Project Reality Forums

FuzzySquirrel =US= wrote:I still stand by the layer setup of new and old...Then watch and see which layer servers play more often...

Alex6714 wrote:Is there any particular reason old qwai couldn`t be kept for 64 layer and a 32 layer made for the new layout? That makes most sense to me.

Colonelcool125 wrote:This.

i completely agree with these posts

The less and less assets trend has for the most part been fine with me.

I mean, we have played PR for years now, and that with loads of assets on the maps - reducing the focus on the creation of a player-culture, valuing the available assets. Thus in that regard, also reducing the tactical creativity since that requires limited options, in order to evolve.

Only larger problem in my point of view has been the reduced amount of air pilots available every time assets has been removed. That is tourney and public wise.

Personally i don't even think there should be a truck or fire bases available on a map like Road to Kyongan Ni. But that's just me.

Naa the trend is in overall fine.

People pretty much explained my toughts here so far, but I think with the release of the german faction, we will have some pretty interesting 4km asset maps. Marco's airborne map will feature assym balance, and (if it makes it in) Iron Thunder will too.

Zi8 wrote:+1
Less assets -> less people destroying them -> more teamplay.

Go play some skirmish though...

Old maps to be kept. Old asset layouts to be kept. New maps not just INF + 1 APC, realistic non logical gameplay, but again mixed stuff like EJOD, and not INF only and not ARMOR only.

The changes in 0.856

1. New logistic system just demands more players going off in a little world transporting nice little pink crates to funny green triangles.

2. A beautiful transport layout for more running time and sightseeing.

3. Unbalanced assets and unbalanced cap zones. 1 Apc to fight with and combined enemy 6 + 2 rocket tubes aimed at it in 2.9 seconds...

Why anyway you everytime try new methods to improve different aspects of the game? Why is BF2 played for so long without any change, with new players and with old veterans?
Dont you ever thinked about finishing PR?`Giving it a 1.2 final build?
Not just ovehauling the whole game again and again?

I still stand by the layer setup of new and old...Then watch and see which layer servers play more often...


Is there any particular reason old qwai couldn`t be kept for 64 layer and a 32 layer made for the new layout? That makes most sense to me.

Heres the problem with that... 90-95% of servers will always put the AAS64 or Insurgency64 layer on rotation. Most servers, even with info pasted everywhere, have no idea there is other layers avaliable to play on.

Originally we were going to have Al Basrah as AAS and Insurgency, and see what the players would like more. But we quickly realized servers would NEVER play insurgency because admins are VERY conservative and skeptical of any changes whatsoever, so they always play it safe by putting the most popular maps/layers on a server. Theres only a couple servers that occasionally run different layers, and that is definitely an exception rather than a rule.

Bottom line: making a Qwai River AAS32 with a new layout will have zero impact publically, as it will be only extremely rarely put into rotation on some special nights, and that would mean the problems of the current Qwai River will persist.

If the new layout plays as badly as all the whiners say it will, then obviously the change will be reverted. However we just finished a test of Qwai River's new AAS-64 on a full 64 server, and for the most part it was excellent. The assets does not make the map. And its still very much about mobility vs armor.

There will be maps LARGER and MORE detailed than Qwai River that will have those large assets that so many players have a hardon for. What we want to stray away from is putting these assets on maps with tiny view distance and very short travel distances.... it dumbs down the gameplay and the player base behavior.

For all those talking about how the map is doomed and "You ruined the mod!" before even giving it a try... sorry that you feel this way, and think these are such terrible decisions, but I think its wise to reserve judgment until actually experiencing the changes. This kind of bickering and wild speculation is why most cringe to read these forums....

however any IGLA set up on the mountains around West Beach/Dam/Bridge would mean that the helicopters couldn't leave the carrier without getting locked on.

Unfortunately this is the case. We even raised the view distance 50 meters a while back and it made the carrier super vulnerable, not just to AA but to APC fire too
I think Jabal is an amazing map design and if it was rebuilt as a 4km map would play out superbly! minimum statics, lots of terrain, could have view distance like operation archer. We will see what future brings anyways

1. Asset whore central. When there is only 1 Infantry squad...there is something wrong. I will bet if you go to a Qinling server right now you will see the following Squads:

Sq 1. Sniper/CAS
Sq 2. Jets
Sq 3. Attack Chopper
Sq 4. AA
Sq 5. Armor
Sq 6. Trans Helo
Sq 7. LogiTruck
Sq 8. Sniper
Sq 9. Infantry

2. The map lags alot of players out.

3. Takes WAY too long to play.

Agreed I think Qinling 64 has too many assets combined with some performance issues with lower end users. I think Qinling 64 is prime example why mixed CAS units should not be used on the same layer (Jets AND Attack Helicopters). For every CAS unit, you can expect 2-3 tards come rushing in

Although Qinling 64 on well admined can sometimes be very fun, I very much enjoy Qinling 16 as well.

