Project Reality Forums

ya, if you keep the map simple with just a few random trees, you can have a 500m view distance easily. my comp can do a 1000 m view distance on oman without laggin too much... but im not sure if others could.

Figisaacnewton wrote:ya, if you keep the map simple with just a few random trees, you can have a 500m view distance easily. my comp can do a 1000 m view distance on oman without laggin too much... but im not sure if others could.

great idea. Now we can get extreme range battles with no buildings or details really.

'[R-PUB wrote:Armand61685']great idea. Now we can get extreme range battles with no buildings or details really.

The detail is in the terrain

A desert doesnt have many buildings. Nor grassy plains/tundra for that matter. But yes, we can get extreme range battles. The BF engine has always been pretty fast at rendering terrain, whereas it doesnt even support custom clip planes for indoor scenery, wtf... Even old Savage with a shoddy small-company engine and which doesnt have indoor fighting feature clip planes!!!

goodgameral wrote:Ikno this isn't exactly what u guys hve been saying as of yet, but what about carrier maps? where there's maybe like 2-3 carriers, one for the capture, and w/an emphasis more on the transport copters than the apaches and jets. Like a mix between Wake Island 2007 and Operation Cleansweep, then hve parts that would sorta add up to a battle like when the us hve most of the bases at strike at karakand or something. That would be cool...

This map has allready been made was called Battelships

I checked the sizes of the maps, turns out a 4x4 map is just *HUGE*. With a 2x2 map fully used and long view distance the Abrams feel like its driving at walking speed across the desert floor, haha! So 4x4 is unneccessary.

I like this idea for vehicular based maps. I'm in the same boat as Blu... just think it's silly to have tanks on 16 player maps, particularly urban ones.

The "area domination" is probably enhanced by AAS. I would guess that on a large map with area domination you'd need a full compliment of players to have some intense battles. With AAS and an area domination mode, you'd be pretty sure where the battles were headed.

Control points in the field would be relatively useless for spawning troops unless they had vehicles and such... so the momentum would have to be gained and held by smart play (due to travel times of armor from the main base).

It sounds like it could be fun!

I've been getting to learn a bit about the tools required to make maps like this ... I'll see if I can come up wth anything that would help as a proof of concept.

egg

An armour map or a naval map would be brilliant. id like to see both. if i had to chose one it would be armour thouhg

That kind of a map would make most of the kits entirely useless... I believe it is best to leave for different kind of shooters, but I'm not saying it's impossible to make such a map work.

Lone Gunman wrote:That kind of a map would make most of the kits entirely useless... I believe it is best to leave for different kind of shooters, but I'm not saying it's impossible to make such a map work.

Different kind of shooter? BF2 *IS* that kind of shooter!

Some kits might be useless. But you can still pick them, can you? So it still leave choices, especially if you mix in minor infantry combat.

dawdler wrote:Different kind of shooter? BF2 *IS* that kind of shooter!

Some kits might be useless. But you can still pick them, can you? So it still leave choices, especially if you mix in minor infantry combat.

I mean a shooter which is based more on vehicles.

And there would be only little point in medic, assault, sniper and support. The only 'useful' kits would be spec ops, engineer and anti-tank - out of which only anti-tank would be meant for infantry-vehicle combat.

And once again, BF2 *IS* based more on vehicles! Its the entire point of the series, even though BF2 significantly improved infantry combat and rival any infantry shooter (I just dont like when the two get mixed up in that bloody DICE Infantry To Vehicle Ratio (TM) for every map).

And you just state that half of the kits would still be usefull. But that is ignoring the fact the rest are useless only if the mapper decides to make them useless... You assume the map would be 100% based on vehicles.

What if the map is only 90% based on vehicles? 80%? What if you *have to* capture one of the flags on foot while the rest of the map is a tank battle?

Think El Alamein. No one complained about "useless" classes despite the fact that if you werent in a vehicle, you where a sitting duck.

Why is it silly to have tanks in an urban map? Tanks are always called upon in city fighting, especially when infantry resistance gets tough.

Putting tanks in urban areas usualy ends badly unless they have plenty of infantry support.

Good so it encourages teamwork, A tank clearing out positions or enemy tanks while infantry search and destroy any AT or any thing else

Lone Gunman wrote:I mean a shooter which is based more on vehicles.

And there would be only little point in medic, assault, sniper and support. The only 'useful' kits would be spec ops, engineer and anti-tank - out of which only anti-tank would be meant for infantry-vehicle combat.

well that's why it's an armor focused map...

I also would like a aerial battle map, with huge squadrons of jets.

I just want to see all of them, vehicle,aerial and naval. Any of those would make me happy. although couldnt you mix the aerial and naval combat together by having aircraft carriers