Project Reality - WIP Discussion

[Big Mac 19]

You have an interesting understanding of copyright.

You beat me to it. :p

[Pain0815 10]

Gnat;1718976']No Rezza & Laertes' date=' your just playing on the [b']wrong[/b] servers.

Theres a bunch of public servers (or semi-public, ie not "Clan") out there that have mature groups play organised games. Don't expect to find them without a little more than an hours research.

Totally agree, server restrictions is NOT this community.

No they dont.

I play bis games since opf1, and i love playing arma so far.

BUT when it comes to pvp pr beats all. I have only 2 permanent installed games on my pc arma and pr(bf2).

By the way i hate bf2, i own bf only for pr since pr 0.3.

PR has much engine limitations because the bf2 engine sucks, but it forces teamwork and punish lonewolf gameplay.

You cant do much alone, you can build stuff only as squad with more than 2-3 ppl.

All neccessary squad support kits like automatic rifle, medic, marksman and stuff are only in squads avaiable if they have more than 3-4 members. (sniper + hat you can get if you are 2+ in a squad).

Tanks and choppers wont work alone and only with crewman and pilot kits.

Such things ,missing in the missions for arma which are avaiable atm.

I hope pr arma get those things into arma to make arma pvp more teamplay needed.

If someone never played pr:bf2 then plz dont try defend armas public pvp teamwork here, because it never comes close to the pr one till now.

I hope that changes soon with pr arma.

Dont suggest searching a clan or anything, i spoke from forced public teamwork.

Mm8U53cEAhI

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pain0815

[gazzthompson 10]

shall we leave the PR:BF2 gameplay vs ArmA gameplay out of the thread guys?

Lets all look forward to (and discuss)a great looking PvP focused mod by an established mod team .

Also an update (not sure if this has been posted yet):

UK_Force;1415227']To summarise and asnswer a few questions:

Yes the Afghanistan Map will be in the Mod' date=' maybe not on the initial release, but we have another map now too in the works ;-)

So 2 Maps/Islands, one we hope to release for v0.1

We will not be using the Brit DLC, we will be using PR's own British Faction, which is alreadY a lot more comprehensive than the Brit DLC.

The Taliban we previewed on Highlights Reel #1, have since been removed, as the OA versions seem to do the Job, and are pretty good for now. We do however have someone working on a new version, and also someone working on the ANA for us.

The default US Army, USMC, Russians etc will all still feature as required in PR: ArmA2.

Finally please remember we are creating a PvP Mod (Ie Multiplay - Player versus Player), so do not relate "dumb AI", performance problems etc, when playing in Campaigns / Singleplayer ....... there is a huge difference.

UKF[/quote']

Edited August 15, 2010 by gazzthompson

[Laertes 10]

Gnat;1718976']No Rezza & Laertes' date=' your just playing on the [b']wrong[/b] servers.

Theres a bunch of public servers (or semi-public, ie not "Clan") out there that have mature groups play organised games. Don't expect to find them without a little more than an hours research.

Just to clarify, that was basically my point. I should have added more to my post, but anyway, what I meant was that the standard of game-play depends on the server and the more mature players and the more tactical/team-orientated game-player is generally on the clan, and public/semi-public servers.

Hope that's at least a bit clearer.

[gazzthompson 10]

Just to clarify, that was basically my point. I should have added more to my post, but anyway, what I meant was that the standard of game-play depends on the server and the more mature players and the more tactical/team-orientated game-player is generally on the clan, and public/semi-public servers.

Hope that's at least a bit clearer.

