Project Reality Forums

Posted: **2010-06-22 14:27**

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:Ye the map was never meant for the random flag setup with random hills as objectives. Fuzz thought it would improve them map so I let him have a play with it since it wasn't working too well in its old setup but its really no better with random flags, if anything its much worse since your basically gambling for a good flag setup, where most of the time one side will have a very clear advantage in the flag setup and its not something you really want to play with when even thou the enemy skill wise is no better than you, they are only winning because they can get to the flags quicker etc.

Not exactly, vBF2 had two seater fighter bombers

I Agree, i used to enjoy the old fixed flags layout, but didnt liked the random on this map.

I do like random flags on some other maps.

Posted: **2010-06-22 14:55**

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:Id rather have tanks behaving as tanks than APCs behaving as tanks

Well, that's true on any map.

Posted: **2010-06-22 15:02**

I dislike Quinling because:

1.) It looks fake. I've never seen a forest or landscape like Quinling where all the trees look like they were planted by hand.

2.) So boring; mine, village, farm - Those're the only 3 features of the map; and usually these days they're not the objective, some bloody hill is.

3.) As with all 4KM maps; it's a haven for morons who can't fly jets and a nightmare for infantry after all methods of transport are blown up in the first 10 minutes.

Project Reality Forums

Battle for Quinling-why never played?

Re: Battle for Quinling-why never played?

Re: Battle for Quinling-why never played?

Re: Battle for Quinling-why never played?