Maps to be removed

[ToonS]

It is not a simple edit to make it 2km considering, AFAIK, you need to make a brand new map that is a recreation of the original

Can a dev or mapper confirm this? I think there is a few maps that would be good if they could be enlarged.

If this is the case, then I can see why korengal has not been changed. Would take a hell of a time to recreate that larger.

[ShockUnitBlack]

It is very well balanced. Think it needs a redesigned bunker area and maybe a prettier desert but that's about it.

[Gore]

I hate all maps, remove them all please, because I don't like them.

[MikeJT]

If we removed all the maps that someone didn't like then we'd probably have no maps left.

Some maps which seem 'imbalanced' to begin with quickly change to being evenly matched when one side adjusts how they approach the map.

I've seen entire teams apply the same tactics again and again on Korengal for example only to be met with complete and total failure, only for one squad to break off and try something different and succeed.

Hows the saying go? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is the first sign of insanity?

[40mmrain]

IF we removed none of the maps that someone didn't like then we'd probably have a shitload of awful maps

Some maps that may seem "imbalanced" to begin with, never change to being evenly matched, despite how one side adjusts how they approach the map

I've seen entire teams apply different tactics again and again on korengal for example only to be met with total failure, only for one squad to break off, try something different and again fail miserably

[MikeJT]

IF we removed none of the maps that someone didn't like then we'd probably have a shitload of awful maps

Some maps that may seem "imbalanced" to begin with, never change to being evenly matched, despite how one side adjusts how they approach the map

I've seen entire teams apply different tactics again and again on korengal for example only to be met with total failure, only for one squad to break off, try something different and again fail miserably

If the maps are bad, don't play them.

Most servers (that matter), run mapvote. If the maps are bad and the majority agrees, then no one will ever vote for them.

If the majority disagrees and you end up on a map you don't like, you always have the option of leaving the server, and finding another server to play on.

Maybe you should apply for a licence and host your own server? That way you can run maps that only you like, even if the players on the server don't like them, and never have to play maps which other people might enjoy.

Removing content from a game in a patch is a major slap in the face to anyone who enjoyed that content, but leaving it in is a minor inconvenience to those who hated it.

That, and its always nice to have a map come up and go "I haven't played this map in months." or "I don't think I've ever played this map at all."

Going into a match with limited map knowledge is actually a very exciting feeling which isn't something you get in a game with only a handful of maps.

Really all I'm reading from OP is "I failed miserably as [BLUFOR/OPFOR] on [MAP] therefor it should be removed from the game."

[Lesten]

If both teams are equally organized and skilled the game should be fairly even on all maps. Not for the sake of realism, but for gameplay.

That's not the case on some maps. Karbala, Korengal, Ramiel (IMO), Beirut, etc.

Karbala's problem I think is the big desert areas where the blufor forces are almost untouchable. But city caches can be a hell for them to get to. Opfor can win but they have to get several city caches and have a good team.

And I've seen blufor win on Korengal, but only with a really good team and lucky cache locations. The problem with the map is mainly the horrible geometry. You get stuck, can't climb certain hills (which is fine, but you usually spend a while to climb up only to find that you can't continue even with a rope) and so forth. Other problems are difficult cache locations and no way for blufor to establish supply lines or FOBs.

I generally prefer the larger maps, but they need some variation (maps like Burning Sands and Shilja Valley have this). That way it can be fun for both armour and infantry, allow room for flanking and other interesting tactics and a varying pace (moments of relative peace alternated with intense fighting - PR is second to none in that way, you can "casually" advance through a forest and suddenly the mortars start raining down or you walk into an ambush and have to fight for your life or your squad sets up an ambush and lay in wait for half an hour before the fighting starts).

[40mmrain]

If the maps are bad, then there's no point in playing the game at all

Most servers run mapvote. If the players are too selfish and unanalytical to observe that certain maps are broken, or wish to play broken maps to dominate the opposition at the expense of their enjoyment, then we must remove them

If the majority disagrees and you end up on a map you don't like, you have no choice, as there is never more than 2 playable servers with adequate population at a time, in fact one of the only servers that would recognize something like this was shut down, because of lack of good enough players to recognize this

Maybe I should apply for a licence and host my ownserver? That way I can run maps that only O like, and, as demonstrated it would have almost no playerbase, as many players are very selfish and casual

Keeping content in the game that a lot of players hate is a major slap in the face to those who liked it, and taking it out is better for those who did because it's replaced by better maps

That, and its always nice to have a map come up and go "I haven't played this map in months." or "I don't think I've ever played this map at all", which is why removing old maps that we have played for newer maps is better.

