Project Reality Forums

This map looks failed like Karbala, for the reason that PEOPLE DON'T BUILD HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IF THERE IS OPEN TERRAIN AROUND.

PLZ mappers learn this lesson.

Open terrain ----> no high-rise but low village type houses like on Korengal.

No open terrain, either
-because of the terrain form (cfr muttrah 2- you can't build in the hills so people must build high-rise, or
-because the whole map is filled with houses

-----> then use high rise buildings.



It doesn't seem as bad though as Basra and Karbala, 2 maps which totally fail at any realism. Hasn't any of the devs realized this flaw, or talked to the mappers about it, or axed their maps for release? We've seen maps axed which were much better then Karbala, which still is the worst map for it, and which has incredibly tedious gameplay.

Edit: User was warned for a mix of yelling & misspent "fail" ranting. Constructive criticism will get you a lot farther.

Can't believe people really whine at the map before it's even had its time to prove it self, in any way. Just unbellieveable and disgusting... Start mapping your self...

Personally I think it looks promising, but I choose to give anything new in this game the benefit of the doubt.

This map looks failed like Karbala, for the reason that PEOPLE DON'T BUILD HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IF THERE IS OPEN TERRAIN AROUND.

This depends on various factors, including the country's financial, banking and monetary policies, regulatory systems, fuel subsidies and so forth, all of which can affect sprawl to the degree that it isn't impossible to have a high rise next to an open terrain, just as it isn't impossible to have an oversupply of suburban housing and a tendency to oversprawl, like the in the US.

But I agree that on some maps the contrast between non-urban terrain and the city is sometimes a little too stark. I think its for gameplay reasons: The blufor would have hard time winning in maps like Karbala and Basrah if they didn't have terrain where to move freely safe from insurgents.

Yeah I'm not a fan of the 'random high rises in the middle of a desert' thing either, EJOD is another example.

Some suburban/shanty outskirts instead of open desert would be good, just having flat empty areas around a city seems like a waste of map space.

We can tell from the map overview and all the screen shots whether the map looks anything like Beirut or like a realistic city in general. It's not a 'you have to play it first' matter.

I don't mind waiting longer for a map to be finished either, one month is kind of rushed by PR standards.

Mappers has the tendency to scale down their maps alot - and for good reasone. This allows them do have much more freedom to implement any ideas and thoughts they might have for their maps and do alot of different things. Maps like Basrah, Kabala and now Beirut. And some of these play out great and yet look nothing like their names.

If one would want to make a realistic version of one of these maps they would be limited to do only a part of the town or area. Like Fallujah and Korangal. -I personaly enjoy playing these "realistic" maps alot - however i enjoy playing a good round on Basrah (and maybe soon Beirut) just as much.

If a map has a great layout it dosent nesceraly has to look realistic to play great. That being mentioned.. I hate Karbale.

I think people are over analyzing things because they are bored waiting for news on the release... HINT HINT! GIVE US A DATE

I dont care about all those people who think they can do better, if u do then do it urself, the map looks damn good and i cant wait to play it, realistic or not VERY GOOD JOB this is not gonna be the new muttrah but its gonna be the new Beirut
thanks for the effort devs

srr about english

Biggaayal wrote:This map looks failed like Karbala, for the reason that PEOPLE DON'T BUILD HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IF THERE IS OPEN TERRAIN AROUND.

PLZ mappers learn this lesson.

Open terrain ----> no high-rise but low village type houses like on Korengal.

No open terrain, either
-because of the terrain form (cfr muttrah 2- you can't build in the hills so people must build high-rise, or
-because the whole map is filled with houses

-----> then use high rise buildings.



It doesn't seem as bad though as Basra and Karbala, 2 maps which totally fail at any realism. Hasn't any of the devs realized this flaw, or talked to the mappers about it, or axed their maps for release? We've seen maps axed which were much better then Karbala, which still is the worst map for it, and which has incredibly tedious gameplay.

please research before posting

Biggaayal wrote: is filled with houses

-----> then use high rise buildings.

And no one will play that map because it lags.

Seriously - if Qinling lags because it's covered with trees (and they are spread out) what chance do you think people's processors have against an entire city?

