Project Reality Forums

DavidP wrote:I remember the first day i met rhino on devfile. Showed him how to grief in the airport and also how to deploy rallies as insurgent so close my whole team could spawn rpg. Ahh the god ol' days of .5 basrah. On second thought i really should'nt have showed it to him because they took away my precious Base raping.

I asked him for a little help on my map and he called me a noob and said he didnt have time.

Then also said "I dont remember that" to me too

Heh, love ya Rhino



The OP basically went on about mainly BF2 engine problems. My advice, jump up the front of the tank, never had a problem. Its the lowest to the ground...

I will admit, some parts are killing fun factor, but like first reply said, nothings perfect. I still like the mod, even though I can't get on my favorite server!!

Really quick: <3, thanks for all the hard work guys...
___
I don't think they have yet, but I do see troubling times ahead.
I'm seeing a trend of Project Infantry-with-a-few-vehicles-for-giggles, not Project Reality. (Or my greatest fear; Project Call of Duty 5) Over the past few patches, the infantry foot solder has been taking the limelight at the expense of other aspects of the game. The reason .5 caught my attention was the sheer balance of it all. For every level of combat, there was a counter balance from a DIFFERENT combat level:
Aircraft fought with AAA and the occasional grunt with a stinger.
Tanks had to deal with the CAS and the occasional grunt with HAT.
Infantry dueled with the occasional grunt with a scoped weapon. (Vehicles go without saying)

Each part of the game meshed well, and everyone was very capable of dealing with everything, given enough teamwork.
Now every Grunt is extremely capable of dealing with everything, given enough Special Kits

Aircraft are nearly ineffective because of the abundant AAA and stingers (I won't go below 750 feet. Perhaps some of you younger guns might, but I'm sure you can attest its not pleasant or advisable)

Tanks MUST have 3 people and an infantry compliment surrounding them. Even then, ambush tactics are ridiculously effective. One squad can take out a tank with a well trained squad guarding it. Easy.

Infantry who use special kits are now as frequent as those that use normal kits, and are 20-30% more effective (in my experience).

It is still a fantastic mod, but I've gone and gotten .5 and .6 tucked away to play if it goes too far infantry intensive for my liking.

Jonny5 wrote:No, they haven't gone too far at all. This mod was suggested to me by someone who new that I couldn't afford to pay for VBS1. I think it's a program used to "train" SWAT, military etc, so it's seriously hardcore and not even considered a game.

VBS1 is just like Op Flashpoint. The editor is more real-time, but you're most likely to have more fun with Flashpoint or Arma. I tried it with very limited modules (most of the extras wouldn't work) and it was like installing Flashpoint again. This was an "extended demo" I got off of powerbits.org.

mat552 wrote:
Aircraft are nearly ineffective because of the abundant AAA and stingers (I won't go below 750 feet. Perhaps some of you younger guns might, but I'm sure you can attest its not pleasant or advisable)

This is exactly as intended. Aircraft should NOT be flying low across the whole map, scanning for targets. Instead they should be maintaining an altitude HIGHER than their engagement range (and the engagement range of enemy AA). When a target is called in, THAT is when you drop to engagement range, destroy your target and get the hell out. Your no longer a one man wrecking machine in the aircraft, but instead you are basically a spear for other squads to use effectively when they come up against big threats. Why is there so much complaining about this then? Because IMO 90-95% of pilots are selfish and only care about kills. Most of them dont really know how teammwork really works and would rather just fly around the map, oblivious of what is happening to the team. But the few that know whats up and actually take the time to communicate with the rest of the team - WATCH OUT! They can completely dominate the whole battlefield!

Tanks MUST have 3 people and an infantry compliment surrounding them. Even then, ambush tactics are ridiculously effective. One squad can take out a tank with a well trained squad guarding it. Easy.

Yes, you need a gunner and driver now or you wont be effective, that is intentional. Tanks can get taken out when they have overextended themselves and are getting ambushed? Yeap this is intentional as well, tanks should work with other units and should not hang out in CQB situations.


As far as infantry intensive: Check out Battle for Qinling. That is what you get with a map that does not focus on infantry.... In my opinion, a map needs AT A MINIMUM 2 or 3 infantry squads on the ground in order to be a fun map. If everyone has their own vehicle, what incentive do they have to work together??? Infantry are the heart of capturing/defending objectives and are SUPPORTED by the vehicles, not the other way around... But Im sure there will always be plenty of vehicle heavy maps for you guys who love the vehicles..

