Project Reality Forums

One of the things that really doesn't fit is BF2's map designs and PR's gameplay. After playing for about 45 minutes to an hour on Gloryhoundz, its almost impossible for the assaulting team to even make a push. Sometimes its downright frustrating.

So I was thinking, the first thing we should do here is reduce the amount of flags dramtically. Battles should be held over two to three flags as the most, even on 64 player maps. Also, increase the flag radius on control points. Once you get a bunch of guys on a flag, it usually takes some concentrated fire and some grenades to obliterate them.

Now besides control points, theres this serious lack of cover. How about adding some static objects such as destroyed vehicles. I mean, are we battling in ghost towns or what? There should be like 3 to 5 broken down vehicles littered around the streets. This would no doubt help when "crossing the street". Also how about more concealment postions that soldiers can take bases of fire from. Most objects already in vanilla BF2 can't be seen over while crouched, so sandbags, objects against the walls, peek holes, sand dunes... stuff like that helps. As shown the pictures below.




Here we see a nice little sleeper hole of sorts. Could be placed around main base camps and what not on certain maps.





Sandbags on roofs. Its very easy to see players firing from rooftops in these games.






This is what I mean by having these "dunes" of sorts (don't know what you would actually call em). Basically on more open-ended maps, these can extend across key battle points.





This is the "peek hole" style of concealment. Basically Its just your rifle and your head sticking out.




Having object that allow you to shoot over walls while revealing as little of yourself as possible would be nice.



Also, how about some sort of tunnel network for the MEC faction.

I've covered alot of concealment type options that I can think of. It would make battles alot more intersting with stuff like this.

About the control points, doesn't the AAS mode solve this in a way? Only one flag to go for at a time...love that. Creates a cool "front-line" effect I think.

It doesn't really work IMO. Once the assaulting team caps the first flag, its impossible to maintain a defence and assault with only 32 or less players. Recently I was playing on the Sharqi Penisula. I was playing with the MEC team.

We kept on capturing the city entrance, but once we moved to take over the surveillance post, USMC took back the city entrace despite the fact that we had the surveillance post neutrailzed. Not to mention the defending team has a load of flags that they can spawn on. I would prefer if the option to take flags in random order was brought back. With a smaller amount of flags you can alsmot "concentrate" firefights but not force players to go after one flag. Either that or create seperate game modes.

Well, those look more like graves.

This option is still available at the desicion of server admins. Conquest mode is still available..

On the other hand, if you dont think you'll get a front-line effect with AAS, conquest will not help you at all...and having less flags will still be like AAS...but only with less flags. The games will end quicker because of the longer respawn times, and can make it sort of unbalanced imo.

If you want less flags, there're always 16/32 player maps where you can cap the max number of players to 40, 50 or more.

-Ghostrider

i liek the idea of tunnels. sorta like the viet cong had

I'm not saying there isn't a front line effect with AAS. I'm just trying to address the fact that half the flags on the maps are useless. I've yet to see the MEC gather more than the first flag on Strike at Karkand 2. The maps I actually see being equally balanced are usually those where most of the flags start out as neutral.

Map adjustments will come in 030 to help with this.

egg

A tunnel network is not possibal in BF2 unless the whole tunnle network is a modle with the ground also modled above it. Somthing thats very hard to do well and would take alot of time doing.

As for the rest of you see it in BF2 for most. Some you dont.

Terranova wrote:

The Warrior you see below the British sniper has a guy with an L85A2 in front of it i have the picture, i am getting a scanner in april ill get the picture on then.

Speeking of scanners i can put some pics of South Africa, Britian and America up (including if my dad takes me i can get a few pictures of Baggington Airport and the massive Vulcan bomber that they have on display!)

Well if you go through the statics of BF2 there are serval tunnel entrances in work.

'[R-DEV wrote:Happy']Well if you go through the statics of BF2 there are serval tunnel entrances in work.

but untextured and if you put them in, you cant put terrain ontop of them....

AznLB wrote:
Well, those look more like graves.

That's why they call 'em ranger graves

'[R-DEV wrote:Happy']Well if you go through the statics of BF2 there are serval tunnel entrances in work.

There are alot of cool unskinned things, like control towers, that didnt get finished... maybe some one could skin them. ]\

The sandbags on roof tops is a cool idea, but is realy up to the map makers. I think Rhino's map has sandbags on some roof tops...

=PL=POLSKA wrote:There are alot of cool unskinned things, like control towers, that didnt get finished... maybe some one could skin them. ]\

The sandbags on roof tops is a cool idea, but is realy up to the map makers. I think Rhino's map has sandbags on some roof tops...

1 roof top that had a invisibal wall right where the sandbags are. So i put the sandbags there to cover up this invisbal object so that if you do plan going up there and then aim at a guy and then shoto and you just see a bulliet whole in front of you and think "WTF" it dont look so crappy. Thou there are bits of this invisbal wall (its acturly a sing) sticking out of the top of these sand bags. But not very much.

Also ty you have reminded me about anouther bug i forgot to list on my map

=PL=POLSKA wrote:The sandbags on roof tops is a cool idea, but is realy up to the map makers. I think Rhino's map has sandbags on some roof tops...

Copycat, copycat!

'[R-CON wrote:Rhino']A tunnel network is not possibal in BF2 unless the whole tunnle network is a modle with the ground also modled above it. Somthing thats very hard to do well and would take alot of time doing.

As for the rest of you see it in BF2 for most. Some you dont.

i remember reading a possible workaround to this. have your tunnel entrance warp you to another location, away from the battlezone. in this area, you would have your tunnels just floating there. at each exit of the tunnel, have the players warp back to the playing field.

acadiancrusader wrote:i remember reading a possible workaround to this. have your tunnel entrance warp you to another location, away from the battlezone. in this area, you would have your tunnels just floating there. at each exit of the tunnel, have the players warp back to the playing field.

That sounds like BFv, and this is not the same engine.

I'd love to see more concealment in this game, especially on urban maps. The game Full Spectrum Warriow had lots of concealment.

'[R-CON wrote:Rhino']That sounds like BFv, and this is not the same engine.

what difference does that make? if it's potentially possible, why not explore it further? i'm pretty sure i read it in the BF2 editor forums.

i seriously doubt it was BFv as i hated the game and never played it for more then 2 hours (therefore i cannot see myself reading forums dedicated to the game).