PR:BF2 players will understand this concept (regardless of what people in this thread have said) perfectly, we have a few servers providing consistently high standards of play (tactical gamer, they also have ArmA servers?) and a few servers which most of us wouldn't touch it with a barge pole :D

[NoRailgunner 0]

Simple wait till PR is released. After the first days/weeks trying and playing with PR you can say "its great" or "its bad". ;)

Btw just curious why "PR" is in front of Arma2, OA, CO? Imho the original game name should be in first place.. eg Arma2:PR, OA:PR, CO:PR

[Laertes 10]

PR:BF2 players will understand this concept (regardless of what people in this thread have said) perfectly, we have a few servers providing consistently high standards of play (tactical gamer, they also have ArmA servers?) and a few servers which most of us wouldn't touch it with a barge pole :D

Very true. I just find it ironic that most of the PR:BF2 players that criticise ArmA seem to complain about a lack of team-work in MP, which would be fine except they often compare the public servers running Domination etc, with PR:BF2's semi-public/clan servers such as TacticalGamer and IGI.

I just don't think it's a particularly objective comparison, both games have their good and their bad.

Simple wait till PR is released. After the first days/weeks trying and playing with PR you can say "its great" or "its bad". ;)

Btw just curious why "PR" is in front of Arma2, OA, CO? Imho the original game name should be in first place.. eg Arma2:PR, OA:PR, CO:PR

To identify the mod (PR) and the game (A2, or BF2).

Edited August 15, 2010 by Laertes
Inadvertent smiley

[Smurf 12]

The "how teamwork-able" the game is is down to the server (admins...people..) and people that play in it, not the game (or in this case, the mod), so all your argument are invalid :p

And those comparisons and flame-wars that closed both previous PR thread here, so stop it.

[NoRailgunner 0]

To identify the mod (PR) and the game (A2, or BF2).

Sure, but mostly all mods in various games dont put their mod tag in front. Its kinda like saying "PR is the game and Arma2 is the mod". Without the game engine PR devs could not make anything. Or is it only just a little ego/marketing thingy? :D

[Laertes 10]

Sure, but mostly all mods in various games dont put their mod tag in front. Its kinda like saying "PR is the game and Arma2 is the mod". Without the game engine PR devs could not make anything. Or is it only just a little ego/marketing thingy? :D

It's probably because there are three versions of PR. I assume it's just to make it more consistent when referring to the different versions.

[NoRailgunner 0]

As far as I understood for A2 there will be only one version of PR which requires Combined Operation. So A2CO:PR would be the best choice!

[Wicca 10]

Actually, when i want to play PR with buddies i say.

Wanna play PR?

not Wanna play BF2 PR.

So For arma to i guess it will be. Want to play PRA? or smt.

[gazzthompson 10]

As far as I understood for A2 there will be only one version of PR which requires Combined Operation. So A2CO:PR would be the best choice!

The way i see it "PR:Game" is done because "PR" the team is the constant, then the variable (the game) is put last as it changes... if that makes sense, As there is currently:

Released:

PR:Bf2

Future Releases:

PR:ArmA2

PR:V

Proof of concept:

PR:2

If you ArmA guys have any more PR related questions, please do ask.

Edited August 15, 2010 by gazzthompson

[craig.turner 10]

Guys, we have a name thank you ;)

PR: ArmA2

PR: Bf2

PR: V (BF2 Vietnam)

PR: 2

Kinda fits our theme.

In regards to the Server discussion, we are indeed looking at something at the moment (Don't worry it will not involve any touching of the exe, we are a little more professional than that), as we really want PR to be played the way we have developed it. For those that have quoted its not possible ........... it is, and we are evaluating a version at present.

This is not going to be restrictive at all, but merely a way for the servers to run as we have intended them to run.

A lot of our work is indeed owned by Project Reality, and our commercial side - realitystudios, some of the work has exclusive deals outside of ArmA2.

Like all mods we too fall under the Creative Commons Licence agreement, of course this is more for people who wish to take PR out of ArmA2, thats when it gets into the Legal Area.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Craig.Turner

[Pain0815 10]

The "how teamwork-able" the game is is down to the server (admins...people..) and people that play in it, not the game (or in this case, the mod), so all your argument are invalid :p

And those comparisons and flame-wars that closed both previous PR thread here, so stop it.

youre so wrong, try it

A game can force teamwork and avoid rambo style tactics, then you have to work as team to get anything done or leave the game for other shooters where you can be a medic with sniperrifle and at launcher.

