Project Reality Forums

Suchar wrote:That's interesting. I would be grateful if you could provide some nicknames.

CptHrki wrote: What we need is admins not listening to anyone and setting alot more votes with no "popular" maps included.

True.

CptHrki;2200586 wrote:It's very common to see a vote like Fools Road, Kashan, Ulyanovsk and Kashan will win every single time - stop this and maybe we won't be playing 10% of the maps 80% of the time.

Yes and no. Depends on people on server who vote and how interesting and hard map is. And you can see that in this map vote. Kashan offers fun gameplay, while being easiest map to play whit your standard PR teams. You need solid TANK squad and one useful INF squad and you can carry rest of the team to victory. Fools Road on other hand is also fun map whit great gameplay. Problem comes when you have Militia team that does not know how to use assets to there full potential and then you will see those 400-0 rounds, and nobody likes that. Ulyanovsk is pretty much same story, but much much worse for German side.

Rabbit wrote:Asset whores are the meta right now.

It is much more complicated. In my opinion, almost all 4km maps offer better gameplay, while being noob friendlier compared to 2km and 1km counterparts. And this is main reason why 4km are preferred. They do not offer gameplay where your main will be camped by enemy HAT or combat engineer after first 10 minutes passed, they do not offer gameplay where your team will lose both logis at start of the round because some great genius of the squad leader decided that best idea is to rush enemy 2nd flag. And like always, they will die and puff, you lose 50% of logistic capacity for next 5-10 minutes because some people do not understand difference between map whit and without transport helicopters. Inherently, in this state of PR player base, 4km are just better for your standard PR player, because they ask you to know pretty much only standard stuff about PR and gameplay that it offers, without using your brain to think about what you just play.

InfantryGamer42 wrote: It is much more complicated. In my opinion, almost all 4km maps offer better gameplay, while being noob friendlier compared to 2km and 1km counterparts. And this is main reason why 4km are preferred. They do not offer gameplay where your main will be camped by enemy HAT or combat engineer after first 10 minutes passed, they do not offer gameplay where your team will lose both logis at start of the round because some great genius of the squad leader decided that best idea is to rush enemy 2nd flag. And like always, they will die and puff, you lose 50% of logistic capacity for next 5-10 minutes because some people do not understand difference between map whit and without transport helicopters. Inherently, in this state of PR player base, 4km are just better for your standard PR player, because they ask you to know pretty much only standard stuff about PR and gameplay that it offers, without using your brain to think about what you just play.

Rabbit wrote:I would hardly say they are noob friendly. The only great 4km maps for inf are burger sands and black gold.

Rabbit wrote:I also don't understand how you could say a 4km with tanks, jets, helicopters are good for noobs, its very much throwing them into the meat grinder.

Rabbit wrote:Hat base rape is generally more prevalent do to poor design.

Rabbit wrote:Yeah but Ulyanovsk is one of those shit main bases maps.

InfantryGamer42 wrote:All 2km are shit main bases maps. Thats why gameplay on those maps suffers. If you add logi issues, those maps just play worse compared to 4km maps. In my oppinion thats where reason for popularity of 4km maps comes from. In general, most 2km asset balance needs to be rebalanced to make them better and more competitive to 4km maps.

Rabbit wrote:That's crazy. Granted most of the 2km are older and with gameplay changes they haven't aged well.

Rabbit wrote:Grozny Mil base is solid af.

Rabbit wrote:Iron Ridge has 2 good mains.

Rabbit wrote: Nuijamaa RU main is just fine.

Rabbit wrote:They just need updated main bases
that offer many different path options right away rather than just 1 or 2 choke points.

John_PILOT1 wrote:okay okay guys

i think that this is a PR1.6 thread so

John_PILOT1 wrote:Please, can someone say about the Fast Ropes? Will We have it in 1.6?This will change the way we use the choppers. So, please put this in this release

transpilot wrote:Most servers dont allow to shoot into Dod or rush the first flag in the beginning.

transpilot wrote: maps being noob friendly is the funniest thing ive read the last months.

transpilot wrote:INF has 5min to deploy on a position and another 5min to be able to do something on 4km maps.

transpilot wrote: After that you mostly have APC/IFVs overwatching your location.

transpilot wrote: 10 min later some tanks you most likely cant kill will frag you.

transpilot wrote:Once your asset squads lose the fight its rape time because the enemy assets wont play save anymore, they will push any tow location, they will drive next to your squad trying to hide.

transpilot wrote:Have you ever tried to flank with your INF squad on Bijar, Kashan, Kami, Silent? Doenst work because you have to cross several 100m on open ground.

Yes, did it many times successfully either on foot or by taking light vehicles whit logi to build two FOBs behind enemy lines or by taking trans choper on risky flank. Did they all worked. Of course not, but it is not like I am as squad leader forced to hold one spot without ability to move.

Khami for instance is great map for pulling flanks in light vehicles and build FOBs behind enemy flag to attack it from different direction, but flanks on foot are not impossible if you do them right.
Problem of Bijar and Silent is that they lack enough light vehicles that would increase mobility of the infantry on those maps.
Kashan on other hand is not map for flanking, but not because of assets, but because of the map design that supports super FOB building and forward pushing. It is not impossible, but you really need to have great team that shares any info that they have to pull it out.

transpilot;2200675 wrote: learn2play INF combat and you will enjoy 2km maps

Yeah, because it is easier to "learn2play" broken 2km maps that nobody plays because they heave clear issues instead of fixing them. Nice mate, whit advice like that we can only keep playing same 15 maps and pointing fingers at asset whores, servers, admins, DEVs or who else people want to blame.