For those that dont enjoy the random AAS, what exactly you dont like about it? I always hear "its unfair" "unbalanced" but I dont usually see this in game as it plays out quite differently each time and just because there is a certain CP layout doesnt really matter much, its all about how that team coordinates. WHen a team just rushes out the main base with no plan, no cohesion, thinking they can go to all their usual spots and win the map, thats when they get horribly slaughtered vs a well organised team, and thats where I think alot of complaints come about random AAS. 2 organised teams in random AAS creates something Im really fond of: fighting that DOES NOT revolve around the same tiring locations again and again and again - the ability to do ambushes in good places, and the often occurence of firefights that dont involve a flag but rather strategic positioning. Maybe we play PR for different reasons, but I dont play PR to "cap flags" and "rack up points", I play to have awesome and intense firefights and to manuver through these firefights using as much real world tactics as possible - whether its a win or lose for our team is not such a big concern as whether it was a good experience while it was happening.

Thanks for the map list Fuzzhead

[R-DEV]fuzzhead wrote:For all those talking about how the map is doomed and "You ruined the mod!" before even giving it a try... sorry that you feel this way, and think these are such terrible decisions, but I think its wise to reserve judgment until actually experiencing the changes. This kind of bickering and wild speculation is why most cringe to read these forums....

Sorry but without the arabic writing on my beloved KORD 50cal the mod is completey unplayable and everyone else is in the same mindset so it's all really FUBAR.

It's part of an elaborate anti-arabic kord consipracy I tell you.

Christ you even added new L85 series firing sounds, I can't play with new sounds. Totally ruined the mod FOR EVERYONE.

/amen

I realy like tanks, but only if they are realy used to SUPPORT the team and not just go on soloing tour and kill something and then after dying taking an other tank like it is on kashan now. Everyone just takes with his best friend a tank and go on leet missions.
On Al Basrah you see more often the tank realy SUPPORTING the infantry. I could think of a tank on karbala. There are some big streets where it could be used. But then it also needed to be balanced with maybe more bomb cars?

combinedarms.myfreeforum.org :: Index

4 lulz.

Qwai really did need an overhaul. If anything I think it didn't go far enough though. All it needs is a view distance so you can have a firefight across the river.

@Fuzzhead, about Jabal, the carrier protection pretty much guarantees that the US will not get shot on the carrier. I think it could use a 50-100m increase. Only problem is the reverse issue, the US can fire hydras and APC cannons from behind the wall and it will still be able to hit the beach.

This is true. I know what you mean but Qwai was the one small map that really did work.

I know we should "try the changes" but it doesn´t take a monkey to work out its going to be different, but there were simply no problems before.

i didnt really see a problem with qwai having the tank or the littlebird/helos... tanks were fine, and the helos were alright as quick transport that added a different aspect to the map than the usual infantry/apc run of the mill setup that is prevalent now. But, we'll play with the changes anyway since we all love PR.

Fuzzhead if you say that Quinling has no room for attack helicopters and planes then make it like Kashan where one version has helicopters and another has planes.

And since we're on the subject, different servers play different versions of Kashan. Some play it with choppers, some play it with planes. Dont tell us that server admins can't differentiate and always stick with the 64 version.

I think Fuzzhead pretty much said everything about the direction that PR is taking. People atm seem overly bothered by the removal of assets from maps and do not take the time to consider whether those assets are right for those maps on which they are removed.

The problem therefore is not that assets are being taken away and PR is going all infantry only (my personal preference anyway) it is simply that the maps we have atm are generally old and outdated and therefore completely unsuited to the use of heavy assets. Thankfully this issue is being addressed as Fuzz stated with the ongoing development of large scale maps that will be capable of doing justice to the vehicles that we have.

