Maps to be removed

[BroCop]

Mike you do have the option to quote multiple posts. Just pointing that out.

Either way...

the average of 20 good maps is as high as 1. As maps are unquantifiable for our purposes, even the slightly worse ones have no actual effect on the perceived value, whereas awful ones are a giant sore on the game.

Please care to further elaborate this logic of yours? Right now I dont see any actual argument that supports this "thesis"

[40mmrain]

No, please do.

Please explain how a map can be perfectly balanced, when each side has different vehicles with different capabilities, different weapon load-outs, and different manouvering characteristics, and different infantry units with different weapons and different armaments.

the net effect of every asset can be quantified, and then valued against each other. Of course a massively convoluted and impossible set of equations and algorithm would be required, but it's theoretically possible. Further, statistics provide a very indication of balance with barely any error. Kashan's win/loss for americans is probably approaching 1, of course the same for the MEC. On Korengal, who fucking knows what this number is, i'd like to, but its not close to 1 which is ideal.

There's a bad map in a free game?

Oh no! No one will ever part with their... oh wait its free.

Dude seriously:

NO ONE CARES.

pretty sure the 5+ posts youve made defending this map is rather good evidence for you caring. Games are 2 hours long, im sorry if your time is worthless, mine isn't

Please care to further elaborate this logic of yours? Right now I dont see any actual argument that supports this "thesis"

If all maps are are assigned a value "v" for their balance, if all 20 are balanced, and thus effectively they all equal 1, then the value would just 20 20v/20 = v. In the same sense 1v/1, the mean, would again be v the same value, so the idea of removing all maps but one is moot.

Finally, because the only map value thats rather easy to understand against each other is balance, so the most imbalanced are the easiest to say, the worst. Other factors that I touched on like poor terrain design, tiny draw distances and small size implying outdatedness, exist but it's kind of hard to prove that, you just have to agree..

So in the case of "the best map" it's nearly impossible to tell which would truly be the best, and only balance can really be taken into consideration. Further still, not all PR maps ARE balanced, but because the way we can distribute assets, an imbalanced can be balanced with little effort! Perhaps Pavlovsk is an example, the marines in the next patch will start with no flags, and the russians start with 2, further still the russians get AA batteries, and rallies on forward flags. How can this be balanced? Easily, because the marines will have harriers, AAVs, many hueys, and perhaps a cobra against the russian cows which are much slower and weaker, no russian CAS, and less armour. Korengal is one of the few maps in PR where you could not actually do this, as there is no suitable place for helicopters and the draw distance is tiny, and armour would probably be worthless due to draw distance, collapsible roads, many chokepoints, and it would also be pretty unrealistic.

"yamalia is bland therefore bad" Okay, blandness is bad inherently, but to formally prove that fields and trees is bad is practically impossible. At least half of all of PR's maps have fields and or forest, at what threshold is there too many trees and forests? not obvious. Unlike if you simply observe the number of games won by either side, then a gigantic lopsidedness can be seen quite clearly.

[Rudd]

There's a bad map in a free game?

Oh no! No one will ever part with their... oh wait its free.

Dude seriously:

NO ONE CARES.

Mike mate...I appreciate you are trying to get people to understand the nature of a free game, but we do have feedback sections for a reason - we want to improve our product and as long as feedback is constructive or at the very least, well reasoned then this kind of thread is fine.

just as long as no one else says 'just make it 4/2k', if that happens then I'm grabbing a shotgun and going on a rampage...

[ShockUnitBlack]

Things are never going to be perfectly balanced. Let me just put that out there. So long as the team that played better wins on the map, it's balanced as far as I'm concerned.

Insurgency is always a losing battle for the insurgent side, unless the BLUFOR team is an unorganised rabble.

Attack and transport choppers. Thermal vision. Armored transports. Tanks. UAV.

All of these give BLUFOR an edge over insurgents, and the only reason BLUFOR should ever lose in when they fail to use these assets to their full capability.

Not true. So not true.

I'm now going to try to avoid saying anything else until this thread gets back on track.

[YankeeSamurai]

By the way, I don't support removing any maps so much as I support improving some.

[MikeJT]

Mike mate...I appreciate you are trying to get people to understand the nature of a free game, but we do have feedback sections for a reason - we want to improve our product and as long as feedback is constructive or at the very least, well reasoned then this kind of thread is fine.

just as long as no one else says 'just make it 4/2k', if that happens then I'm grabbing a shotgun and going on a rampage...

There's a major difference between providing constructive criticisim on a particular map, and simply saying 'remove this map from the game'.

Has the OP given suggestions on how these maps could be balanced? Hardly.

Here's one for Korengal: Create a new unit - a Humvee Utility - It carries 2 people and 1 supply crate. Replace 1 supply truck on Korengal with 2 of these. Then give the US 1 extra CROWS hummer.

