Project Reality Development

[Rommel 2]

You don't know PR

Blurred vision, adrenalin effects etc, already in ArmA2... take arrogance elsewhere please; or atleast elaborate!

O who am I..dunno what you mean by that but if you mean my relation with ACE...ask them they know or whatever story they may cook up

I did ask them, and your not a current representative, and have no present association with ACE either, therefore please do not speak as though you have that authority.

Guys, could you please stop the "competition-discussion"? Has it ever been a problem that the beloved FDF mod was standalone? Has it split the community?

There has been limited discussion on the competition factor, people are mainly questioning their co-existence possibilities, and due to the stand offish behaviour (whether positive or not) of PR to remain standalone, means if problems do exist, they will probably not be prioritised to be fixed.

FDF mod isn't exactly comparable, they were a content mod, you can't compare them with the likes of ACE, or SLX, or ECS/ECP in the old days, because they are completely different types. PR on the other hand promises great content (can't wait!) but it also sheds some 'heavy' light on the fact it wishes to alter gameplay.

So please, either accept PR's decision to make a standalone mod or refrain from posting here. I doubt that they're changing their mind anytime soon.

They opened the thread as an announcement and discussion forum, we aren't stating what they should or should not do, just the arguments for both which prior to now had already been sorted in a community based discussion not long after release of A2 itself (CBA).

As you would expect from any Project Reality development, gameplay improvements will feature strongly. These will take some time to get to where we want, however there have already been changes made to reflect PR-style gameplay, courtesy of [R-DEV]Dr_Eyeball, who has brought over his Devastation Mod to the project. This will form the basis of PR:ArmA2 gameplay.

This means it will most likely conflict with any other mods currently (and generally nicely) co-existing with all other gameplay altering modifications (ACE2,SLX,GL4,WarFX), which all use the CBA framework.

Reference:

...bit of time, however we can then work at our speed, and are not dictated by other Mod Teams, to redevelop so that we remain compatible with them.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Rommel

[Cowboy Pilot 10]

To add a bit onto Carl and Rommel.

PR's big goal is one of tactical realism with what most would agree is a focus on teamwork and organization. How exactly this will be accomplished idk, but obviously it will at the same time add in unrealistic command and control features, which I think would be nice (for public servers).

I would think that the PR team would make something that adds their content, and additions to command and control features like you see in the current PR. In terms of dynamics and realistic features, ACE has already spent years of development in the series on this. I hope to see this mod come out, but from 8 to 9 years of experiance in a few different games in tactical realism, this addition could in some sense create a degree of split in public player bases.

While I am not saying there will be no success and good gaming, I would hope that PR having the goal of improving public gameplay would understand that having something no compatible or that might build off ACE will create a bit of divide, and to think it wont just doesn't make sense. Sure folks would switch between playing them, but with different mods with no compatibility creates a degree of separate player bases. I honestly would think the PR team could take advantage of what ACE offers in realism, and have a focus on their great and amazing content, and hopeful additions (for public servers and public play) of command and control features.

I also say public play for the reason that others have already pointed out. In many private and in a few select public servers there is a great level of teamwork. The coordinate we get in the 3rd on our servers and in private events is realistic, without the need of command and control features (which honestly are somewhat unrealistic) that you see in PR for BF2. Also with the addition of the A2TS3 mod and its development by Rommel and Nou with assitance from many including myself for ACE, we see a level of realism and support for teamwork/communication we have not had, but still in a realistic manner.

I fully support the PR's goals of public teamplay, and again I feel that the additions of command/control elements could greatly support public play. Though I would not see as much use or need for our unit on the private level when we engaged in very tactical and realistic based missions that are now taking much use in realistic forms of communication like the A2TS3.

@ UK_Force I appreciate the PR's work and goals (as a former PR player), and I look forward to seeing it. As a person will great understanding and experience in the areas of public affairs, community and subscriber bases though, I would highly encourage some good thought on what I have mentioned, as it could lead to more support and strength for the PR Mod, ACE, and the ArmA2 community as a whole.