Also, You have to remember that sever admins get tired of admining. By sticking to infantry style maps. They ensure that they don't have to do any work/admining. This is why you don't see "K64/322 or "Battle for Q" maps on most server rotations. Admins just can't be assed with the extra work load that comes with the assets. They become Lazys Admins. This in my eyes, This has had a knock on effect with the Devs. So the DEV's have concentrated on the making the maps more infantry based. This is how i see it. I My self think "Battle for Q" is the best map ever. But it has 2 flaws.

1 - The PLA "FOB" flag is in the wrong place. It's on the approach path for the jets landing. This makes it unsafe to land when you are defending it. The Brits "Farm" is not on the approach path and so you can land (relatively speaking) with out to much fear of AA or a tank hitting you.

2 - Needs to have 2 map versions (layers) like Kashen has. BfQ64 and BfQ32. Make one with Jets. And one with attack HELOs.

'[R-DEV wrote:fuzzhead;1025000']

Code: Select all

[size=175][b]Current maps in development for v0.9+[/b][/size]

[list=1]
[*]Map Name: n/a
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Rhino
Map Description: n/a
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: UK vs MEC

[*]Map Name: Arzan Kar Region (Ambush)
Map Creator(s): [R-CON]marcoelnk
Map Description: Afghanistan open country
Map Size: 1KM
Map Factions: GERMANY vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Codename Silent Eagle (Airborne)
Map Creator(s): [R-CON]marcoelnk
Map Description: Eastern European forested countryside with central town and airbases
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: GERMANY vs RUSSIA

[*]Map Name: Devils Tower
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Paramedic
Map Description: Mid east open country
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: CF vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Dili - Timor
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]CodeRedFox
Map Description: Dili Timor, Indonesia with City, Forest, Hills/Mountains.
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: BLUFOR vs. Insurgents

[*]Map Name: Dragonfly
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Irontaxi & [R-DEV]nickbond
Map Description: Russian urban / rural
Map Size: 2KM
Map Factions: RUSSIA vs CHECHEN

[*]Map Name: Feyzabad
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]coderedfox
Map Description: Afghanistan river valley
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: US ARMY vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Gaza Beach
Map Creator(s): [R-CON]Hfett 
Map Description: Tight urban combat
Map Size: 1KM
Map Factions: IDF vs HAMAS

[*]Map Name: n/a
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Rhino
Map Description: n/a
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: BLUFOR vs PLA

[*]Map Name: Iron Ridge
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]~KILL~Pirate 
Map Description: rural
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: ??? vs ???

[*]Map Name: Kandahar Region
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Hans Martin Slayer
Map Description: Afghanistan rural/urban
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: ??? vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Lashkar Valley
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Hans Martin Slayer
Map Description: Afghanistan rural in river valley
Map Size: 2KM
Map Factions: GERMANY vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Marsh (WIP Name)
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Deer
Map Description: rural swamp
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: RUSSIA vs ???

[*]Map Name: Monchegorsk
Map Creator(s): [R-CON]space
Map Description: rural forest with military complexes
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: ??? vs ???

[*]Map Name: Sangin
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]Dr Rank
Map Description: Afghanistan rural combat
Map Size: 4KM
Map Factions: UK vs TALIBAN

[*]Map Name: Siege at Ochamachira
Map Creator(s): [R-DEV]IronTaxi
Map Description: industrial defense
Map Size: 2KM
Map Factions: RUSSIA vs CHECHEN

[*]Map Name: Sosnovyy Bor
Map Creator(s): [R-CON]9cookie_monster
Map Description: industrial and woodland
Map Size: 2KM
Map Factions: ??? vs ???
[/list]

[b][u]Total Maps in Development:[/u][/b]
17

[u][b]Map Sizes in Development:[/b][/u]
1KM - 2
2KM - 4
4KM - 11

You left out my 4km too so there's even MORE than that

Maps will get the loadouts that the DEV team deems most appropriate for location, map size, and gameplay wishes

-Too many "vs. INS/TALIBAN". Need more conventional forces maps.

[R-COM]Tartantyco wrote:-Too many "vs. INS/TALIBAN". Need more conventional forces maps.

Seriously.

Too many "vs. INS/TALIBAN". Need more conventional forces maps.

Start mapping than Yes of course more conventional maps would be great, but ultimately its the mapper that decides what location its in and what main terrain/static features are on the map, since they are putting in such a huge time sink into it.

Average time from inception to completion is around 6-12 months. Most dont make it past a few months before dropping the project

Make a decent 4km map for conventional forces and we will put it into PR!

There is more maps than I listed there, those are the ones that we have confirmed...