Project Reality Forums

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']that suggestion cant be done with the current AAS code.

well nutz

Just like to say first off I realy enjoy this map. I think it has some of the greatest urban combat in pr.

As a more labor alternative to the current setup on the map, I was thinking of keeping the current flags. Expand the city to fill up the hills to the south/southwest and just spread out the flags. This will get around the rp-cp problem while keeping the essence of the map.

|TG-9th|Johnflenaly wrote:well nutz

Just like to say first off I realy enjoy this map. I think it has some of the greatest urban combat in pr.

As a more labor alternative to the current setup on the map, I was thinking of keeping the current flags. Expand the city to fill up the hills to the south/southwest and just spread out the flags. This will get around the rp-cp problem while keeping the essence of the map.

hehe, would require the entier map to get lightmapped again

i did have it planned to do that when i was making the map a year back, but kinda forgot about it some how.... ops:

wwwwwwoah.. now THATis a good idea!!!

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']you find it sooo unblnaced cos you only think maps with a mirror blance are blanced?

A map like this is something that is very hard to blance, infact its gone though so many phases of blance that it is really hard to keep up with what needs to be changed and where the players are just bitching to much cos they cant work as a team.

If the USMC work as a team, they will win on this map every time, If they do not, they will loose every time.

The thing is this map takes a hell of alot of cordiantion and teamwork to really shine and when you get that it really dose shine. the fact that you need to be inserted by a chopper etc and you dont just rely on your own feet to get you to the next flag is the big factor of this map.

Things like the new start up time on the chopper engines, AAS v2 etc are really hard to keep this map upto date with blance but in the end, it really just comes down to the players playing the map.

LOL, I completely 100% disagree. I would take 0.32 or 0.4 Muttrah everytime over the current Muttrah.

Trust me, we had about the most teamwork we could have on that map and either the Dock or Hotel taken, but we could never keep control of both of them at the same time. It is just a plain and simple slaughter for the US for the simple fact that

1. There is no place to put rally points besides the out of bounds/in the open because the flags are so close
2. Hotel is a slaughter because it is right next to the AA
3. Docks is too hard to hold onto now that the US team has to split up to win on the map
4. Wayyyyyyyyy too much AA
5. Flags to close
6. No cover for USMC to take when landing or really anywhere


As others and I have said, either the city has to be expanded or something majorly changed, or else this map will just fade away and be replaced like Oasis and Zhangzi Security because PR has outgrown it. There are much better and more PR style suited urban maps like EJOD and Basrah now that are also more realistic and spread out to prevent the "vanilla frag fests"

I agree ^. It could still use some physical balancing, although what Rhino said is pretty much true, it mostly depends on the team. But again, it still could use some more balancing, just a tad.

'[PR wrote:AC3421']I agree ^. It could still use some physical balancing, although what Rhino said is pretty much true, it mostly depends on the team. But again, it still could use some more balancing, just a tad.

No, I have been on a team which was really coordinated and did everytime correct to win, but the flags are just to close on that map for the US to hide rally points in a spot safe from the enemy. It is basically like giving the MEC unlimited spawning potential and giving the USMC a limited amount of rally cars. If you place a rally at the docks, you cannot defend Hotel, if you place one near Hotel, it is out in the open.

Lose-Lose situation for US anyway you go.

me thinks 00SoldierofFortune00 should read the entier topic, + the other topics around this forum about muttrah first...

yes i know this map aint as blanced as it use to be by a long way back in 0.3 but the mod has really out grown it and alot of things will have to change with it for it to become blanced again.

What about the idea of having 2 APC's spawn under carrier once docks is capped by US?

WhiskeySix wrote:What about the idea of having 2 APC's spawn under carrier once docks is capped by US?

APCs can only land at 1 point on the map, and can easily be shot out of the water. Thou we may add them in a test build to see how they work. USMC would really need the APCs before they capped docks really hehe, but its a good iidea on having to secure docks first before they can spawn.

