The BIG maps - thoughts and issues. - Page 6

HughJass · 01-14-2008, 12:10 AM

good suggestion kill roy. Maybe consider all the empty space in the north west? try and think of something that can be possibly placed there or what cps could go there.

[R-DEV]Ninja2dan · 01-14-2008, 01:18 AM

I'm not surprised to still be seeing people complain about the larger-scale maps like Kashan. Too many players can't get the vBF2 out of their blood, and have trouble accepting what realism means. It's the same reason people are now complaining that Street was removed.

I'd like to say something to the Dev team about removing Street. THANK YOU GODS OF PR!!! That was the WORST map I've ever seen in any FPS. That map was the opposite of what PR is trying to accomplish. If the game were a Swimsuit contest, with each map being a contestant, Street would have been the butt-ugly transvestite with a beard.

Modern warfare is and always will be a Combined-Arms operation (unless you are an Insurgent, and camels don't count). Even in built-up MOUT areas you still consider the outlying terrain as part of the AO because that area is necessary to maneuver your forces into place. A good example of a reasonable map that supports decent infantry operations is a large city with a wide outlying area where armor and/or APC's can be used, as well as a place to advance to or retreat to if the opposing team controls the inner city.

Infantry-only maps mean either you have a large map with no real means of transport, or you end up with a small map that leads to limited maneuver zones and a "choked" feeling. Street was a perfect example of how NOT to design a map.

Kashan is one of best (if not THE best) maps I have played PR on. If your team uses good communications and leadership you will have a good time. If your team fails at this, then the map will be very boring for many. The key to playing PR and having fun is to ensure you have a good team, and hopefully the new updates will keep the gimps from playing too much. As a former soldier I like the level of realism that PR provides compared to vBF2 and other games of the like. OFP/ArmA was a little bit better, but the engine had serious issues that PR seems to have (for the most part) resolved. So at this time, PR is the best way for me to get back out there and play MilSim without having to wait once a month to head out with a local Guard unit.

As long as the map designer takes into account the important aspects of warfare and all of the associated key points, then the map should play out well. Throw in an awesome team, and you will find that Kashan is by far the best map around. I do agree that the hills above the bunkers are a serious flaw, but with the update to AA it should make things more interesting. Armor camps the hills, jets/helos waste the tanks, AA wastes the air units, grunts waste the AA, circle repeats. If proper combined-arms tactics are used then you should have a good round with enough infantry combat to please most people. Tanks and air units can't take objectives as well as troops can, especially the bunkers. This is what Mech Infantry is for and why it is so necessary on that map.

I do hope to help map designers come up with some new and fun scenarios that will appeal to all players. I remember several good battle drills that we practiced during my time in service, scenarios that would be downright spectacular if portrayed in PR. What must be done now is for players to start suggestions of what they want to see more of in future maps, and for the consultants to help determine which of those suggestions are realistic or not, then the developers to put those good suggestions into play.

If you don't have any prior or current military background, please don't use YouTube or Wiki to argue your points. Instead of insisting that is the way things are, how about asking the real professionals if that is accurate or not. If they agree, then feel free to bring up your point more, and if not, let it go. One thing that bothers me the most on these forums is when little kids that play airsoft try and tell me or other vets how something should be, when we have been there and done that and know how it really is.

[R-DEV]Rhino · 01-14-2008, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HughJass

good suggestion kill roy. Maybe consider all the empty space in the north west? try and think of something that can be possibly placed there or what cps could go there.

I do love how you guys ask for the CPs to be closer together, with also using the NW part of the map, you are saying "the current CPs are too far apart and make it crap, but I would also like to play in the NW side of the map too!", makes loads of sence...

kilroy0097 · 01-15-2008, 10:00 AM

Honestly it's not so much that the CPs are far apart but the general flow of the map. If this real life then obviously moving across terrain like this would be slow, deliberate and be done over days or even weeks. But we can't do that so I attempted to come up with a logical way to get more CPs onto that specific map and not just putting CPs in between stuff without reasons. Strategically hills around outposts are very important for firebase operations and observations. Passes in between mountains are extremely important for ground force transportation. Looking at that map. What is the reason for the Village CP? It has little to no strategic importance unless that small power transformer nearby is the reason. Controlling the lake certainly is not the reason either since Hilltop North is a much better control point of the lake as it overlooks it from a much higher elevation. The Coal Mine could at least be called an energy resource and be held for that reason. I look at the passes in this area to be much more important in order to secure and halt enemy transportation through the area. Control the roads you control the area in a mountainous region. No supplies and support means death after all. This would force the other army to transport via air and risk SAM sites or else traverse around the entire lake which means much harder and longer transport.