I bet you never played pr to have a base to compare with current avaiable arma pvp gamemodes ...

So all your arguments (there were non in your post) are invalid.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pain0815

[Smurf 12]

I played PR since the first release to the last 0.91 version. Dropped due BF2 engine (aiming + random ballistics which drive me crazy) ;)

In ArmA you can be a medic, use a sniper rifle an use AT weapons... must be one of the most arcade game out there right? I mean, how IRL a medic could use a sniper rifle with their needle and saw fingers!?

[Pain0815 10]

I played PR since the first release to the last 0.91 version. Dropped due BF2 engine (aiming + random ballistics which drive me crazy) ;)

In ArmA you can be a medic, use a sniper rifle an use AT weapons... must be one of the most arcade game out there right? I mean, how IRL a medic could use a sniper rifle with their needle and saw fingers!?

Whats your pr nick?

Arma isnt a game, its a scenarioeditor, comming with templates and waiting for users to make their missions.

And if the missionmaker just puts all into a mission without setting teamplaying restrictions, then you have what i said.

Dont compare coop against pvp, for pvp you need restrictions to get both teams a fair and good game, without them its just not possible because players are no soldiers which have to make what they get said.

Im in the pr 10th community and in a seperate arma community and trust me if i say the current pvp gamemodes from arma dont force teamwork and squadplay like pr did, and they dont punish solo gameplay and rambo tactics either...

But im also sure if the right gamemode is avaiable for arma wich promotes and forces teamplay then arma has much more potential than BF2-PR will ever have in terms of a realistic pvp scenario.

but till now its prbf2 pvp > arma pvp

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pain0815

[dm 9]

I mean, how IRL a medic could use a sniper rifle with their needle and saw fingers!?

Most medics have to go through just as much small arms training as any other infantryman.

Also, how you ask? Well, pretty much anyone with opposable thumbs can pick up and fire a rifle, its not like using medical equipment suddenly makes your hands incredibly fragile... :j:

[Pain0815 10]

But they have enough to carry around as medic, and other jobs to do. Instead of sniping guys and killing tanks.

Thats a other big aspect of teamplay, anyone get some roles to fit into. Noone can handle all threads alone...

Edited August 15, 2010 by Pain0815

[Smurf 12]

Whats your pr nick?

O_Smurf.

but till now its prbf2 pvp > arma pvp

Well, if you say so...so be it. :) (not beign sarcastic)

Most medics have to go through just as much small arms training as any other infantryman.

Also, how you ask? Well, pretty much anyone with opposable thumbs can pick up and fire a rifle, its not like using medical equipment suddenly makes your hands incredibly fragile... :j:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[CarlGustaffa 4]

I guess I must be lesser then, since my combat engineer training only trained me with my iron sighted old-(un)faithful. :p Not a scope in my squad, not even in the platoon, I even think we didn't have marksmen in our company (combat engineers, transport, service, and ABC/NBC squad). On battalion level we had them though, from infantry and scouts/recce.

I know what you're saying though, and to a certain extent I agree - everyone would probably be able to fire a sniper weapon. And as special forces, combined medic and sniper (and then some) specializations aren't uncommon. But a M107 carrying infantry combat medic pilot is pushing it.

PR absolutely must enforce some kind of limits. I prefer restrictions by class (either soldier class or some arbitrary PR class). Otherwise when a machinegunner logs on, he may not be able to get his gun. Changing classes would for me be ok, as long as you can limit the number of certain classes. We don't want infinite numbers of "snipers" running around. With the new commands in latest beta, you should be able to stockpile a global crate and keep it up to date for JIP clients. When a user logs off, the gun is put back in the crate. Cheap solution, but at least now it might be possible. Before this, restrictions was a bit painful to deal with, having to deal with local crates (which have their own set of problems), and a pure class based restriction (at least in my own experience - but there are probably better scripters/mission makers out there than me :p - in fact I guarantee it :D).