I try to speak here on common/mutual understand of the ArmA2 dynamics on the use and application of addons, both by the developers and server operates. There are many dynamics which effects things. Server operators can also have an effect on things, both good and bad due to how addons function and work with variables such as signature checks etc. , and for the compatibility side of things for developers with other major/common projects.

PS: In addition to command and control features which I mentioned and content, the mission development side of things based on PR gameplay will obviously add something more to public play.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Alderman

[noubernou 77]

I believe the split between PR and ACE would only come in the degree of realism. While ACE strives to take a very realistic approach to a lot of things and provide the framework for the community to build upon that it is not a GAME MODE. It is a full game modification, but in terms of how you use it, that is up to the players.

Unfortunately players are lazy, unless they are in a good milsim group or a less realistic group then the organization does not just cohesively form. Public players all have different degrees of experience, different playing styles and other factors that do not bring the same cohesiveness that private play has.

I have seen milsim groups take charge on public servers and lead very interesting operations, and I have been part of those, both as participant and as part of the leadership role. The problem is that there is no framework that exists for this, it is all literally from the ground up and really the only difference between leading things like that in ArmA2 as it stands now with most game play is that its a video game. You are creating your comms networks and other features that allow command and control as they would in real life.

What I am seeing from PR and what I have seen from them in the past is to provide an environment with a focus on realism, along the same lines of ACE (but maybe not to the same degree every place), but to provide the boundaries and safeguards for public play that force people that might not want to play tactically as a group (OMG IM A PILOT WEE, or OMG IM A SNIPER WEEEEE) to play in a somewhat combined manner.

The best thing is that there is nothing stopping anyone from doing the same thing for ACE. Its not something ACE has to do, but providing mission frameworks or a cohesive set of maps and game play modes (beyond the reigning champ, Domination) is all at the communities finger tips.

In terms of PR not using established technologies I am a bit sad though. There is no reason NOT to use CBA. The framework is very open, the type of framework I like, where you can pick and choose what to use and what not to use. Its not only a compatibility framework, but a framework that eases development and helps push standardized, effective, and proven methods.

Either way you look at it this is a good thing in my opinion for the community. If you can draw the more casual player with PR, then I wouldn't see them not eventually moving on to ACE2.

I also do not see a lot of the milsim groups moving to PR either, as most milsim groups do coop play, where ACE particularly shines, and these groups focus on fairly strict military realism, which PR is good at but really can't be compared to the raw capabilities that ACE2 has.

Besides all of this, for myself at least I develop for ACE2 because it is what I want to see in the game, and its what I want to play. I am not worried about competition because I see none. These are different means to the same end, which is more ArmA2 players, more sales for BIS, and more future development for us, so we can continue to have access to the best military simulator civilians can buy.

[Defunkt 431]

A near-infinite possible combination of mods is the very thing that divides the existing playerbase and makes single-player & co-op multiplayer gaming so prevalent with (the more usual) adversarial multi-player near non-existent. There being no standard server & client it becomes near impossible to build a critical mass of players on any public server (especially given the ideal scale of this game) and people just give up (often making-do with co-op instead). I like mods and they most certainly add a lot to cooperative and single-player ArmA but if PR's goal is to build a PvP scene the best thing they could do is champion their own standardised server & client.

[Lhowon 10]

;1589857']I hope to see this mod come out' date=' but from 8 to 9 years of experiance in a few different games in tactical realism, this addition could in some sense create a degree of split in public player bases.[/quote']

As they've stated several times though, they are not concerned with potential audience size or with 'splitting' the player base. Their goal is not to get as many people as possible from the ArmA community playing PR, it's to create the best mod they can that is most suited to public PVP servers, a mod which can be tailored and controlled by them to induce the best possible teamwork-oriented experience.

