Project Reality Forums

ok firstly thank you to the DEVS for all their work , so heres my initial thoughts on 0.6

1) I feel some of the smaller maps contain too much armor and vehicles, a great example is EJOD, I was playing yesturday on EJOD , and we were totally owned by armor, EJOD is normally renowned for its infantry battles.. we could 'nt have a decent infantry battle coz some tank from a really long distance kept taking us out, I know that to counteract that both sides have the same amount of armor, that is two tanks and apcs, and its about supporting your tanks by constanly repairing them...but what happend was that once our tanks were taken out, we were totally obliterated by the enemy armor.. and they only had two .......

I feel that this would be a regular occurance on small maps, where one team destroys the other teams armor assets and then its constant pawnge for the team that still has the tanks and then it totally sucks for infantry

it takes a long time for armor to respawn so there was nothing we could do but keep getting constanly kil led..

I persoanally think these smaller maps would play better with less armor assest, more infantry fire fights....so on a map like EJOD only one tank and one APC.. and this also applies to other smaller maps like gulf of oman and the chinese oil field one.. having one tank makes more sense I think.. coz again one tank is powerful enough for a map like this and it also gives infantry on the ground a fighting chance making for a more better and balanced game..

and again this would apply to all smaller maps,

2) gulf of oman, even though this map is a legend, I think for PR it just does ;nt fit, the control points are way too close, and with all the scopes in pr , this map is too small and tight for a good game and again way too much armor and air assets.. this map would do well where more infantry combat is encouraged.. the way PR is going , only the larger maps seem to best fit this style of gameplay...

3) I have noticed the running speed has been increased, from the last beta, persoanlly i prefferd the slower speed as it I think it made it les arcadey.. maybe im wrong here..

4) I know this has been mentioned before , but I will mention it again , I feel there are way too many spawn points, maybe on really big maps this would make sense, but for the moment where most of the maps are of medium to small size , its makes for a more tactical game having fewer spawn points.. persoanlly I would like to see the APC and comander truck spawn point to be gone.. and only bunkers , firebases and rally points should be ok spawn points...

5) AUDIO: when talking on the radio, sometimes the 3rd person sound seems to be out of place, and really loud or sometimes too quiet... all the other sounds are great and I love them, but the radio sounds just seem out of place... also a suggestion for the sound guys, to make the Jets louder and other 3P sounds, then would it be possible to lower the volume of the 1p sound we hear when we fire our guns, so therefore naturally we would incraese our volumes and all other sounds would sound loud....

6) oh thats it

your thoughts please gentlemen thank you

You do have a point that with some of the smaller maps armour can be a bit much. The flip side is that if your team is careless and losses it's armour early the other team should enjoy the advantage. I haven't had a chance to play Ejod yet in 0.6 so I can't really say how it plays. Same with Oman but I have a feeling your write about Oman, it was close with the old view distance and rifles.

I have to admit i enjoy the infantry heavy maps more than ones with too much armor on, so that may sway me in a direction to agree with you there but i think these are valid points

1) i would love to see decreased armor on the smaller maps, the new view ranges, which i like, on vehicles just takes some of the fun out of the game on the smaller maps, why cant we just have some infanty / soft top vehicles maps

2 & 3 i agree with

4) i have read a thread where the devs agree and i think they are planning to remove some

I think some of the servers (tactical gamer was one) used to alter map assets (more jeeps, no armour, no attack heli's) - is this still possible with the new server distribution policy?

willgar wrote:I think some of the servers (tactical gamer was one) used to alter map assets (more jeeps, no armour, no attack heli's) - is this still possible with the new server distribution policy?

Interesting question

I have played a few hours of .6. I really enjoyed being the XO and helping out the CO (GhostDog) on K. Desert. Boring for others, great for me. This and Al-BAs I like. IMO, the isurgent mode is great. This set-up is very realistic.

However, when I played H. Providence on AAS, I found the action too fast for me. Typical, every squad running at one time trying to get to to a location. But that is my issue.

But, I was on the insurgent team, and I do not feel the civilian kits fit here. A tactic my SL was useing was having the civilans take point on attacks, and keep the Brits honest. Sadly, this is not realistic TO ME, thus hurting the gameplay.

I feel Al-Bas really does a great job with the civilian kit.
IMO, H. Providence is too close quaters combat for the civlian kit. Civilians tend to leave the combat area before the battle takes place. Too much civilan point man stuff. Maybe I need to play it more.

That and the fast pace of the battle will prevent me from playing this map. Instead, I'll focus on the larger maps that I tend to like.

armor maps are very enjoyable.

to me, small 32 player maps are the best of the bunch but some maps are not suited for this. we were promised that 32 player maps will have a linear type of flag capture because we only have 2 squads.

some 32 player maps demand you to capture 2 cps and defend 1 which is not possible with just 2 squads. which defeats logic

I don't think the running speed has been increased from 607-609. They did fix it so the running animation kicks off when you run though.