
Here are a list of maps + Layers for the pack.

In my second post theres the Text print out of all the assets, layers, etc. As far as flag layouts, We've attempted to fix some of the really one sided flag layouts, like Qwai for instance.[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:Cool stuff. From what I've heard you've put quite some time into this so nice to see some results. Respawn times and delays are just as important though. Don't see those? Also no changes to flag routes?Mostly interested in those personally.

Im pretty sure that we have been given permission, As x-alt was the one who asked rhino. But if it turns out this isn't the fact, Im not here to be an ******* and will remove it from the pack.[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:Also without Rhino's permission, Qinling is off the table. That map isn't part of PR public versions anymore. You won't be allowed to publish that on a server without permission.
Coming from Hockey and High level FPS play, I understand that complete. I feel theres no point in pointing out flaws without fixes.[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:Looking forward to more. I always appreciate feedback where people give me actually suggestions to work with for future releases instead of 'this layer sucks'![]()
The idea of Rebalance is to try and balance Big assets, While I think the smaller "Unclaimable assets" are important, I don't use them enough to have a good opinion on them.Frontliner wrote:One thing that I think you should do is to employ some more light assets for the infantry and alternative layouts. Stuff like VN3s, BRDMs, Panthers, CROWS HMMWV and similar offer some much needed variety for these kind of layouts, especially on big maps like Burning Sands. The same holds true for light CAS choppers(Hind, eg.). As a whole, they aren't too devastating, but against an ill-prepared opponent they work as intended without needing to bring out the big guns on either side in order to have a varied battlefield. I mean, take Shijia for example, Brits and Chinese get one Panther/VN3 each BUT they are under constant threat of being caught by one of the "big boys".
Why not make it 2 panthers/VN-3s, one APC each, a light CAS each and some armed jeeps?
I agree with this in a sense. But as per the maps and assets in the list, its based on similar assets being more equal to one another in situations. This allows for more skilled fair gameplay, over "i have atgm's so you die."CaptMiller wrote:Hope Devs will never balance PR Factions , balance is the worst thing in military shooters, if one army in real life is the most strongest than why it should be weaker in game
That's why I suggested them to be used moreFFG wrote:The idea of Rebalance is to try and balance Big assets, While I think the smaller "Unclaimable assets" are important, I don't use them enough to have a good opinion on them.
PatrickLA_CA wrote:I think you should wait to see how the new armor changes will impact the game. And even in the current version of PR these proposed changes will make gameplay very symmetrical. While I agree that some maps require some little bit of balancing, I wouldn't like to see both teams having 90% of the same asset types.
For example, Burning Sands.
What you are proposing is to for both teams to have 1 tank each and 2 or 3 light APCs. I think the current version with the BMPs and Tank add some variety and options to use different tactics. Asymmetric balance is something that PR should keep IMO.
Well Balance should not and doesn't need to be a perfect symmetrical, but it need to be something that is both fun and that one side can win against another... unlike charles point!CaptMiller wrote:Hope Devs will never balance PR Factions , balance is the worst thing in military shooters, if one army in real life is the most strongest than why it should be weaker in game
I am not a Dev, Tester, or anything of the like. I know there are armour changes but this is balanced for what I know is here. The aim is to finish the pack before 1.4 comes out later down the line.Gerfand wrote:Well you should keep in mind the changes for 1.4, as 2 t-90, 2 BMP3 will not have the same power of 4 leos in the next patch
Well Balance should not and doesn't need to be a perfect symmetrical, but it need to be something that is both fun and that one side can win against another... unlike charles point!
The Warrior and Scimitar is not as helpless against BMP as you make it look like. I have seen them kill BMP lots of times on Burning Sands. They also outnumber the BMP 3 to 2 and have only half the respawn time. Then you also have better AT on British and not to forget the Stormer which even in current version is deadly for BMP.FFG wrote:as well as the fact that when Challys die, Warriors stand no chance against the BMP's

I based my judgement off of what I have seen playing the game, not off of what the devs have in mind for the assets. As i said earlier, I don't honestly see that big an issue with the balance on burning.[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:The Warrior and Scimitar is not as helpless against BMP as you make it look like. I have seen them kill BMP lots of times on Burning Sands. They also outnumber the BMP 3 to 2 and have only half the respawn time. Then you also have better AT on British and not to forget the Stormer which even in current version is deadly for BMP.
Yeah, in hindsight its probably a bit to much for the maps that are less the 4km, but fuck it. I wanna see what happens.[R-DEV]Mats391 wrote:I also dont agree with your decision to flat out add 4x Logistics to every map except Khami. Lets look at Qwai STD. You gave each side 4x Logistics and a big chopper with crate. With that you can build a super FOB on each bridge, set up mortars from start, rush across to build FOBs behind enemy lines and still have crates left over from the support trucks. This completely removes any form of decision making during the deployment as anyone can deploy to anywhere and build a FOB. With only 2x Logistics as it is now you have to decide between getting early FOBs or building early mortars and using a logi to rush across river has a way higher risk of losing the truck.
Current Burning Sands already slightly favors British (52% to 48%) and your changes wont make it easier for the MEC. Especially on STD I doubt MEC will have lots of fun. The BTR sucks at fighting air targets even more than the Warrior due to low maximum elevation. The Apache gonna have lots of fun.FFG wrote:I based my judgement off of what I have seen playing the game, not off of what the devs have in mind for the assets. As i said earlier, I don't honestly see that big an issue with the balance on burning.
Even on 4km you have same issues as on 2km. Just put super FOBs everywhere and you still get lots of FOBs. And that does not even include chopper supplies which are even more common on 4km.FFG wrote: Yeah, in hindsight its probably a bit to much for the maps that are less the 4km, but fuck it. I wanna see what happens.

Im a bit off my regular turf here, commenting on map layouts. But since Qwai has a nice feel to it, it would be great to see some kind of revival of the map.FFG wrote:In my second post theres the Text print out of all the assets, layers, etc. As far as flag layouts, We've attempted to fix some of the really one sided flag layouts, like Qwai for instance.
This is the flag layout that Rpoxo and myself came to after a couple hours of brainstorming. The only thing I don't like about Qwai for this is the fact its really really really hard to come up with unbias flag layouts for the map.