'[R-CON wrote:OkitaMakoto;639031']I asked him for a little help on my map and he called me a noob and said he didnt have time.

Then also said "I dont remember that" to me too

Heh, love ya Rhino

I only call people noobs who know I'm joking, just like how I call Dr Rank a noob, but thou hes a real noob thou

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:

I only call people noobs who know I'm joking, just like how I call Dr Rank a noob, but thou hes a real noob thou

He sure is

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:In my opinion, a map needs AT A MINIMUM 2 or 3 infantry squads on the ground in order to be a fun map. If everyone has their own vehicle, what incentive do they have to work together??? Infantry are the heart of capturing/defending objectives and are SUPPORTED by the vehicles, not the other way around...

This is how i've always felt. I've always wondered how many inf would be left if every vehicle was fully crewed and the commander role filled on maps like Kashan and Quinling.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vehicles, the combined arms aspect is one of the major draws of PR, its just sometimes i feel one aspect of the arms becomes over dominant and reduces the other aspects to ineffectual bit parts.

However, I do like the way certain maps are attempting to use terrain and environments to create a mixture of conditions where different approaches are needed. E.g. Fools road has the plains which are dominated by the armour, but the woods and some of the more inaccessible flags need infantry to be captured.

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:As far as infantry intensive: Check out Battle for Qinling. That is what you get with a map that does not focus on infantry.... In my opinion, a map needs AT A MINIMUM 2 or 3 infantry squads on the ground in order to be a fun map. If everyone has their own vehicle, what incentive do they have to work together??? Infantry are the heart of capturing/defending objectives and are SUPPORTED by the vehicles, not the other way around... But Im sure there will always be plenty of vehicle heavy maps for you guys who love the vehicles..

The problem you have here fuzz is you believe that every map should be infantry focused in the game, with very little armor or none because you find infantry the most fun part of the game and thats all you want to play. Infantry is a factor on every single map as every one spawns in as infantry. Qinling is not made for the infantry whores, but for the asset whores if you really want to group it up into whore categories, the question you should ask yourself, whats wrong with being a asset or infantry whore? Qinling on the other hand has been made to support 3 infantry squads, with 1 mech infantry squad in that aswell as all its assets when full with 64 players and I've also received lots of feedback from [R-DEV]UK_Force that the use of assets in Qinling has been the most realistic he has seen as of to date after the tactical gamer vs PR clans battle. Thou no doubt still room for improvement.

Every map in PR should offer something different and should not have the same Infantry, jeeps and APC style combat which is all you want fuzz

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:This is exactly as intended. Aircraft should NOT be flying low across the whole map, scanning for targets. Instead they should be maintaining an altitude HIGHER than their engagement range (and the engagement range of enemy AA). When a target is called in, THAT is when you drop to engagement range, destroy your target and get the hell out.

Thats excellent Fuzzhead, I agree. But, never does it happen on a public game. Never does anyone call out targets, lase, or simply say what there is and when the do its: "omg tank chopper destroy now! or "lasing now, lasing now, lasing now". But hey, where?

That's fair enough, and i do enjoy being part of armoured columns on Quinling and seeing the airsupport buzz over head etc, really makes you feel like your there.

I accept that you can have several inf squads on the map, but they are only really useful directly on the flags, as a method of capping them once armour has cleared out the enemy, rather than 'fighting' for, say, the village. Mine for example is a death trap when you get in it.

I just think that when you have maps the size of Quinling there is plenty of scope to add areas of the map where infantry support become more necessary, for instance some areas could be made more densely wooded and tiresome to by pass, with an indirect path(s) through for vehciles. Infantry would have to dismount from APCs to clear the woods and check for ambushes etc.

Village could be made a bit bigger and perhaps more difficult to dominate from the surrounding hills, armour entering would again need inf support. (may be difficult as its on the lakeside, i'm just using Quinling as an example of how you could incoporate a few more inf firendly areas)

Thinking back to Road to Kyonyang (or whatever ), a concept like the bridge flag could be added, i.e. a river crossing in an urban area. This would be particluarly interesting is it WASN'T a CP, and alternative crossing points are scare and a difficult detour. Makes for a important strategic point that teams would have to take the initaive to seize without having a big flag on it. A inf squad with a FB there could really influence the flow of the battle.

I'm not trying to assinate Quinling here, I love the map and it makes for some great battles and when played well it can one of the best PR maps, just some thought about how one map can perhaps provide environments where everyone can find their ideal type of battle for some of the time in some areas.