Using other mods like ACE means this:

- Every part of the mod cannot be tweaked to exactly how they want as ACE changes a huge amount of things and isn't very modular, so features from ACE which might not fit with their gameplay goals they could be stuck with

- They are tied to the update schedule and changing feature list of another mod, further reducing their creative control, and creating extra work making everything compatible (and potentially fixing the problems of another mod)

- ACE has done a great job no question, however their approach to fixing gameplay issues isn't necessarily the only or best approach, and PR might want to approach those issues in a different way

- Requiring a list of mods for public play with potentially different versions of each mod running on different servers is very detrimental to creating the best jump-in-and-play PVP experience

Personally I think it's a wise decision to go it alone. Incorporating other mods might lighten the development burden in the short term, but I see the negatives outweighing the positives in the long term. Having a single package with all its own assets and features means PR has huge potential to create a brilliant PVP game-mode without any compromises.

[-10th- Rezza 10]

On public servers?

Anyway,

Thanks

You guys missed a point i guess

[Rommel 2]

A near-infinite possible combination of mods is the very thing that divides the existing playerbase and makes single-player & co-op multiplayer gaming so prevalent with (the more usual) adversarial multi-player near non-existent.... There being no standard server & client it becomes near impossible to build a critical mass of players on any public server...

That is not so much a problem of the people, but of the server admins, many servers run signature checking, which allows the multitude of players to play, effectively standardising what can and can't be played, you don't need a mod to do that.

...if PR's goal is to build a PvP scene the best thing they could do is champion their own standardised server & client.

But that does not make sense why they cannot conform to the CBA standard, it would save them a huge amount of time, and allow others work to be compatable with theirs, rejecting compatibility on the base of, we want to standardise the servers, is not up to them, but up to the server admins themselves!

No doubt those same admins will allow 'particular' mods here and there even with signature checking, and the platforms stability will drop considerably.

Their goal is not to get as many people as possible from the ArmA community playing PR, it's to create the best mod they can that is most suited to public PVP servers, a mod which can be tailored and controlled by them to induce the best possible teamwork-oriented experience.

Unless they intend on hosting all the major servers themselves, I cannot see how this will work due to many server admins wanting different features (such as compatibility...).

Every part of the mod cannot be tweaked to exactly how they want as ACE changes a huge amount of things and isn't very modular, so features from ACE which might not fit with their gameplay goals they could be stuck with

If this is actually a problem, then sure they should say, 'not supported or recommended to be run with any other mods', but downright compatbility should not be ripped away, seeing as it poses no problems whatsoever to the mod itself.

list of another mod, further reducing their creative control, and creating extra work making everything compatible (and potentially fixing the problems of another mod)

This does not occur unless the mod in question does not conform to the standards in the first place... that is their purpose.

---

1 major point I would think they should know straight away, if their mod is released with almost nil compatibility, like with many mods that have done this in the past, someone, liked by the community or not, will release a 'patch' that fixes it straight away. It has always happened ever since OFP, and it is that which I fear also will cause bigger problems than can be anticipated.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Rommel

[noubernou 77]

Yea the open nature of the community extends beyond just the cooperation... We at ACE have seen people within hours release a patch that fixes something they feel was not right... :p If someone doesn't like something in PR then people are bound to do the same thing since there really isn't a way to make it a closed system like you can with BF2.

[User2010 10]

Unless they intend on hosting all the major servers themselves, I cannot see how this will work due to many server admins wanting different features (such as compatibility...).

You don't see it now, just wait till its out. basically everyone that can run Arma2 from the PR2 community will be hosting servers and playing it. Current arma2 players will get to see what its like to simply jump on anytime and be able to play in a 32v32+ PVP server with everyone following orders and working together.

Going alone just means they'll reach their goals without being dependent on any other mod outside of the PR team. it's been said over and over again and nothing is going to change that.

Edited March 15, 2010 by User2010

[Rommel 2]

Leaving the first part of that statement alone, because only time can tell without too much speculation.

However...

