]

Weren't there plans to significantly reduce the complete fireball explosions we see in .75 when a vehicle is destroyed?

[Sabre_tooth_tigger]

Check the last release log and it might mention something