BigBigMonkeyMan wrote:Yeah I don't normally play assets, and never base my vote for a map on trying to get access to any vehicles, so I usually prefer 2km maps because the outcome of the game is not hinged on the performance of vehicle squads but rather the competency of inf squads and squad leaders closely cooperating.

You see effectiveness of same infantry squad if you put it on 2km and 4km maps is pretty much same. There effectiveness is directly connected to there competency, not to the size of the map, or if I put it different way, there ability to use assets and resources (crates) that are given to them by there faction on different map. If squad leader knows importance of FOBs in the game, knows how to effectively use logistic trucks and trans chopers, has solid map knowledge, knows how to lead one squad he and his squad will perform same on what ever map you put which ever size.

What actually effects performance of INF squads and there team in general is teambalance (which is server based issue on which game cant do match), amount of assets and resources on map and specifically to 2km maps, main exits design. And these are big issues of 2km maps. Poor teambalance leads to bad squad leaders in general. Bigger amount of assets and resources actually gives better balance overall if done right, as you give your squad leaders more options how to play map in that match and more ways to counter enemy assets. Many 2km maps have bad asset and resource balance, leading to not great gameplay. Bad main exits design is self explained.

transpilot wrote:A great CAS squad or tank squad on Khami, Kashan, or OP Thunder can save a poorly coordinated team.

Believe me they can not. You team pretty much always has ability to counter CAS or tank squad. Different thing is if your team does not use assets given effectively. Even If bad team has great CAS squad or tank squad, you still need at least one good infantry squad to even try to carry your team. Without that one good infantry squad, you are pretty much useless.

transpilot wrote:I am all for teams and squad leaders that don't work together being punished with a loss because team communication is something that makes this game great and should be encouraged.

Yes, that is all good and teams should be punished for not communicating. But problem of most 2km maps is that if you do not play right way whit your assets on map you will lose, effectively being punished by map design.

transpilot wrote:It doesnt make sense to discuss with simple people but Ill give it 1 more try.

transpilot wrote:Having played this game for a decade public, tournaments, events, scrims,..... I can tell you as one of the few proper INF SLs that I avoid playing INF on most 4km maps and open assets squads.

transpilot wrote:On 2km maps you also have asset layouts but you are facing 1-2 heavy assets.

transpilot wrote:Since your teams also has some you can always avoid them.

transpilot wrote:Most 2km maps have also much better terrain for INF (forests, cities, hill formations)

transpilot wrote:Most 2km maps have also much better terrain for INF (forests, cities, hill formations)

transpilot wrote:On 4km maps you mostly have 1-3 big compounds where all the INF squads fight surrounded by hills with open area all around.

transpilot wrote:Furthermore you have 5-10 heavy assets spread around the map that will easily spot and shoot any transport asset.

transpilot wrote:FOBs getting long range camped and so on.

transpilot wrote:I have never heard any other proper INF player saying: 4km maps are so much better to play INF.

transpilot wrote:And yes a very skilled asset squad can carry a team.

Rabbit wrote:I simply think the thing we should focus on is that a lot of main bases suck in 2km maps and need addressing.

InfantryGamer42 wrote:LoL. What does not make sense is to discuss whit guy that does not understand point of this thread. This is not one more thread about 2km vs 4km maps and which is better. This is thread about 2km, how to fix issues they clearly have and improve them, so they appeal to
larger player base, because it is clear from how people vote during map votes, they prefer to play same 2km maps, when 4km does not win vote, again not counting INS maps that are separate story for themselves. But you are constantly pushing into other way, because apparently to you, all 2km maps are greatest thing PR offers and that playerbase is just bunch of noobs that are not able to acknowledge there greatest and they just want to play same well known maps because noobs... No, I shared similar opinion for long time, but I shake it off as it is deeply wrong. Reason 2km maps are not played as they should is result of main design and not proper asset balance, which result in much worse gameplay that 2km maps support. And they all have great potential, but they need main redesigns and new asset balance to make them appealing again.



Your loss. Not my problem that it is hard for you to play as infantry on 4km because of some issue that great squad leader as you claim should be able to deal whit.



And that is why pretty much all 2km maps are best tank maps we have in game. Because you just need to kill tank, preferably by camping enemy main whit HAT or combat engineer whit mines and you can put your brain on autopilot farming infantry around map whit no counters.



Only way to avoid tank on 2km map is to destroy it. And 2km do not offer enough assets to do that, except camping enemy main.






Can not agree whit that. Map design is same, only difference is distance that you need to go from A to B flag.



And you are still pushing same desert 4km maps, like we do not have other 4km maps, that are really good for all parties. And even on those "3 compound maps" you can still pull flank.



You are talking like two completely different games are playing in same time on same map, when both INF and assets are playing for objectives, and they will concentrate around two active flags. And If you have good information about enemy positions and good plan you will be able to flank enemy whit trans, jeep or any other vehicle that can hold passengers. But If you do not have good information, I do not see what is problem in getting ambushed, as long as it is not in front or near main.



So when enemy MG gunner is long range camping FOB that is good, but when asset is doing that that is bad? Nice double standards.



And I am not claiming that. I am claiming that 4km maps offer better and more balanced gameplay for all roles that PR supports, as long as we suppose that we are talking about two balanced teams.



Only if enemy team is heavily unbalanced in favor of friendly team. If we have two balanced teams ability of asset squad to carry is much smaller.



I do not think that is only issue whit them. Some 2km maps need some changes in asset balance.