Project Reality Forums

so? what excactly makes a map above the others?

i want you to tell about something from your favourite maps that adds "that little extra"

a special place on the map? a certain ambient? overall feeling?

name something! and pics are recommended

Plausibility, it doesnt have to be real....but could it be real? - kashan bunkers for example

Scene setting, something happened here, e.g. Fallujah west car wreck scenes

variety, long range engagemnets and CQB, like beirut

ambiance, like Kozelsk or gaza.

the guy calling for prayer time on ramiel is awesome ambience

the bear on asad khal is in a league of its own

For me the maps that are fun as inf, armour or air.

Kashan Jabal and Muttrah.

As the three types can be effective and are not overpowered by an enemy asset (the only exception is perhaps the BTR on Muttrah - so often three sat in main).

On each of these maps inf has a fair chance to take down armour and air assets and vica versa.

I know a lot of people hate on the map, but Korengal Valley is one of my favs (if not my absolute fav) setting. Now the map layout may not be perfect, but the scenery is what I'd imagine being as close to the real deal as you can get w.o putting your own boots down on Afghan soil.

At the same time, less plausible maps like Beirut do have their appeal. It just seems to draw me in a lot less when there is no actual history behind the conflict. Although Beirut may not be the most realistic confrontation the map layout however has a rather nice flow of combat, which would probably be the single most important aspect of any mappers baby.

So imho atmosphere/scenery are just as important as functionality/balance and the natural flow of combat.

For me it's maps with an Eastern European/Russian feel to it, Fools Road and Iron Ridge especially, but Dragon Fly and Kozelsk as well. Fools Road has the most credibility for me, besides a nice Eastern European feeling to it. Iron Ridge has a great ambiance to it as well and the overgrown highrise areas are awe-some, not to mention the Prypiat Ferris wheel etc. Dragon Fly does have it's fantastic city, but doesnt really do it for me credibility wise . More generally though i'd say that what makes a map really good is attention to detail (within constraints of object limits etc.) on aesthetic and gameplay levels.

What makes a map great? Sinking carriers is always a good move I find

But seriously what makes a good map is a lot of factors that needs to be done right. For starters detail of the map, quality, making it feel like a real place and then lots of other factors like ambient sounds, effects and of course, gameplay is a huge factor. Not one single factor on its own will make a map great, it needs to be a combination of getting everything right.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:What makes a map great? Sinking carriers is always a good move I find

hahahaha

you were realy thinking i would put it in didn`t you?

After seeing what else you had done and multiple posts saying you where going to put it in until I many other people gave you loads of reasons why you shouldn't do it and then you resisting thous comments, yes.

hehe no harm done lets get back on topic

I think he got carried(get it) away

I think a map is great where you are walking distance from every place you can dig in and fight, and then i agree with Rhino, its the little things, if a area looks too empty i don't get a feeling of this being a real place

Well, there must be a few things.

-When I play PR or FH2, I want to be transported to that time and location. Immersible scenery is key. If I see (in an extreme example) a P-51 flying over Kashan, it breaks my concentration on the map, b/c I stop and think to myself, that isn't supposed to be there.

-Also, a map has to have re-playability. If a map feels the same on the 25th round as it did on rounds 1-24, you can be I won't play it a 26th time.

But as Rhino said, there are a large number of things that work together to make a great map.

Zeno wrote:so? what excactly makes a map above the others?

name something! and pics are recommended

In accordance with the OP:

Psyrus wrote:In accordance with the OP:

ok vegetation and transport i get... but babies???

In regards to playing the map:

There needs to be a sense that the player can replay it over and over yet still get a different fight.

There needs to be multiple, linear-based points around the map which centralize fighting, but still give option for flanking to over take those points. A good example of this was on Mashtuur City, where the bridges divided the city, but you could still take the roads on the outskirts, or take a chopper. Rudd has done this well by putting features on Burning Sands like the airfield and the military base, which have to be taken before advancing further out into the desert.

It has to have a unique mix of vehicles whilst till maintaining infantry as the king, so without them the team will lose. SEagle has done this pretty well as the Infantry can stay in the village and not be pushed out without other infantry pushing them out.

In regards to the environment:

Each map has to have a core point in it that signifies the reason for each faction fighting on it. An example being the Kashan bunkers, only problem being there isn't anything in them which leads the player to think wtf are we doing. I think backstories are core to this and their removal unfortunately destroyed alot of immersion in PR. Hell even in vBF2 it felt like there was a reason to fight, especially with maps like Dalian Plant.

Parts of the map should show that there was at some point (or still is) a human population present. This is done through garbage tips and cars outside homes, healthy potplants and clotheslines with washing on them. Many players don't notice these things, but you want to appeal to the minority who do.

Generally for me the best maps which have a good balance of immersion and gameplay are Silent Eagle and Lashkar. Silent has great combined-asset warfare while Lashkar is very vivid in its appearance, while it is a bit imbalanced towards the Taliban.

Hope this helps, good luck with Cold Response.

Zeno wrote:ok vegetation and transport i get... but babies???

I think he means they have to be small, and knowing Psydog he means 1-2km.

Immersion.

It let's you get away with some things, if everybody goes 'oh pretty'.






Just kidding, but every time I play a map I notice stuff others usually wouldn't, like lightmap artifacts, model errors etc... I played vBF2 SP once and when I zoomed in with a gun I totally lost my focus because I noticed some crappy triangle lightmap sections on an archway above from what I was shooting at, so thats a good example of what I mean.

Like Rhino said, little detail matters just as much as big stuff, sounds, ambient triggers, ambiance in general, I find well tweaked undergrowth adds a whole level of immersion etc.

I think the more the map is convincing, the better it is. Of course I don't really apply that to my maps, because I honestly think there's something wrong with each one of them, ask Rudd.

I think the best thing you can possibly do is make an immersive environment. There shouldn't be anywhere on a map where players are walking through and it's boring (unless it's a desert, in which case there needs to be plenty of transport). If you expect players to spend any reasonable amount of time somewhere, that place needs to be interesting enough that people don't turn their brains off

the absence of a river running down the middle (over done)

but seriously i think that if you have a certain place (that isn't a flag) that needs to be controlled in order for a team to win or have the odds; a secondary objective to the typical flag hopping.

qwai does this well with its bridges and main roads.

To make a map decent, it needs to have gameplay + replayability. "Immersive" environments are great to have but if the map is not fun, you may as well just study a postcard for an hour.

To achieve a "fun" map on Project Reality, one must first ensure that the map runs smoothly, as it is impossible to fully enjoy a map that lags the hell out of everybody playing it. Case in point, Fallujah West - .9 brought about a huge drop in popularity for the map despite gameplay adjustments because virtually no one can run it.

Secondly, replayability is a key factor in determining the success of a map. Contrary to popular belief, simply randomizing the AAS points on a map does not increase the replay value. One must lay out the flags in a rational, organized fashion that will put at least 75% of the map in play. That way, players will fight in more than just one portion of the map, leading to exciting and interesting games where both teams push and pull in a sort of "tug of war" effect (Muttrah Citty, Qwai River pre 0.8 )

Lastly, good maps are usually ones where all assets can be used effectively. For example, every asset in Muttrah is, if used correctly, highly effective. However, on many maps there are several "useless" assets that are ineffective regardless of how they are used. M113s, Chinese .50 cal APC's, etc. are very weak assets and are rarely used to good effect. This may not destroy the gameplay of the map, but it certainly lessens the probability of achieving the developers intent of either balanced asymmetrical or symmetrical warfare.