Project Reality Forums

I like the fact that there are less assets in the maps and even more so that a lot of maps dont totally rely on them.

In public play the main problem is the team losing because of 2-4 players. Take away the assets or the asset impact and you take away the vanilla feel we all get from these noobs.

Whereas some people might enjoy actually playing with no assets, that's the whole reason why i came to BF2...

If i wanted to play straight Infantry vs. Infantry, I'd be playing Insurgency, COD, or DoD right now... but I'm not, because I'm playing BF2 R which is where (besides ARMA) there is a first person shooter that also has at it's core people using vehicles to win.

Like rudd said, layered maps are the way, but the asymmetrical balance was just something that always added a different twist to maps.

I'm all for combined maps and I personally love Chopper and jet flying, but when the map revolves around those things it's no fun. I would love a big City map where the Infantry had to move in to take it....like Tank battles in the streets, but at the same time no single type of asset has a true advantage over the other. Vehicles add a new dimension and reality to Project Reality but sometimes they feel very out of place. not to mention when a Chopper/Jet map comes on, half the team attempts to get those assets rather than play the game. THAT is why I dislike some asset-heavy maps.

Don't get me wrong, vehicles and infantry is the core of PR and the Battlefield series, but what I mean by Infantry layer is maps that don't purely require Armour to win but rather a mix of everything. I'm yet to see a map come even close to this: Kashan does ok-ish with the Bunker complex but fails everywhere else, and Quinling falls flat on it's face without a doubt. I am trying to make a combined arms city map atm but my Editor is bugged, there are no objects to place even after following all the instructions and looking everywhere for a solution..Oh well - anyway, my ideal map as I said would be a large city map with big enter-able apartment buildings all throughout it.

I hope Deer makes a 4km map with tanks etc, except with those awesome trench and tunnel systems he put on Kozelsk, that would be worth seeing. Infantry + Combined arms, but infantry don't have to stand and die anymore

For a while when I got back into PR I was an INS junkie. You wouldn't catch me dead on an AAS server.

Now...well...lets just say I've fallen deeply in love with combined arms. Especially tanks. Right now the only INS map that I get excited for is Basra. Because you have tanks APCs and the map is awesome. Fwest, Archer, and Ramiel are good too....but I don't really get a smile on my face when I see em loading up. Fwest some times when I'm with my good friend. We can APC own face.


I can't wait for the new armor maps. I used to D/C off Desert, not any more. Me loves my Abrams/T90

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I hope Deer makes a 4km map with tanks etc, except with those awesome trench and tunnel systems he put on Kozelsk, that would be worth seeing. Infantry + Combined arms, but infantry don't have to stand and die anymore

Except that scale 4 maps are a nightmare when it comes to terrain detail

Dr2B Rudd wrote:I hope Deer makes a 4km map with tanks etc, except with those awesome trench and tunnel systems he put on Kozelsk, that would be worth seeing. Infantry + Combined arms, but infantry don't have to stand and die anymore

+1, Deer is one of my favourite mappers in PR right now. Kozelsk is a total masterpiece of map design.

Any thoughts on a 8km*8km map fuzz or anyone else?

The trend towards infantry is probably happening for the same reason that it happened in BF2. There are now tons of Infantry Only servers...

Why?

Because it sucks to be impossibly outmatched.

Infantry puts you on closer to equal footing with your foe... Who cares that you can drive a tank into a capture point and survive by merit of "the enemy failed to bring enough AT"? What's that prove? That the enemy didn't bring AT and you could get in a tank? Where's the combat? Where's the valor?

I don't hate vehicles... I hate how they are implemented in games. The post that talks about the 4km maps getting more of them is right on... go play 4km maps if you want tank vs. tank vs. attack chopper.

8km*8km map

Has massive problems in the engine, this would only be feasible as an "island" map with a land mass in the middle and most of the map covered with water. Not out of the question for the future though, and who knows maybe the problems with the engine will eventually be overcome.

However I think 4km maps have a HUGE potential, although bigger is always better I think with the limited player count (64) 4km will be juts fine

JKJudgeX wrote:The trend towards infantry is probably happening for the same reason that it happened in BF2. There are now tons of Infantry Only servers...

Why?

Because it sucks to be impossibly outmatched.

Infantry puts you on closer to equal footing with your foe... Who cares that you can drive a tank into a capture point and survive by merit of "the enemy failed to bring enough AT"? What's that prove? That the enemy didn't bring AT and you could get in a tank? Where's the combat? Where's the valor?

I don't hate vehicles... I hate how they are implemented in games. The post that talks about the 4km maps getting more of them is right on... go play 4km maps if you want tank vs. tank vs. attack chopper.

I don't think it's a matter of valor...it's a matter of feeling like you matter. People hate having to count on the support of others to do something. Combined arms maps do require a lot more team "sense" to be played right. On an inf map your one squad can make a noted difference without support.

I don't like dragging gameplay for those who can't up to the task of teamwork. I have had extreme amounts of fun on Kashan as inf.

Yes it does suck when most of your team is retarded and your whole squad is getting ripped apart by an Apache or Abrams, and that's why people play inf only on BF2. They can't handle being out gunned. They aren't capable to finding a way to counter enemy armor. They simply don't have what it takes. That's just my opinion.

I like inf maps, it's good stuff. Nothing like some close quarters combat to get the blood flowing.

[R-DEV]Drav wrote:+1, Deer is one of my favourite mappers in PR right now. Kozelsk is a total masterpiece of map design.

To bad servers don't run it anymore

From what I read on this post I keep reading the same theme from the devs....We can't do what we want with the BF2 engine. You guys have outgrown this engine and should consider finding a new game engine to use. Just my .02

<<SpanishSurfer>> wrote:You guys have outgrown this engine and should consider finding a new game engine to use.

Hate to hit you twice in a day but check around at some of the threads....specially the sticky one under PR Suggestions

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:Hate to hit you twice in a day but check around at some of the threads....specially the sticky one under PR Suggestions

Consider my statement as my suggestion. Nothing wrong with a repost, if it's mentioned by many people then it clearly is an issue. Personally I'm waiting for the next game to replace BF2. Maybe Arma 2, maybe BF 1943 with a good mod. I know the PS3 is coming up with a possible masterpiece of a sandbox war game and I'm hoping they cross platform to the PC.

**Found the name it's called Massive Action Game

MAG is a PS3 exclusive, 1943 has a max players of 16 or something so wont happen. all is posted in the thread about game engines.

I remember hearing on the news that the UK didn't have enough choppers to transport troops effectively, but the US seems to have more Apaches then it could ever need...so shouldn't we have an Apache in pretty much every US vehicle map?

less vehicles ftw.

seriously with 32 guys on a team we dont need 4 tanks manned, 2 apcs, 2 planes manned, 2-4 helis manned and of course not to forget 10 guys waiting for the assets to spawn.

Whos gonna cap the flag?
Right... nobody.

IF there is a map like Kashan with so many vehicles there need to be fewer flags!