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

UK_Force;1719395']In regards to the Server discussion' date=' we are indeed looking at something at the moment (Don't worry it will not involve any touching of the exe, we are a little more professional than that), as we really want PR to be played PR's way. For those that have quoted its not possible ........... actually it is, and we are evaluating a version at present.

This is not going to be restrictive at all, but merely a way for the servers to run as we have intended them to run.

Our Work like all Mods, that own 100% of their work do have certain Legal rights too, its not always a "free for all" and you can do what you want with other peoples work.

A lot of our work is indeed owned by Project Reality, and our commercial side - realitystudios, some of the work has exclusive deals outside of ArmA2.

Like all mods we too fall under the Creative Commons Licence agreement, of course this is more for people who wish to take PR out of ArmA2, thats when it gets into the Legal Area.

[url']http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/[/url].

The only thing that you can restrict are your custom missions. If you release your mod, anybody who plays ArmA II-CO can download it, and then create their own local server to play with their friends, or their clan can use the mod for their own, non PR missions. CC shouldn't come into play here, because if you release a mod for ArmA II/CO, then the ArmA II/CO community can play it however they like. They cannot open it up and edit anything, but they can play with the mod enabled on whatever server they wish. You can make it where there are Official servers, and non-offical ones, where only the first get access to your missions and any scripts they include, but you cannot release your mod, and then say "You can only play this mod on these servers". That is not how this community works. IIRC you had a deal with EA/DICE to prevent groups from starting non-official servers, but you must understand that that was BF2. What works there not only won't work here, but will piss alot of people off if you attempt to force it to work.

[R0adki11 3949]

Completely agree with Darkhorse 1-6, the freedom and diverse nature of this community is its strong point, you will not be able to say you cant have unofficial servers to run PR and only official ones. You will just make the causal gamers of this community who just want to play a game of Arma2 not to bother playing with your mod.

[craig.turner 10]

You can make it where there are Official servers, and non-offical ones, where only the first get access to your missions and any scripts they include, but you cannot release your mod, and then say "You can only play this mod on these servers". That is not how this community works.

I dont believe there is a rule from BI thats states how Mod teams must run their servers ... if there is could you please direct me to it.

The system we are thinking of using is very, very basic, and used by a lot of gaming companies (not for server control though), but its very effective. Something which would have worked well in BF2, but was not possible, however is in ArmA2/OA

I don't think you understand PR's concept fully, by handling servers in this way, it allows a far better (Pure) PvP community ...... which lets be fair is lacking in ArmA2.

IIRC you had a deal with EA/DICE to prevent groups from starting non-official servers, but you must understand that that was BF2.

No we didn't actually, we did not deal with them at all. If you have Modded for EA/DICE you will know they do not even talk with their community ...lol. Not sure where you heard that but take it from me that was not the case.

We where however approached by several companies once it was implemented, to discuss its creation and how we control it so well :)

What works there not only won't work here, but will piss alot of people off if you attempt to force it to work.

I kinda think that view (especially in a Development team) is a bit "blinkered", and I prefer the Pioneer / adventurous approach, where as a team we are not afraid to try new things, some work, some don't but we have done alright so far.

The main point however is - how do you know until we try it ...... like everything "the proof is in the pudding" ;)

It may not work, and if so there is no loss is there (I am not afraid of it not working, its a design plan that needed some testing), is it really worth getting so wound up about it.

.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Craig.Turner

[loosebruce 10]

UK_Force;1719643']

How do you know until we try it ...... like everything "the proof is in the pudding" ;)

If PR did puddings' date=' this would be how they are made.

[img']http://j.imagehost.org/0823/sophie_howard_topless_nuts_5th_birthday.jpg[/img]