Removing a map is not only an annoyance to players who liked it, but a major slap in the face to the person who created the map too.

Free or not, whilst there are people who have a desire to play a map, removing it from the game doesn't really benefit anyone except the people crying to have it removed.

They can go play on another server for the whole 3 hours the map runs for, or they can stick around and bear it like I do when I get stuck with a map I hate. And before someone says "But there's only one populated server in my area!", I have to say - thats not my problem. That's yours.

All I can do is plead with the developers not to cave to pressure from people like 40mmrain, and to alter maps to balance them before marking them for removal from the game. If you can't get to that straight away, then just leave those maps in for those who wish to play them.

If you're on a server and a map you don't like is voted in, either leave the server, or deal with it.

[40mmrain]

If a map is removed that you like, I have to say, thats not my problem. That's yours.

All I can do is plead for developers to not cave to the pressure from people like MikeJT, and to leave in bad maps.

If you're on a server and an objectively bad map is voted in, go post a feedback thread on the forums reasonably, with examples detailing why it is bad, and why it ought to be removed


I've already detailed why it would be impossible to rebalance with asset differences on korengal. A logistics humvee is worthless when roads are impassable, CROWs are worthless when most of the caches cant be accessed by roads, and the draw distance so short you cant take advantage of long range fire capability.

[SShadowFox]

The problem with the insurgents is not the equipment, tell me one time, that wasn't any kind of special organized event, that you played as insurgent with tactics? Everyone that plays as insurgent grab a kit at the MB and begin driving to the BLUFOR to explode them out. If it's easy on Korengal, is because the map have THAT tunnel cache, and some others that are almost impossible to destroy, if Karbala is hard for the insurgents, is because there aren't many places to hide and it haves some open areas that gives BLUFOR a advantage, equipment, doesn't show anything when you play nicely and organized.

[Rudd]

Here's one for Korengal: Create a new unit - a Humvee Utility - It carries 2 people and 1 supply crate.

That's an interesting idea.

[MikeJT]

If a map is removed that you like, I have to say, thats not my problem. That's yours.

All I can do is plead for developers to not cave to the pressure from people like MikeJT, and to leave in bad maps.

If you're on a server and an objectively bad map is voted in, go post a feedback thread on the forums reasonably, with examples detailing why it is bad, and why it ought to be removed


I've already detailed why it would be impossible to rebalance with asset differences on korengal. A logistics humvee is worthless when roads are impassable, CROWs are worthless when most of the caches cant be accessed by roads, and the draw distance so short you cant take advantage of long range fire capability.

Can you do anything but flip what other people say on its head?

If a map is removed that people like, its a problem for everyone who liked that map. If a map gets voted for during map vote, then clearly people want to play it. Korengal gets voted in often enough, and people whinge, ***** and moan about it when it happens, but the key point is that people voted it in. Its like people who don't vote in elections then ***** about the government for the entire term.

Be thankful you're playing a game where most the admins are so democratic.

A logistics humvee would not be worthless. Its ability to move faster, pass much rougher terrain, and turn in tighter areas would make it much more useful than a logistics truck on a map like Korengal where there are many tight mountainous roads and corners. Not to mention the humvee's windows protect against small arms fire whilst the logistics truck's do not, and its a much smaller target to hit for enemy RPG's. In the time it takes a Logistics truck to move to a position and drop two crates, a 'humvee utility' could probably make the run twice.

As for the CROW, whilst I agree that the draw distance on Korengal isn't the best, the fact is that being able to headshot a guy on the opposite side of the valley with no issue whilst zoomed in is still a valuable asset, as well as being able to offer close range support to infantry without worrying about your gunner being shot dead in 2 seconds.

And if asset differences can't balance Korengal, perhaps we could look at adding an extra mountain paths for infantry, removing highly difficult cache locations, or reducing the depth of the water at some points of the stream so it would be always passable.

[Arc_Shielder]

By the way, I don't support removing any maps so much as I support improving some.

Indeed. I think editing some of the existent maps is something that the community should look upon. Then make a proposal thread to see what the DEVs think about it.

Any help in the mapping department can be directed to PRTA or even a community mapper. PM me if you wish.

[40mmrain]

there have been countless maps removed in the past, why the sudden distaste for it?

maybe because it's been so long since the last patch

[Kloppies]

Has anyone thought of Asad Khal, that map is totally unbalanced. I've maybe seen 2 or 3 rounds on that map where the IDF actually made it to the north side of the river and managed to neutralize it. Forget about capturing and holding it.

I do like the the atmosphere and action on the map, but it is usually very frustating for the IDF while Hamas is having a big party. The choke points on the map must be removed, meaning the unpassable mountain through the middle. And the area surrounding the mansion needs to be reconsidered.