WhiskeySix wrote:What about the idea of having 2 APC's spawn under carrier once docks is capped by US?

like i said earlier... if there were APC's, so many MEC would grab a heavy at and just wait for them to go up the ONE ramp and get an easy 8 kills

As for the view distance again...

Rhino, couln't you just move the carrier 50-70 metres away from the coast? Then it would be out of range of heavy at missiles.
And the point - you would be able to revert the view distance back to 0.4 v or extend it even more a bit.

no for quite afew reasons.

1. if i moved the carrier it would looses its lightmaps, would mean i would have to spend anouther 2 or 3 days lightmapping all of muttrah again....

2. the carrier is infact, very close already do the edge of the map, if i moved it into its surrounding terrain you would get issues with not being able to click on the spawn points as, they would be off the minimap

so really, no

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']no for quite afew reasons.

1. if i moved the carrier it would looses its lightmaps, would mean i would have to spend anouther 2 or 3 days lightmapping all of muttrah again....

2. the carrier is infact, very close already do the edge of the map, if i moved it into its surrounding terrain you would get issues with not being able to click on the spawn points as, they would be off the minimap

so really, no

And isn't there really any other way to increase view distance?

Jonathan_Archer_nx01 wrote:And isn't there really any other way to increase view distance?

Answer this Rhino please, why the hell would a transporting ship am I correct? be parked SIDEWAYS! against a fortified wall? and should we as Marines be sending air strikes/ bombing the SH*** outa the main wall or other objects in before heading in. Comes on!!!!!! why arnt we using AAVs!

Aus Sniper01 wrote:Answer this Rhino please, why the hell would a transporting ship am I correct? be parked SIDEWAYS! against a fortified wall? and should we as Marines be sending air strikes/ bombing the SH*** outa the main wall or other objects in before heading in. Comes on!!!!!! why arnt we using AAVs!

if you had read more into this topic you would have said already, there is no way to increase the view distance without exspocing the carrier to be raped from H-AT and RPGs from the shore.

and why do you say sidwards? would you sail directly towards the shore? no, you would sail past it and its a sea wall....

and no, no air strikes as the carrier that is there at the moment is really ment to be an assault ship, and an assault ship really only carrys ground units and choppers, it can not support fixed winged aircraft.

the MEC are not using AAVs as they dont have any left over from there retreat from the heart of oman....

read more into the storyline etc before going on about stuff like this... let alone how much your suggestions would alter on the blance of the map if I did take them.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino']if you had read more into this topic you would have said already, there is no way to increase the view distance without exspocing the carrier to be raped from H-AT and RPGs from the shore.

and why do you say sidwards? would you sail directly towards the shore? no, you would sail past it and its a sea wall....

and no, no air strikes as the carrier that is there at the moment is really ment to be an assault ship, and an assault ship really only carrys ground units and choppers, it can not support fixed winged aircraft.

the MEC are not using AAVs as they dont have any left over from there retreat from the heart of oman....

read more into the storyline etc before going on about stuff like this... let alone how much your suggestions would alter on the blance of the map if I did take them.

Im no Ship expert I just thought it was a bigger target on the side without any defence system to protect it except for the AA at the back.

In anyway did I say MECs use AAVs? AAVs are used by the USMC.

With Air Strikes well hey I just suggested that because of what all the yanks do all the time before going on Air Strike this Air strike that Air strike this because there worried about loss of lives.

the map is unrealistic , nobody in the world would make an anfibius assault without air or naval suport agains enemy that "looks" in equals conditions .

77SiCaRiO77 wrote:the map is unrealistic , nobody in the world would make an anfibius assault without air or naval suport agains enemy that "looks" in equals conditions .

EXACTLEY that's what I'm trying to get across.

Poor Rhino
THE project reality map is not played anymore. It's too linear for AASv2 and should be reverted to 0.4 AAS simply because everything that was good about it in the past has been diluted. If it ain't broke ...

"todo tiene su final , nada dura para siempre "

(all has an end , nothing stay forever )

hector lavoe