Another reason is simply that you have an entire section of the map not used. I would ask myself, why put the work into a section of a map that will never be used? Why was it created? Was there a CP point up there some where in an earlier version?

01-14-2008, 12:10 AM	#51
HughJass Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Under my desk Posts: 2,549	good suggestion kill roy. Maybe consider all the empty space in the north west? try and think of something that can be possibly placed there or what cps could go there.
	To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 1 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-14-2008, 01:18 AM	#52
[R-DEV]Ninja2dan PR Military Adviser Join Date: Oct 2007 United States of America Location: Oregon Posts: 1,015	I'm not surprised to still be seeing people complain about the larger-scale maps like Kashan. Too many players can't get the vBF2 out of their blood, and have trouble accepting what realism means. It's the same reason people are now complaining that Street was removed. I'd like to say something to the Dev team about removing Street. THANK YOU GODS OF PR!!! That was the WORST map I've ever seen in any FPS. That map was the opposite of what PR is trying to accomplish. If the game were a Swimsuit contest, with each map being a contestant, Street would have been the butt-ugly transvestite with a beard. Modern warfare is and always will be a Combined-Arms operation (unless you are an Insurgent, and camels don't count). Even in built-up MOUT areas you still consider the outlying terrain as part of the AO because that area is necessary to maneuver your forces into place. A good example of a reasonable map that supports decent infantry operations is a large city with a wide outlying area where armor and/or APC's can be used, as well as a place to advance to or retreat to if the opposing team controls the inner city. Infantry-only maps mean either you have a large map with no real means of transport, or you end up with a small map that leads to limited maneuver zones and a "choked" feeling. Street was a perfect example of how NOT to design a map. Kashan is one of best (if not THE best) maps I have played PR on. If your team uses good communications and leadership you will have a good time. If your team fails at this, then the map will be very boring for many. The key to playing PR and having fun is to ensure you have a good team, and hopefully the new updates will keep the gimps from playing too much. As a former soldier I like the level of realism that PR provides compared to vBF2 and other games of the like. OFP/ArmA was a little bit better, but the engine had serious issues that PR seems to have (for the most part) resolved. So at this time, PR is the best way for me to get back out there and play MilSim without having to wait once a month to head out with a local Guard unit. As long as the map designer takes into account the important aspects of warfare and all of the associated key points, then the map should play out well. Throw in an awesome team, and you will find that Kashan is by far the best map around. I do agree that the hills above the bunkers are a serious flaw, but with the update to AA it should make things more interesting. Armor camps the hills, jets/helos waste the tanks, AA wastes the air units, grunts waste the AA, circle repeats. If proper combined-arms tactics are used then you should have a good round with enough infantry combat to please most people. Tanks and air units can't take objectives as well as troops can, especially the bunkers. This is what Mech Infantry is for and why it is so necessary on that map. I do hope to help map designers come up with some new and fun scenarios that will appeal to all players. I remember several good battle drills that we practiced during my time in service, scenarios that would be downright spectacular if portrayed in PR. What must be done now is for players to start suggestions of what they want to see more of in future maps, and for the consultants to help determine which of those suggestions are realistic or not, then the developers to put those good suggestions into play. If you don't have any prior or current military background, please don't use YouTube or Wiki to argue your points. Instead of insisting that is the way things are, how about asking the real professionals if that is accurate or not. If they agree, then feel free to bring up your point more, and if not, let it go. One thing that bothers me the most on these forums is when little kids that play airsoft try and tell me or other vets how something should be, when we have been there and done that and know how it really is.

01-15-2008, 10:00 AM	#54
kilroy0097 Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Bryan/College Station, TX Posts: 457	Honestly it's not so much that the CPs are far apart but the general flow of the map. If this real life then obviously moving across terrain like this would be slow, deliberate and be done over days or even weeks. But we can't do that so I attempted to come up with a logical way to get more CPs onto that specific map and not just putting CPs in between stuff without reasons. Strategically hills around outposts are very important for firebase operations and observations. Passes in between mountains are extremely important for ground force transportation. Looking at that map. What is the reason for the Village CP? It has little to no strategic importance unless that small power transformer nearby is the reason. Controlling the lake certainly is not the reason either since Hilltop North is a much better control point of the lake as it overlooks it from a much higher elevation. The Coal Mine could at least be called an energy resource and be held for that reason. I look at the passes in this area to be much more important in order to secure and halt enemy transportation through the area. Control the roads you control the area in a mountainous region. No supplies and support means death after all. This would force the other army to transport via air and risk SAM sites or else traverse around the entire lake which means much harder and longer transport. Another reason is simply that you have an entire section of the map not used. I would ask myself, why put the work into a section of a map that will never be used? Why was it created? Was there a CP point up there some where in an earlier version?

Sponsored Links