Going into a match with limited map knowledge is actually a very exciting feeling which isn't something you get in a game with only a handful of maps, which is why we should remove old maps for new ones, as all players have extensive knowledge of old maps like korengal and karbala

Really all I'm reading from OP is "statistically, with enough data average team ability is even, and if the average wins is massively lopsided to one team, we can conclude that this map is objectively imbalanced, and therefore bad, and should be removed."

[ShockUnitBlack]

IMO the deletion of lower-quality maps raises the overall quality of the mod. While obviously more content is good, having a product that is, for example, 3/4 mediocre isn't something to aspire to. This is particularly important when it comes to making an impression on new players - if even ten percent of the map list (I'm just throwing that number out there) is composed of below-average maps, that means there is a ten percent chance a new player is going to have a below average Project Reality experience. Obviously nobody wants that.

Now I'm not saying that, for example, Karbala is totally meritless but I think we can all agree it simply isn't as good a map as, say, Muttrah and that Project Reality could survive without it. By removing it, it would raise the overall quality of the game.

[BroCop]

So your logic of game quality is repetitiveness=success?

Am I getting flashbacks of a certain game series here?

Obviously some maps lack in quality but the fact is that less maps contributes to the repetitiveness. There is a reason why we have all these maps and thats to offer variety and novelty (altough the latter kinda fades away after a while depending on the quality of the map and if its updated at all).

The only solutions are to either update the maps and or produce brand new ones. The latter isnt really easy

[40mmrain]

Am I getting flashbacks of a certain game series here?

call of duty has loads of maps and they release multiple map packs per year. If your logic is that we wish to not abide by the practics of call of duty, which you imply quite heavily, then so be it. In that case we ought not have tons of maps.

Further still, i'd like to call into question the effect that removing a grand total of two maps would have on the overall number of maps in PR. Currently the number is what? Approaching 30? How many are coming in next patch? Two of the oldest, most broken maps being removed from the game has happened numerous times in the development of this game.

I mean we havent had a patch for this game in a over a year and there have been 7 maps released, more if we include unique layers. 7 maps with no patch! There is no shortage of maps!

[MikeJT]

Here's an idea!

Why don't we remove all maps but the very best one in the game. That way, the average quality of the maps in the game will be as high as it can possibly be.

Because all but the best map in the game bring down the 'average' quality of the mod. And that's something we shouldn't aspire to.

/endtrollmode

40mmrain - you're clearly the kind of person who sees something as 'too difficult' and instantly gives up.

I'm the opposite. I see something difficult as a challenge. But on maps like Korengal, where half the US side is basically gives up the second the map starts and are pretty much just walking around waiting for the map to end as quickly as possible. They've got it in their head that the task is impossible and give up before the round has even started.

Balance on a map can be determined by a few vehicles, another path through an impassable area, or even a change in possible cache locations. Removing maps because of imbalance when they could simply be fixed with a few changes is pointless, and a complete waste of the map makers time.

If every map that was 'imbalanced' at release was instantly removed from the game, then we'd have a bunch of boring, repetitive maps which all felt the same.

No map can be called perfectly balanced, because no map is a perfect mirror image on both sides, and no two forces are the same.

When a noob pilot crashes a Blackhawk at the start of Kashan, do you go "map is now imbalanced, we're going to lose, next map please", or do you go "what a noob, I'll wait for the next chopper" and keep on fighting? Or when someone 'accidently' sets off a bombtruck at main on Kokan and destroys almost all vehicles at main, do you go "game is over, next map please" and stop trying?

You're quite arrogant in your statements saying there's not enough 'good players' to recognise when a map is unbalanced to populate a server which was running only 'good maps'. Some people actually like being the underdog and trying to overcome the odds. Win or lose, its still an enjoyable game, but when you do win, its an epic feeling that you managed to overcome the odds on a map that puts you at a disadvantage from the outset.

