The BIG maps - thoughts and issues.

Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.
Rhino
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 47909
Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00

Post by Rhino »

bobfish wrote:Is there any plans to address this issue then? On all maps that it happens? Getting tanks to the high ground seems to be a common tactic in PR and is pretty much my main complaint about these larger maps, how the armor sits on a hill and snipes or lays down random artillery fire on a cp. It's why I don't like Kashan.
if you have a 2 crewman tank crew who know what they are doing and stay low you can easily take out guys who try and "take the hills".
Try it ;)
Image
bobfish
Posts: 217
Joined: 2007-03-11 11:41

Post by bobfish »

Tsk.. I'm not getting in a tank, that would be like a fish out of water! :p
VipersGhost
Posts: 1171
Joined: 2007-03-27 18:34

Post by VipersGhost »

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:if you have a 2 crewman tank crew who know what they are doing and stay low you can easily take out guys who try and "take the hills".
Try it ;)
PR tanks sit on a ridge to the flank of common paths. You usually have a good vantage point and since the tank CO/Gunner view is unstabilized while moving you greatly have the advantage of seeing them first and shooting first due to being stationary. In the situation where you do happen to take a shot then you can quickly retreat behind your ridge to magic wrench.

This is the most commonly used practice by very good tankers and very bad tankers. If you are on the low side there is usually little "retreat-to-wrench" options being that the high guys have a greater angle of attack.

The fish-bowl cp's have really given armor some extra advantages in this respect. They are like great eagles perched atop a pond of few infantry. **/Chinese accent**
All you twats starting said threads "WTFBBQSAUCE 0.7 BLOWS" - R-Dev Jaymz
BloodBane611
Posts: 6576
Joined: 2007-11-14 23:31

Post by BloodBane611 »

I agree Viper. The magic wrench, coupled with the inability of a tank to fire accurately on the move, allows stationary tanks with good LOS to control a lot of area. I think that a new repair system would help this a lot. Something that doesn't allow you to easily just repair your tank in the field, but still allows the recovery of disabled tanks.
[R-CON]creepin - "because on the internet 0=1"
battlepepsi
Posts: 75
Joined: 2007-11-09 06:54

Post by battlepepsi »

well ive been thinking about a map with russains against chechen rebles (miltia) in chechnya on a long road that russains spawns going into grozny (the chechen capitol) miltia spawn point fighting for control of the city
bobfish
Posts: 217
Joined: 2007-03-11 11:41

Post by bobfish »

Played Qinling again last night, as China this time, and I have to say the map is very well balanced, compared to previous thoughts. What upsets the balance is the teamwork of the two teams.

On the ridge to the east of Coalmine the Brits set up a command post, firebase, supply crates, and tank camped the ridge. Whilst their air assets kept our air assets on the ground.

We couldn't get tanks up the ridge to take them out or get a line of sight on them before they saw us, though eventually we got a squad around there and blew up their stuff, but by then the frontline had moved south. What struck me though was the complete lack of support we received from the air the whole time, even once we got out planes and helos in the air, they just weren't even trying to take these guys out, too busy messing around Village, which wasn't being threatened.

I don't know, I think perhaps something still needs to be done, there is a strong realiance on air support to deal with tanks now on the big maps and most of the time it just doesn't exist.
Outlawz7
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 17261
Joined: 2007-02-17 14:59

Post by Outlawz7 »

VipersGhost wrote:PR tanks sit on a ridge to the flank of common paths. You usually have a good vantage point and since the tank CO/Gunner view is unstabilized while moving you greatly have the advantage of seeing them first and shooting first due to being stationary. In the situation where you do happen to take a shot then you can quickly retreat behind your ridge to magic wrench.

This is the most commonly used practice by very good tankers and very bad tankers. If you are on the low side there is usually little "retreat-to-wrench" options being that the high guys have a greater angle of attack.
Flank them.

On a round of Kashan as USMC, MEC had an APC, T90 and Tunguska sitting on western hill raping the South Bunker area.
I was in a tank, and went around to the northwest, came behind them and my gunner obliterated them, before they even realized, they're getting shot from behind.
Image
Nickbond592
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2713
Joined: 2007-01-30 18:16

Post by Nickbond592 »

Or call in Air support, those Attack helicopters and jets armed to the teeth capable of obliterating Armour aren't there just to look pretty and make vapor trails.

combined arms > any single asset
Image


Smeg: Fuzz commands a lot and promotes good teamwork, db flips vehicles, Bosco is an all-round nub, Outlawz is an SP whore, Nickbond is a friggin ninja and Rhino gets kicked for being a n00b.
kilroy0097
Posts: 433
Joined: 2008-01-02 12:57

Proposed Modifications for Battle for Quiling Maps 64/32.