A 2km remake with more open areas and longer view distance would be awesome, but otherwise I think the map should be removed.

[40mmrain]

Asad isnt so bad, I dont think it deserves to be removed at least.

The IDF are better equipped, however the Hamas receive various unlimited weapons caches, and require no crates to build FOBs giving them a slight advantage in some ways. It's not particularly imbalanced, I have seen Hamas hold south objective quite effectively, quite often, and also the IDF making proper pushes to the north objective. The plateau on the south objective is very hard to dig the IDF or Hamas out, I dont feel as if the hamas win too often, or the IDF.

[Rudd]

A 2km remake with more open areas and longer view distance would be awesome, but otherwise I think the map should be removed.

Ok, SHOTGUN RAMPAGE...I warned all of you.

Here is a tip guys

Things that are easy to change
Flags
Spawns
Assets
Lighting
View Distance
Teams

Things that are hard to change (especially without editor files)
Pretty much everything else

Some maps may warrant removal, Asad Kahl 10000000% does NOT warrant removal. I'm pretty sure I can speak for the team on that.

If you have ideas on improving Asad Kahl its much much much better to put that in a dedicated thread so that the mapper can actually see and read it instead of expecting him to trawl through a thread on what maps people don't think are up to scratch to remain in the mod...

[Rhino]

Some maps may warrant removal, Asad Kahl 10000000% does NOT warrant removal. I'm pretty sure I can speak for the team on that.

Buggy statics (most in the process of being phased out), spammy and linear gameplay, low VD and quite a small map. I wouldn't say its safe myself.

[40mmrain]

Can you do anything but flip what other people say on its head?

If a map is removed that people like, its a problem for everyone who liked that map. If a map gets voted for during map vote, then clearly people want to play it. Korengal gets voted in often enough, and people whinge, ***** and moan about it when it happens, but the key point is that people voted it in. Its like people who don't vote in elections then ***** about the government for the entire term.

Be thankful you're playing a game where most the admins are so democratic.

A logistics humvee would not be worthless. Its ability to move faster, pass much rougher terrain, and turn in tighter areas would make it much more useful than a logistics truck on a map like Korengal where there are many tight mountainous roads and corners. Not to mention the humvee's windows protect against small arms fire whilst the logistics truck's do not, and its a much smaller target to hit for enemy RPG's. In the time it takes a Logistics truck to move to a position and drop two crates, a 'humvee utility' could probably make the run twice.

As for the CROW, whilst I agree that the draw distance on Korengal isn't the best, the fact is that being able to headshot a guy on the opposite side of the valley with no issue whilst zoomed in is still a valuable asset, as well as being able to offer close range support to infantry without worrying about your gunner being shot dead in 2 seconds.

And if asset differences can't balance Korengal, perhaps we could look at adding an extra mountain paths for infantry, removing highly difficult cache locations, or reducing the depth of the water at some points of the stream so it would be always passable.

you havent even read my original post. I've stated for both karbala and korengal, that yes, it IS possible to have the map improved but it would require a large redesign. Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Actually if you truly do believe that korengal does need new assets, of which require a fair amount of work, and an editing to include new paths, to make it playable, then youll actually find that we've been in agreeance this whole time

the whole premise of this thread was to inspire redesigns, but to temporarily remove the broken unplayable stuff in the meantime. Making two new maps, or new humvees, is an undertaking, and part of the point of this thread is to evaluate if that is worth it.

In fact, i've entertained the idea of simply removing some of the worst caches, increasing draw distance, and such which is easy apparently, and then it would be rendered playable. Despite the title of the thread, I never said that korengal's full removal was the only option, but rather the most realistic considering what would need to be done.

"can you do anything but.."

yes, if you read the original post, I had nothing to flip when writing that, so again, please read it, as it really depends on the relevance of your posts!

[Kloppies]

Ok, SHOTGUN RAMPAGE...I warned all of you.

Here is a tip guys

Things that are easy to change
Flags
Spawns
Assets
Lighting
View Distance
Teams

Things that are hard to change (especially without editor files)
Pretty much everything else

Sorry, I know its ridiculous to think anyone will revamp or even remake it. I will try to think of easy ways of maybe improving it a bit.

[Pronck]

Would like to see Al Kufrah Oil Field make a return, I think that map would still be bad-*** in today's gaming standards.

I would also like to see maps like Karbala improved, so that they are more balanced. I don't think the some of the assets are necessary and are overkill. (Tank as an example)

But if the Devs are to remove any maps, I think they'll need a map to at least replace them with, otherwise we'll be left with maps that we'll be playing over and over again. - In short, it might get boring.

And the same kind of maps, so not 4 AAS maps if you remove 4 INS maps. However, a part of the community dislikes insurgency and unfortunately that part represents around 60% of the current active forum members.

Plus the fact that any kind of challenging map is often disliked by the community.