Project Reality Forums

Nebsif wrote: compared to Gaza or Ochamchira

Gaza is a bad example of your point. Its an Insurgency map - there is fighting over the whole map.

The new bigger maps still have infantry focus... you just have to actually ask for a ride with a chopper/apc/build fobs instead of complaining that the map is too big. Learn to adapt.

I would rather have Silent Eagle, Beirut, yamalia anyday for infantry combat than the old maps.

Mestia was unplayable due to too big cap ranges. The main problem I believe is that all the infantry maps are removed (Tad See, Bi Ming, Op Ghost Train, Sunset City, Road to blablabla, Mestia, 7 gates) without any worthy successors.

A lot of those maps have been around before AR's had optics, before the fob mechanics that are in now. A few of those were not even infantry maps to start with. As the maps were so small, it means limited fobs, which means predictability of enemy positions, which leads to boring gameplay and completely defeats the points of fobs in the first place.

Tim270 wrote: A lot of those maps have been around before AR's had optics

Yeah. Who came with the idea of making the machine gun into a machine gun sniper?

Tim270 wrote: , before the fob mechanics that are in now. A few of those were not even infantry maps to start with. As the maps were so small, it means limited fobs, which means predictability of enemy positions, which leads to boring gameplay and completely defeats the points of fobs in the first place.

A 1 squarekilometer area is in my world a perfect size for a platoon vs platoon engagement on foot (like Muttrahs playable area). FOBs are always predictable as they don't move.

Tim270 wrote:As the maps were so small, it means limited fobs, which means predictability of enemy positions, which leads to boring gameplay and completely defeats the points of fobs in the first place.

On the contrary, it meant you actually had a fight that kept going, rather than a sporadic sighting once every 15 minutes and perhaps a small engagement. I'll tell you what I find boring... and that's

Tim270 wrote:Silent Eagle, yamalia anyday

If you can't learn how to map and get results you like (which i do understand very well - i'm such a nut myself...) you're free to run a public server with BF2 v1.41 plus old PR Version with old maps...

btw. all those comments made by DEVs and CONs would make a fine FAQ part

Maps are fine at the moment. I approve of the maps being taken away as the mod needs to move further and further towards 4km maps.

Also is the bf2 editor compatible with anything but XP? I have a virtual PC using XP but would I need to transfer over the full bf2 directory as well to allow it use the assets. I've been wanting to make a map for ages but I feel restricted by vista.

Thing I dont get is why the map tools in BF2 have to be so hard to use.
Ive made plenty of maps and allways audit allmost every map i play (for my own use only) for RTS games but reading the tuts for the BF2 editor I wouldnt touch it with a 20ft pole.

If the tools where as easy to use as other games map tools Dawn of war,company of heroes for example I would agree but BF2 maps take much more effort.
If only someone could make better tools than we would have more maps.

Wich is why I personaly would never complain about anything to do with maps/mapping.

Trooper909 wrote:Thing I dont get is why the map tools in BF2 have to be so hard to use.
Ive made plenty of maps and allways audit allmost every map i play (for my own use only) for RTS games but reading the tuts for the BF2 editor I wouldnt touch it with a 20ft pole.

If the tools where as easy to use as other games map tools Dawn of war,company of heroes for example I would agree but BF2 maps take much more effort.
If only someone could make better tools than we would have more maps.

Wich is why I personaly would never complain about anything to do with maps/mapping.

I agree: BF2 mapping is REALLY difficult! I never complained about any map! I simply complained about removing existing ones/not rebuilding existing ones for the new version.
ghost train: will miss u 4ever

There is no rational link that I can see between hardness of mapping and not critiquing maps or gameplay on them.

Kain888 wrote:There is no rational link that I can see between hardness of mapping and not critiquing maps or gameplay on them.

word...

C'mon rough77... This stuff is FOR FREE. DEV's are not making money on this. NOBODY is making money here. You must be happy about what you can get here. Better new maps, than old ones all the time. But I hope DEV's will not cut the new map list witch will get the new ones.

Cossack112 wrote:C'mon rough77... This stuff is FOR FREE. DEV's are not making money on this. NOBODY is making money here. You must be happy about what you can get here. Better new maps, than old ones all the time. But I hope DEV's will not cut the new map list witch will get the new ones.

I totally appreciate their work. for me it's the best game ever! the community is part of the game, DEVs are interested in a growing community (I guess they don't develop for a bunch of 10 people...). so if questions/critics are not allowed --> wrong direction.

Nobody likes critics on this thing when you give the stuff for free. I agree, some times DEV's should listen to professional critics but for that is feedback section (I think). But nobody sad you can't question. But you must agree, the mod must move on. New maps, new stuff etc.