Post by kilroy0097 »

I'm entering this discussion a little late but let me present some examples of maps that I feel are much too large for what is going on in them. I will have to use links to the official Wiki to demonstrate my point. If a map exists that is less than 64 players for a certain map title and it's not referenced on the Wiki or in the Mod level files folder I don't know about it.

Battle for Qinling

Simply put this map is much too big for the limited amount of capture points. Anyone who has ever driven to the North West portion or the South East portion of the map knows this to be true.

The Battle for Qinling - 64 player

Image

In the 64 player map version you see that you have two staging areas and then in addition to this the Chinese and British FOB/Outpost points. Then there are only two additional capture points. Coal Mine and Village. For a total of 4 possible cap points.

The Battle for Qinling - 32 player

Image

Now look at the 32 player map version. You will see that the two non-cap staging areas are removed and only the capture points remain for a total of still only 4 capture points. The size of the map does not look to be decreased at all for this.

My proposed additions to this map are as follows. Add two to four more capture points on the 64 player map and add two capture points to the 32 player map. I demonstrate possible additions in the following pictures.

Modified Qinling - 64 player

Image

As you can see here I have added four additional capture points determined and placed by strategic value.

The two Hilltop Capture points (North and South) are ideal strategic locations as they overlook large open areas or travel points. They are elevated and so would serve the purpose of artillery fire bases if needed or observation points. High ground as you know is very important and neither the Chinese nor British have a base on high ground in a mountainous region which I found very odd.

The two Pass capture points (North and South) show the importance of solid supply lines and travel through mountainous areas. Without secure passes through mountain areas transportation of men and vehicles would be almost impossible outside helicopter airlift which is not feasible for tanks or APCs. The reason the south pass is so close to the Chinese FOB is obvious as it's their main large vehicle transportation route to the lake. It's right on the path that already exists on the map. A checkpoint I guess it could be called. The North Pass controls access to the lake and village form the north west. There is a lot of map terrain on the west side of the mountain range north of the Chinese FOB. All this map terrain is unused at the moment. I have used this area to bring vehicles up and around to attack Village from the north and always thought it was a shame that there was nothing there. Give that pass a name and a capture point makes it important to both teams to hold to secure or attack Village. A dirt road of some sort should be added to the west of those mountains to show a clear travel path heading north to that pass.

Each capture point also serves a secondary role. The map is disadvantaged towards the British, i.e. the British starting point and capture points are much closer to Village and Coal Mine than the Chinese. I thought this very unfair given the size of the map. So I placed the Hilltop South there to bridge the huge gap from Chinese FOB to Coal Mine giving the Chinese a possible forward base of operations to attack or reinforce Coal Mine. The British already have Farm Outpost which is still closer to Coal Mine to do the same. To be fair, even though they are already closer to both Village and Coal Mine, I gave the British Hilltop North to provide as a forward observation base and also as primarily an infantry staging post for reinforcement or attack of Village.

The North Pass is more important to the immediate attack or defense of Village but also serves as a forward base for the Chinese to attack from the North West to Village but also serves as an excellent defensive base for the British to secure and hold Village and block entry from that pass. The South Pass is obviously a check point for the Chinese FOB but also serves as a forward base for the Chinese to attack Village which is just around the lake.

As you can see I attempted to give each new capture a very good reason to exist in a strategic sense and I feel their addition would make this map much more interesting and more action packed given it's size.

Modified Qinling - 32 player

Image

In the 32 players map as it's supposed to be a smaller map due to player size I have removed the North and South Pass leaving both Hilltops as strategically they would be more important and also allowing both the British and the Chinese forward bases of operations to attack Village or Coal Mines respectively. As distance to cover to Village and Coal Mine are the biggest negative points of this map I thought this would go a long way to solve this issue.

I feel that the 16 player map version of Quiling is fine and does not require any modifications.

I put a lot of thought into this for this map and tried hard to make certain it was more fun and yet still balanced. I wish I had much more skill in map editing but unfortunately I don't any experience in BF2 map modification. However if this consideration is taken with earnest and the PR Dev team does in fact want to make these changes I would be happy to come up with a 2D overview of each additional capture point clearly placing and marking static objects and the such as a pre-plan map of each capture point. That way someone with the knowledge of 3D map implementation could simply follow the diagram and only worry about elevation, grounding and terrain texture.

Cheers.

P.S. If there is another location in which to put a specific map proposal or modification request of this nature, please move this post to that location. Thank you.
kilroy0097
Posts: 433
Joined: 2008-01-02 12:57

Post by kilroy0097 »

Any Dev commentary on my post? ^^^
HughJass
Posts: 2599
Joined: 2007-10-14 03:55

Post by HughJass »

good suggestion kill roy. Maybe consider all the empty space in the north west? try and think of something that can be possibly placed there or what cps could go there.
Image
Ninja2dan
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 2213
Joined: 2007-10-29 03:09

Post by Ninja2dan »

I'm not surprised to still be seeing people complain about the larger-scale maps like Kashan. Too many players can't get the vBF2 out of their blood, and have trouble accepting what realism means. It's the same reason people are now complaining that Street was removed.