Still, the PR mappers are a very cappable bunch, and the maps are well tested, so, i'm sure they think about the options in far greater depth than i have and i'm probably teaching my grandmother how to suck eggs! I'm like the majority of people, come up with ideas and have little to no ability to impliment them, so i'll take what i'm given!

ye, the main thing for infantry on qinling is really to change there tactics, from being mainly used in direct combat like they are in other maps, to be used more as recon and SF missions aswell as supporting flag capping.

You would be surprised how vital recon is on this map, if used well it can turn the tide of the game

When craig and the ABA guys where doing recon for us, me and squidy in a MBT knew just where the enemy tank was, even thou we had a huge hill in the way, what direction they where heading etc and we just could swing round the hill, come right up behind them and get two shots into there *** before they had any idea what was going on

Its also quite hard to make areas that are really infantry friendly in a area that is meant to be a large mountain range with pandas in it

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;639363']The problem you have here fuzz is you believe that every map should be infantry focused in the game, with very little armor or none because you find infantry the most fun part of the game and thats all you want to play. Infantry is a factor on every single map as every one spawns in as infantry. Qinling is not made for the infantry whores, but for the asset whores if you really want to group it up into whore categories, the question you should ask yourself, whats wrong with being a asset or infantry whore? Qinling on the other hand has been made to support 3 infantry squads, with 1 mech infantry squad in that aswell as all its assets when full with 64 players and I've also received lots of feedback from [R-DEV]UK_Force that the use of assets in Qinling has been the most realistic he has seen as of to date after the tactical gamer vs PR clans battle. Thou no doubt still room for improvement.

Every map in PR should offer something different and should not have the same Infantry, jeeps and APC style combat which is all you want fuzz

/me wants qinling not to crash anymore *whine*. i like the map and its a pity that we can't run it on our server (i think it's due to our server being linux. correct me if im wrong).

General_J0k3r wrote:/me wants qinling not to crash anymore *whine*. i like the map and its a pity that we can't run it on our server (i think it's due to our server being linux. correct me if im wrong).

ye there is a problem with the J-10 we thinks that is making it crash when run on linux servers, windows just ignores the problem

Try running the 32 player version of the map which is mech infantry only really

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Its also quite hard to make areas that are really infantry friendly in a area that is meant to be a large mountain range with pandas in it

Yeah, I appreciate what you were aiming at in Qinling, it was never going to be a direct inf contact map and thats fine. I was really just using it as an example of a large, reasonable open, armour friendly map, the idea of 'area variety' coudl apply to any such type.

I suppose every map can't please everyone, at least we have a diverse range of good quality maps so you can find what you want somewhere.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:should not have the same Infantry, jeeps and APC style combat which is all you want fuzz

Yes I agree, the more different specialties means the more different ways to play, which means increased replayability which generally means more fun and cool stuff to do

Ive never said I only want infantry jeep or APC combat...

I HAVE said this though: A map should focus on a specific branch of assets, and not EVERY asset on every map (ala vbf2). When you do this I believe its 10 times harder for an infantry squad to work together, because there is just so many other options out there. Combining that with a commander who is frustrated out of his mind because no one is actually capturing or defending anything and just riding around in vehicles, this means its really hard to get a team organised and supporting each other in attacks or defense, but rather everyone is driving around their own personal vehicles. Im not against armor only maps, but I AM against armor/air/apc/helicopter maps with fast respawn times (what qinling basically is)....

Never does anyone call out targets, lase, or simply say what there is and when the do its: "omg tank chopper destroy now! or "lasing now, lasing now, lasing now".

Never??? Hop on Tactics&Teamwork, Tcombat.com or Tacticalgamer.com servers during the evening hours.... and especially on weekends. Your guaranteed to get well coordinated air squads that will wreck the enemies day! But remember it doesnt always happen, the best way to figure out if your going to have a good air squad is to look at the commander. If you have a commander you can recognize and respect, then you will more than probably have a kickass CAS and a good team. Have a **** CO or no CO at all?? Dont expect ANYTHING from the air squad other than crashing into walls, mountains and other friendly vehicles...

Just the way an open community like PR works....

It is and will allways be just game, if you want some real action, enlist and ship out to Iraq of Afghanistan.

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:but I AM against armor/air/apc/helicopter maps with fast respawn times (what qinling basically is)....

even if it dose bring the most realistic use of assets into PR? I thought you said it all depends on the players anyways