Going alone just means they'll reach their goals without being dependent on any other mod outside of the PR team. it's been said over and over again and nothing is going to change that.

Dependability != Compatibility, perhaps you should read on what CBA's purpose is, what it introduces to the game, what it fixes, and the fact it does not force any dependencies; it just allows you to abide to a framework.

Saving memory, time, effort without any comprimise.

[Defunkt 431]

That is not so much a problem of the people, but of the server admins, many servers run signature checking, which allows the multitude of players to play, effectively standardising what can and can't be played, you don't need a mod to do that.

CBA is a standard but it doesn't create standardised servers & clients, quite the opposite in fact because it makes possible a near-infinite variety of differing server configurations. PR:BF2 server files are subject to a set of terms and while this might not work exactly the same way with an ArmA mod they're clearly comfortable about placing an expectation on server-ops who want to host their mod. Not everybody is going to buy-in to that but I think plenty will (my community included).

Now, would it not be a better look if there weren't quite so many ACE developers in here trying to tell them how they should make their mod? I think they know what they're doing, in fact I'm certain of it.

[noubernou 77]

I am not sure of this, but there would be nothing limiting the PR team from using CBA and including it in their release package. They don't have to use the bleeding edge version. The servers and clients would all have the same files because it would be part of the package.

[User2010 10]

Leaving the first part of that statement alone, because only time can tell without too much speculation.

The overwhelming response in this thread and PR's forums already show a huge interest in it. just how big it will be we'll find out soon enough.

Dependability != Compatibility, perhaps you should read on what CBA's purpose is, what it introduces to the game, what it fixes, and the fact it does not force any dependencies; it just allows you to abide to a framework.

Compatibility at the expense of inefficiency due to the risk of current/future compatibility issues isn't worth it.

---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------

they're clearly comfortable about placing an expectation on server-ops who want to host their mod.

.

You're right they do have expectations. Current PR:BF2 server licenses aren't freely distributed, they're are given out in a controlled manner.

This is off their site

Additionally, the Project Reality Development Team has decided that we will not be supporting server side modification of Project Reality for public servers. On a password protected, LAN server, or in a Single Player environment, you are free to configure Project Reality any way you like. But, on public multiplayer servers we would like Project Reality to run the way the development team, with a huge amount of input from our gaming community, have designed the game to run.

I'm sure the same will apply to PR:arma2

[Lhowon 10]

Unless they intend on hosting all the major servers themselves, I cannot see how this will work due to many server admins wanting different features (such as compatibility...).

They have a system where to host the mod you have to apply and then run it under certain conditions (designed to promote teamwork). This gives them some confidence in knowing that the mod won't be so changed as to seriously affect the integrity of the intended gameplay.

I have no idea how they intend to do this for ArmA 2, nor how they did it for BF2 for that matter, but that's how they do it. I'm willing to assume they are capable enough to make it work.

If this is actually a problem, then sure they should say, 'not supported or recommended to be run with any other mods', but downright compatbility should not be ripped away, seeing as it poses no problems whatsoever to the mod itself.

Thing is it does pose problems. If servers can add whatever mods they want or make whatever changes they want to PR then how could they possibly ensure it is played with the intended focus?

How would you feel if a mod you had worked hard on, with the express purpose of creating an engaging teamwork-focused PVP experience, had its gameplay significantly changed and a bunch of other content mods made a requirement - thus alienating a bunch of potential players from that server - and have it still called Project Reality? Actually it doesn't matter how you'd personally feel, the point is that's the position the PR devs seem to hold.

And I think that's a very valid position and one which is in the best interests of the community, simply because it's the only way to ensure an uncompromised PVP game-mode will be experienced by everyone, instead of being diluted into countless variants on semi-populated servers.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Lhowon

[SD_BOB 10]

I have to be honest, the only real thing that intersts me about PR is the British units. As far as realism and features go, i cant see what could be improved over ACE in that area. The PvP scene though, is lacking in ArmA2. Although most of my "good times" over the years OFP/A1/A2 have been on COOP, there have been some gems on PvP too. So i would like to see what you guys manage to do with this.