Also you're WRONG. Al Basrah is a pretty good representation of the actual city - when you're going in there's some shanties at the side but it's a city that pops out of no where... or didn't you know that Basrah and Beirut are MAJOR CITIES AND THEREFORE HAVE SKY SCRAPERS. ..... fool.

Edit: User was warned for "attitude problem". This is the 2nd member in this very page to get warned. Anyone continuing in this direction will get infracted in the same way. For frak sake people wait until the map is out to start yelling at each other at least ...

Very nice

looking forward to playing Beirut without ping pong balls!!

killonsight95 wrote:please research before posting

That clearly shows a lush mountain range on the other side of the city, supporting his point.

Herbiie wrote:Also you're WRONG. Al Basrah is a pretty good representation of the actual city - when you're going in there's some shanties at the side but it's a city that pops out of no where...

There's only one small area of shanties, distanced away from the city. Show me a reference of high rise buildings right next to open desert.

Herbiie wrote:or didn't you know that Basrah and Beirut are MAJOR CITIES AND THEREFORE HAVE SKY SCRAPERS. ..... fool.

Where did he say they weren't? That wasn't his point at all, BTW don't call other forum users fools because you don't agree with them.

Seeing how people are unable to have a civil discussion on something they haven't even put foot on ... don't you guys feel a tad bit ridiculous ?

Locked.

Edit: a DEV broke my lock it was my shiniest one too !

Roger that, people ---> "constructive criticism" is the word. Thank you.

Negative feedback is also welcome, just stay on topic and dont use bad language. Punish the rule breakers, not the thread =)

Biggaayal wrote:This map looks failed like Karbala, for the reason that PEOPLE DON'T BUILD HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS IF THERE IS OPEN TERRAIN AROUND.

PLZ mappers learn this lesson.

You are wrong on many points. People build high-rises, not because any particular city doesn't have open terrain around, but because of cost or desirability of any particular location is at the premium.
If you take a Europe as an example most cities were walled in for protection, building up was the way to stay within protected walls. Another example is London, they could have build buildings in surrounding countryside, but because proximity to the City, with its financial and government centers, put premium on the land and the only solution was to build up. Similarly in the US or Russia, were most or all major cities were never walled in and spaces are wast and readily available, high-rises are build for their proximity to government and financial centers of the city. Additionally, one of the main reasons for construction of residential high-rises is cost. It is much cheaper to build 2, 5, 10 ten stories buildings, then 2, 5, or 10 one story buildings, both in cost of construction materials and utilities (roads, electrical, sewer, gas and water.) If you doubt any of this, take a look at cost of running connection from the water main to high-rise building vs. cost of connecting neighborhood of one story building to the same main, were each house has to be connected.
In Beirut in particular, while it is blocked by sea and mountains on East and West, they have space to grow North and South. High-rises in the Beirut center are product of the cost consideration, not space limitation.

As an illustration and limiting just to a few desert cities, here are examples of desert cities containing both available open spaces to build and skyscrapers (scroll down in each link for panoramic view):

In the Middle East:
Shibam - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam
Dubai - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dubai
Cairo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo#Geography
Riyadh - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh

In the USA:
Phoenix - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona
Tucson - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson,_Arizona
Las Vegas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas,_Nevada

Of course this has nothing to do with PR or Beirut map, which I think so far looks great, can't wait to play it.

People are being a bit too anal about the realism factor. PR has always been more about gameplay for me than stark realism. However, the stark contrast between high rise buildings and open desert has ruined maps like Karbala, so maybe putting some smaller towns in the desert area might not be a bad idea. I'm still rather dissapointed with the asset setup though...

[R-DEV]Deer wrote:Negative feedback is also welcome, just stay on topic and dont use bad language. Punish the rule breakers, not the thread =)

Next one won't be an infraction but a one-day ban. Play nice, or go play outside.

Better suggestion - banned from playing the maps they moan about for a few weeks?

Awesome, can't wait especially since this map is cool.

Seems to be awesome map (assets change shouldn't hurt it tho as previous stated ). IMO you shouldn't take this whining ppl serious. You can't make whole city realistic enough to satisfy all. :/