too many new Ins. maps?

ma21212 · Post by **ma21212** » 2009-11-06 17:48

Correct me if im wrong but alot of the upcoming maps are Ins. All the new maps Ive read about that are coming in .9 are Ins. (from IDF fighting Hammas to Canadian Forces in Afganistan) other community faction modders are doing the same thing (Germany/ADF/French etc.) . I havint seen any new MEC or PLA maps cuz thats more fun imo. so...are Devs keepin quite about them..?

boilerrat · Post by **boilerrat** » 2009-11-06 17:53

A lot of people I have played with absolutely hate the PLA, along with me because jungle fighting feels very slow and boring. Like in River qwai, for the first like 20 minutes or more there usually isn't any kills.

Another reason mappers might be making more insurgency maps, is it is just much more popular than PLA and MEC maps, look at the "CHICAGO INSURGENCY .87" server, their server is full just about always and has players at pretty much anytime (Besides sunday at 5am

).

Look at this: http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?=undefined&vars=gamevariant=PR&game=bf2

According to their data, the chicago insurgency server is doing very well.

gazzthompson · Post by **gazzthompson** » 2009-11-06 17:56

boilerrat wrote:A lot of people I have played with absolutely hate the PLA, along with me because jungle fighting feels very slow and boring. Like in River qwai, for the first like 20 minutes or more there usually isn't any kills.

i cant speak for others but PLA is my favorite team as the QBZ pwns everything.

Cheditor · Post by **Cheditor** » 2009-11-06 17:58

Well someone correct me if i'm wrong but afaik hammas are a unconventional force like chechans.

Hoboknighter · Post by **Hoboknighter** » 2009-11-06 18:00

Well, there is about a 2:1 ratio for AAS to Ins maps, and while AAS can be more varied in terms of gameplay, the Insurgency maps tend to follow the same pattern and need some more variety.

ma21212 · Post by **ma21212** » 2009-11-06 18:05

i mean...MEC/PLA got jets tanks etc. to deal with BLUFOR and this means complicated battles but Chechs play with a "Ins." style gameplay (like using spandrel to ambush T90s)

gazzthompson · Post by **gazzthompson** » 2009-11-06 18:09

boilerrat wrote:
Another reason mappers might be making more insurgency maps, is it is just much more popular than PLA and MEC maps, look at the "CHICAGO INSURGENCY .87" server, their server is full just about always and has players at pretty much anytime (Besides sunday at 5am ).

Look at this: Servers playing BattleField 2 | Server / Player Search | Game-Monitor.com :: Server Search, Monitoring, Stats and more

According to their data, the chicago insurgency server is doing very well.

that logic is flawed. its full because its unique (only a couple of INS only servers). there are no other INS servers in the top 23 PR servers (two of which include muttrah only servers).

also remember, the "PLA and MEC maps" also have US team on them which people love to *** there pants over...

ma21212 · Post by **ma21212** » 2009-11-06 18:13

ummm the Chicago MIXED server is always full too. both are full that done mean Ins is more fun. both are fun im just sayin thier are TOO MANY new ins. maps i havint seen any new normal maps

Elektro · Post by **Elektro** » 2009-11-06 18:31

ma21212 wrote:but Chechs play with a "Ins." style gameplay (like using spandrel to ambush T90s)

using a TOW is insurgency style ? Then the US army is quite an insurgent groupe

(TOW on Ejod & Qwai)-^

Snazz · Post by **Snazz** » 2009-11-07 04:53

ma21212 wrote:All the new maps Ive read about that are coming in .9 are Ins

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... e-wip.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... y-wip.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... a-wip.html

ma21212 wrote:I havint seen any new MEC or PLA maps cuz thats more fun imo.

Chinese city - Project Reality Forums

In addition 9/17 of these maps are AAS: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-general-discussion/59858-lets-discuss-trend-towards-less-less-assets-maps.html#post1025000

Also plenty of community AAS maps being made here: Community Maps - Project Reality Forums

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2009-11-07 05:51

well it makes sense that most new maps are going to be ins maps because thats the type of warfare that is going on right now and it inspires these new maps. in the past decade or so we havent seen much in the way of conventional vs conventional fighting especially when it comes to larger armies like the US and PLA.

but i also think its amazing so many people dont like PLA maps or jungle maps in general.

Bringerof_D · Post by **Bringerof_D** » 2009-11-07 08:58

yeah, you cant say nobody likes PLA maps, i love them personaly which ever team i'm on. preferred PLA side but meh. i love jungle warfare

but yeah since this is "Project Reality" i suppose it makes most sense to work on more insurgency style maps for now.