As I said before, if you don't like the maps, don't play them. Don't vote for them in mapvote. If they get voted on, DEAL WITH IT, or find another server.

[MikeJT]

Also curious 40mmrain, are you basing your assessment of these maps on single-cache or dual-cache setups?

CIA servers always run single-cache's, and a single cache definitely favours the insurgency.

Dual-cache changes balance in BLUFOR's favour because a) BLUFOR can stumble across an unknown and walk in and take it out with no opposition, b) it pulls some insurgents away from known, c) if there are two knowns, the insurgents have to decide which to focus their defense on, and BLUFOR can go for the weaker one (usually the one just gone known).

If you're basing your assessment on single-cache mode, then you're basing the decision to remove a map from a mod, on a mod of a mod.

[40mmrain]

underdog and overcome the odds

I really, really can't accept this retarded logic for a pvp. To acknowledge that a game is imbalanced is to acknowledge it is bad.

"overcoming the odds" in a pvp game is tantamount to losing more frequently than winning on average. I just cant fathom its value. It's like giving your opponent three queens to start with in chess, and defeating them. All that means is that your opponent is stupid. It's the same way in korengal.

You're just giving the taliban extra queens. It's not challenge, it's fake difficulty.

You accuse me of defeatism or weakness when not so, I am only smart. YOur logic is if you are outnumbered 10-1 to charge straight into the enemy, mine is to fall back and get reinforcements.

Charging head on 10-1 into the enemy isnt "a challenge" it's suicide, just like korengal. Charging head on 1-1, like a good map is a REAL challenge.

no map can be truly balanced

absolutely illogical statement. I shouldnt even have to explain why.

are you basing this on CIA or unmodded

you obviously havent even read my op, ive played korengal countless times before DBmod even existed

deal with it!

yes this is what im doing right now.

Why don't we remove all maps but the very best one in the game. That way, the average quality of the maps in the game will be as high as it can possibly be.

the average of 20 good maps is as high as 1. As maps are unquantifiable for our purposes, even the slightly worse ones have no actual effect on the perceived value, whereas awful ones are a giant sore on the game.

[fabioxxxx]

the only thing i don't like in korengal is the rocky floor used in some mountains, it's ridiculously hard to move around in this map .

but it's the only map where insurgents get a little break from the bluefor armor... i liked more when the main was on the other side.

ahah overcome the odds... insurgents need to do this in almost every map...all queens in the game are given to bluefor at the start... better weapons ,better vehicles ... a static target.

remove maps ?

[MikeJT]

the average of 20 good maps is as high as 1. As maps are unquantifiable for our purposes, even the slightly worse ones have no actual effect on the perceived value, whereas awful ones are a giant sore on the game.

There's a bad map in a free game?

Oh no! No one will ever part with their... oh wait its free.

Dude seriously:

NO ONE CARES.

[MikeJT]

ahah overcome the odds... insurgents need to do this in almost every map...all queens in the game are given to bluefor at the start... better weapons ,better vehicles ... a static target.

Pretty much this.

Insurgency is always a losing battle for the insurgent side, unless the BLUFOR team is an unorganised rabble.

Attack and transport choppers. Thermal vision. Armored transports. Tanks. UAV.

All of these give BLUFOR an edge over insurgents, and the only reason BLUFOR should ever lose in when they fail to use these assets to their full capability.

[MikeJT]

You accuse me of defeatism or weakness when not so, I am only smart. YOur logic is if you are outnumbered 10-1 to charge straight into the enemy, mine is to fall back and get reinforcements.

No your logic is that if you can't win you simply don't play the game, and stop anyone else who actually wants to play the game from playing too.

Leaving the maps in means those who want to play them, still get to play them. Those who don't want to play them don't have to. Tweak them a little? Sure. Take them out? No.

You press the ESC key and click DISCONNECT. Then "Yes". It's that simple.

[MikeJT]

absolutely illogical statement. I shouldnt even have to explain why.

No, please do.

Please explain how a map can be perfectly balanced, when each side has different vehicles with different capabilities, different weapon load-outs, and different manouvering characteristics, and different infantry units with different weapons and different armaments.

[Pronck]

Tripple post congratz! No really calm down guys. Before ya start killing each other.