I'd like to say something to the Dev team about removing Street. THANK YOU GODS OF PR!!! That was the WORST map I've ever seen in any FPS. That map was the opposite of what PR is trying to accomplish. If the game were a Swimsuit contest, with each map being a contestant, Street would have been the butt-ugly transvestite with a beard.

Modern warfare is and always will be a Combined-Arms operation (unless you are an Insurgent, and camels don't count). Even in built-up MOUT areas you still consider the outlying terrain as part of the AO because that area is necessary to maneuver your forces into place. A good example of a reasonable map that supports decent infantry operations is a large city with a wide outlying area where armor and/or APC's can be used, as well as a place to advance to or retreat to if the opposing team controls the inner city.

Infantry-only maps mean either you have a large map with no real means of transport, or you end up with a small map that leads to limited maneuver zones and a "choked" feeling. Street was a perfect example of how NOT to design a map.

Kashan is one of best (if not THE best) maps I have played PR on. If your team uses good communications and leadership you will have a good time. If your team fails at this, then the map will be very boring for many. The key to playing PR and having fun is to ensure you have a good team, and hopefully the new updates will keep the gimps from playing too much. As a former soldier I like the level of realism that PR provides compared to vBF2 and other games of the like. OFP/ArmA was a little bit better, but the engine had serious issues that PR seems to have (for the most part) resolved. So at this time, PR is the best way for me to get back out there and play MilSim without having to wait once a month to head out with a local Guard unit.

As long as the map designer takes into account the important aspects of warfare and all of the associated key points, then the map should play out well. Throw in an awesome team, and you will find that Kashan is by far the best map around. I do agree that the hills above the bunkers are a serious flaw, but with the update to AA it should make things more interesting. Armor camps the hills, jets/helos waste the tanks, AA wastes the air units, grunts waste the AA, circle repeats. If proper combined-arms tactics are used then you should have a good round with enough infantry combat to please most people. Tanks and air units can't take objectives as well as troops can, especially the bunkers. This is what Mech Infantry is for and why it is so necessary on that map.

I do hope to help map designers come up with some new and fun scenarios that will appeal to all players. I remember several good battle drills that we practiced during my time in service, scenarios that would be downright spectacular if portrayed in PR. What must be done now is for players to start suggestions of what they want to see more of in future maps, and for the consultants to help determine which of those suggestions are realistic or not, then the developers to put those good suggestions into play.

If you don't have any prior or current military background, please don't use YouTube or Wiki to argue your points. Instead of insisting that is the way things are, how about asking the real professionals if that is accurate or not. If they agree, then feel free to bring up your point more, and if not, let it go. One thing that bothers me the most on these forums is when little kids that play airsoft try and tell me or other vets how something should be, when we have been there and done that and know how it really is.
Rhino
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 47909
Joined: 2005-12-13 20:00

Post by Rhino »

HughJass wrote:good suggestion kill roy. Maybe consider all the empty space in the north west? try and think of something that can be possibly placed there or what cps could go there.
I do love how you guys ask for the CPs to be closer together, with also using the NW part of the map, you are saying "the current CPs are too far apart and make it ****, but I would also like to play in the NW side of the map too!", makes loads of sence... :lol:
Image
kilroy0097
Posts: 433
Joined: 2008-01-02 12:57

Post by kilroy0097 »

Honestly it's not so much that the CPs are far apart but the general flow of the map. If this real life then obviously moving across terrain like this would be slow, deliberate and be done over days or even weeks. But we can't do that so I attempted to come up with a logical way to get more CPs onto that specific map and not just putting CPs in between stuff without reasons. Strategically hills around outposts are very important for firebase operations and observations. Passes in between mountains are extremely important for ground force transportation. Looking at that map. What is the reason for the Village CP? It has little to no strategic importance unless that small power transformer nearby is the reason. Controlling the lake certainly is not the reason either since Hilltop North is a much better control point of the lake as it overlooks it from a much higher elevation. The Coal Mine could at least be called an energy resource and be held for that reason. I look at the passes in this area to be much more important in order to secure and halt enemy transportation through the area. Control the roads you control the area in a mountainous region. No supplies and support means death after all. This would force the other army to transport via air and risk SAM sites or else traverse around the entire lake which means much harder and longer transport.

Another reason is simply that you have an entire section of the map not used. I would ask myself, why put the work into a section of a map that will never be used? Why was it created? Was there a CP point up there some where in an earlier version?
Post Reply

Return to “PR:BF2 Suggestions”