Sprats · Post by **Sprats** » 2009-11-07 10:34

In my opinion, there should be less insurgent maps. I mean or at least some of them should be changed. Talking about PLA, i think it has enough maps, but some of them are boring because they are infantry only, like sunset city and that other map. But getting back to insurgency, i think there are too many factions, game as insurgent is not easy (thanks to those n00bs who give out cache location or ghosting for a friend in the other team) and I see some people are just trying to make it even harder by adding more enemies.

aperson444 · Post by **aperson444** » 2009-11-07 23:30

I agree to some extent. I want to see more Unconventional forces and less Iraq/Afghanistan. However, i want to see a few larger INS maps.

I really want to see a Russia vs Blufor map. Like a large one with combined arms. That would be badass.

Jigsaw · Post by **Jigsaw** » 2009-11-08 02:06

[quote=""'[R-COM"]Cheditor;1177067']Well someone correct me if i'm wrong but afaik hammas are a unconventional force like chechans.[/quote]

Hmm, you are kinda half right... but by the same token half wrong

But really addressing the OP's original point, below is as clear an answer as one can give. There are plenty of AAS maps in the works with a great variety of scenarios. Keep in mind that not all maps in development are revealed to the public at all until release (reference Asad Khal and Kozelsk in 0.85).

[quote="Snazz""]https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... e-wip.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... y-wip.html
https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f196-p ... a-wip.html

Chinese city - Project Reality Forums

In addition 9/17 of these maps are AAS: https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f10-pr-general-discussion/59858-lets-discuss-trend-towards-less-less-assets-maps.html#post1025000

Also plenty of community AAS maps being made here: Community Maps - Project Reality Forums[/quote]

Imo we have enough maps featuring the PLA, they are currently second only to the US Army in the number of maps that they have:

11 US Army
10 PLA
4 US Marines
6 Brits
6 MEC
4 Iraqi Insurgents
2 Taliban
3 Russians/Chechens

Additionally (and again imho) the MEC should really be phased out completely given the fact that they are PR's only artificial faction and therefore by this very nature go against one of the stated aims of the mod: realism. It really is one of the mods biggest inconsistencies, and one of the few things remaining from vanilla BF2 that we have still been unable to shake off.

Hresvelgr · Post by **Hresvelgr** » 2009-11-08 02:10

I actually kind of agree with that. Not that they should be taken out, but perhaps converted into an Iranian faction considering that'd be both realistic and they already are armed with weapons Iran uses. Except the Havoc of course. Which could be swapped for a reskinned Cobra. I mean, Iran is both more realistic than a war with China, we have the tools to put them in ASAP, and people would miss the MEC if they were removed entirely.

charliegrs · Post by **charliegrs** » 2009-11-08 02:35

Hresvelgr wrote:I actually kind of agree with that. Not that they should be taken out, but perhaps converted into an Iranian faction considering that'd be both realistic and they already are armed with weapons Iran uses. Except the Havoc of course. Which could be swapped for a reskinned Cobra. I mean, Iran is both more realistic than a war with China, we have the tools to put them in ASAP, and people would miss the MEC if they were removed entirely.

you completely just said everything i was about to say. as it is right now, the mec has almost the same loadout that the current iranian army has, so i dont think it would take much to just change them. also i think it would then open the door for other middle eastern armies, like the saudis, syrians and egyptians etc. to have faction made for them because right now they are all wrapped up into the MEC.

just imagine a israeli vs syrian army map. that would rock. merkavas vs t72s or t90s whatever syria has now. or israel vs iran. saudi arabia vs iran. etc. and sorry for completely derailing this thread.

Hitman.2.5 · Post by **Hitman.2.5** » 2009-11-08 02:44

charliegrs wrote:just imagine a israeli vs syrian army map. that would rock. merkavas vs t72s or t90s whatever syria has now. or israel vs iran. saudi arabia vs iran. etc. and sorry for completely derailing this thread.

you got a time machine to take us back to 1973 ? XD

>para< · Post by **>para<** » 2009-11-08 02:48

PLA gonna be allways my favorite the best faction in PR

abbadon101 · Post by **abbadon101** » 2009-11-08 13:45

I think changing the MEC to and Iranian faction sounds like a plan. As it has been said there is little difference, a couple of tweeks to skins (I know not how much work that would be).

I would like to see a few INS vs BLUFOR where its not insurgency game mode based but random ***, so it would be secure and hold all the compounds to win (variant to the current system of find and destroy all the caches).

This way the INS could reclaim objectives but instead of having unlimited tickets the would have the same as BLUFOR + 10%, and would have random spawn points as opposed to the BLUFOR's main base. The lack of heavy assets VS the random spawn locations should balance out with tweeking, and it would hopefully bring some interesting tactics and games.

too many new Ins. maps?

too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?

Re: too many new Ins. maps?