All i would ask is dont totally ignore things like CBA, afterall thy have been developed by some of the leaders in the modding community and by people who know their way around the gubbins of the ArmA2 system. If using such a system can help make it more compatible with other things, then include it. I myself have no clue what most things in CBA do. But i'm sure there are many up sides of using such scripts.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

[hund 0]

I'm sure the same will apply to PR:arma2

Wait wait, wait a minute right there.

Are you saying that the dev team should have a say in how their mod is run on a public server? That is not the Arma way, and I seriously doubt it going to float with the arma community.

I am not even sure that option is possible from a technical perspective (it might be tho, who knows), altough I suppose a terms of use agreement could manage it (and make a lot of people angry in the process).

That said, I see the point in making the mod standalone in every way, even at the expense of compatability.

At the end of the day the server admins will get the point automatically; those who add stuff to the mix are effectively locking down their servers for the general public and those who leave it as is are keeping their servers public - no licensing needed.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Hund

[Hboybowen 10]

Blurred vision, adrenalin effects etc, already in ArmA2... take arrogance elsewhere please; or atleast elaborate!

I did ask them, and your not a current representative, and have no present association with ACE either, therefore please do not speak as though you have that authority.

There has been limited discussion on the competition factor, people are mainly questioning their co-existence possibilities, and due to the stand offish behaviour (whether positive or not) of PR to remain standalone, means if problems do exist, they will probably not be prioritised to be fixed.

FDF mod isn't exactly comparable, they were a content mod, you can't compare them with the likes of ACE, or SLX, or ECS/ECP in the old days, because they are completely different types. PR on the other hand promises great content (can't wait!) but it also sheds some 'heavy' light on the fact it wishes to alter gameplay.

They opened the thread as an announcement and discussion forum, we aren't stating what they should or should not do, just the arguments for both which prior to now had already been sorted in a community based discussion not long after release of A2 itself (CBA).

This means it will most likely conflict with any other mods currently (and generally nicely) co-existing with all other gameplay altering modifications (ACE2,SLX,GL4,WarFX), which all use the CBA framework.

Reference:

Never said I was a current rep lol dont wanna be in the slightest after how I my experience with them and I dont speak if I have authority lol..authority of what... ACE isnt anything special now just another mod among the huge pile in the world of modding on the PC. So please dont put yourself in a authority position cuz I have my own thoughts of ACE and its team that contradicts yours dont be rude or think your higher than the community such as calling others arrogant and calling out ppl cuz you want to make some point,please dont be too rude. But to stay on topic PR gj:yay:

and good luck

Edited March 15, 2010 by Hboybowen

[User2010 10]

Are you saying that the dev team should have a say in how their mod is run on a public server? That is not the Arma way, and I seriously doubt it going to float with the arma community.

The current arma2 way has failed to bring PVP to the scene so maybe it's time to try something that works.

[Zipper5 74]

The lack of teamwork online for ArmA II at the moment has nothing to do with the game itself, it's to do with the way people have decided to play it, and that's one of the major selling points of the game - you're free to play it how you want.

I don't get it. Why is that concept such a difficult thing for so many to grasp? Are we so used to having our hands held and being told exactly what we can and cannot do by the high-budget, mainstream gaming titles? What, exactly? :confused:

[BeerHunter 0]

One thing that's being overlooked is that if the ArmA2 PRM livess up to it's counterpart , there just may be a huge influx of BF2 PRM players into ArmA2.

To clarify BF2's PRM "fuzzy" suppression screen: It's meant to emulates fear of getting shot by making it difficult to stick your head out from cover , take aim and nail the opponent. So difficult in fact why bother so you cower behind cover or move your butt, just as you would in real life.

You can return fire , only not very accurately. Makes suppression an effective tool then rather than just have bullets flying around.

As far as SP goes , I don't see why a custom mission using PRM maps and assets couldn't be loaded into the editor and away we go. The AI is built into the ArmA2 code. Only problem with compatibility issues is that some of the great AI tweak mods (which the PRM team apparently isn't going to address for a while) may not work..but then again .. they may.

For MP , if ArmA2 PRM ends up being as organized a PvP game as it's counterpart , I for one am looking forward to it.

BF2 PRM has squads (which I don't think can be implemented in ArmA2) and lots of servers wont let you stay online unless you're in a squad. Jack around and the squad leader can kick you out of his squad. Not in a squad then server boots you.

The squad based system goes along way to promoting team work.

Guess we'll all have to sit back , relax and wait to see what the PRM team comes up with eh?

it's to do with the way people have decided to play it, and that's one of the major selling points of the game - you're free to play it how you want.

Also one of the major MP flaws. If I'm advancing I want to know others are covering/spotting etc. not wondring off somewhere looking for something to shoot.

Your group may need an AT member but no one wants to do it because they want to play the game "their way"?

Edited March 15, 2010 by BeerHunter

[-10th- Rezza 10]

Forget ArmA II...

Project Reality is famous for making games so differently that you cant even remember how the original game was.On 0.1 the changes will be minor as the mod moves forward ArmA II:Project Reality wont be like the ArmA II that we know.It will be Project Reality its style, its graphics ,its gameplay and its realism it will be like a whole new game :)

I would say people wont see a 180 degree change on the first release it will and must take time.Dont be worried about the player base though Project Reality has a big community and the best part of PR is it forces you to teamplay...

[Zipper5 74]

It's graphics? What? PR runs off of BF2's engine. It's a BF2 mod. It doesn't have that radically different of graphics compared to BF2. Yes, I have played it. However, its gameplay, I found, remained relatively the same. It had the same movement and shooting mechanics, apart from changed recoils and bullet ballistics. I found myself easily switching between the arcadey BF2 style and PR.

BF2 was in need of some radical changes, and some people cannot play the original anymore because of some of the sharp contrasts between PR and BF2. However, I highly doubt that being the case with ArmA2:PR, and I don't consider that to be a bad thing. ArmA II is not in need of radical changes, and I think that ACE2 is a prime example of pushing the game to its possible limits. It isn't radically different, unlike BF2 to PR, but it's still different.

Question: Rezza, did you even play ArmA II before PR announced coming to it? Or have you even played it at all? You sound like you've never touched the game. Simply telling us to forget it is... Well, for lack of a better word: retarded.

Edited March 15, 2010 by Zipper5

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imho the server admins, mission makers and players are primarily responsible how good or bad teamplay works.

I think its better if PR devs would think about making their mod compatible with others. So people can make and play missions with PR and other addons/mods. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Btw are you going to implement other nations aswell or will this mod focus only on UK forces and combat in desert/urban style?

[mr.g-c 6]

OMG what a

here....

Guys seriously, i honestly think we should better all wait until either some close facts with gameplay changes have been out or even a first release is out, before continuing with that hyping and speculation.

This only produces "rude" comments, people feel misunderstood and whatnot else.

[Hovis 0]

Should Project Reality for Arma not be renamed to Project Game? I mean with BF2 the intent of PR was clear, make the game more realistic. With Arma 2 the intent seems to be to make a simulator into more of a game. Which is actually a bloody good idea.

Arma's level of realism doesn't really lend itself to public server PvP and there is a big niche for a game that has realism yet is also action-heavy and immediately playable.

Trying to fudge it so that PR is part and parcel of other mods, particularly when we're talking about a mod that isn't even out yet, bodes badly. Sounds to me like the plan is for a whole new game in effect, starting with the default and going off into something that is more of a hardcore shooter and less of a hardcore milsim. Nothing wrong with that plan at all and in order to achieve that goal the last thing the developers ought to do right now is compromising.