Operation Thunder Map Feedback

mebel
Posts: 143
Joined: 2017-02-18 16:03

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by mebel »

floating/disappearing grainfield:
https://imgur.com/a/bOQq6
Raidonrai
Posts: 90
Joined: 2015-01-23 15:17

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Raidonrai »

To weigh in on STD asset balance:

Keep the old Hind set up for russia, remove one of the Tunguskas (Two tunguskas against one F-16? Really? Viewrange is so short F-16 is pretty meh anyway), give Poland their W-3W Sokol CAS (The one on Karbala).
Fuller
Posts: 91
Joined: 2016-03-19 14:10

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Fuller »

I like the idea of a asymmetric asset balance but you have to take the amount of teamwork into account aswell.

F-16: 1x pilot, 1-3 spotters. (SL,CO,spotter kit)

vs.

2x Hind (E&F): 4 pilots, 1-3 (optional) spotters (SL,CO,spotter kit)
2x Tunguska: 4 crew

That means 2-5 vs. 9-12 people who have to coordinate with each other.
I think it is still a great layout but the server admins have to monitor the previous battles very carefully and decide (based on team balance) which layout they choose.
Image
DogACTUAL
Posts: 879
Joined: 2016-05-21 01:13

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by DogACTUAL »

Why no increase in view distance? Performance reasons? Otherwise this map could really benefit from the 1km+ view distance. Asset gameplay would be greatly improved, especially CAS. Infantry would mostly still have the same amount of concealment and cover on the ground because of all the hills, buildings and vegetation.

I really like the assymetrical CAS balance with the F16 versus the two hinds. But the F16 is just really not made for a map with that low of a view distance. Many bombs won't explode, even when dropped on lases and there is no real time to do proper gun runs, even on lases. Flying the F16 with this view distance is just all around very akward and so in turn it is trying to engage it with AA. Imo either increase view distance or remove the F16 and replace it with Sokol attack variant.
lakinen
Posts: 215
Joined: 2016-12-03 15:24

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by lakinen »

For me, this map is a problem because the creator of this map did not put the airport on both sides. Then we could talk about the balance. As I noticed here nobody(DEVs) understands so much about balance and gameplay (captures flags ...)Map looks great but there is no soul.
FFG
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2014-03-18 04:47

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by FFG »

lakinen wrote:For me, this map is a problem because the creator of this map did not put the airport on both sides. Then we could talk about the balance. As I noticed here nobody(DEVs) understands so much about balance and gameplay (captures flags ...)Map looks great but there is no soul.
lol. Just play the alt layer
Acecombatzer0
Posts: 554
Joined: 2010-09-26 14:10

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Acecombatzer0 »

The F-16s ability to do actual CAS is limited because it can only carry two bombs, meanwhile it can completely destroy the Hinds because it carries (6?) Air to Air missiles.

Replace F-16 with Su-22
CrazyHotMilf: can you release PR 1.0 today cause its my birthday and i want to play it ? because its gonna be very nice and every thing
FFG
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2014-03-18 04:47

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by FFG »

Acecombatzer0 wrote:The F-16s ability to do actual CAS is limited because it can only carry two bombs, meanwhile it can completely destroy the Hinds because it carries (6?) Air to Air missiles.

Replace F-16 with Su-22
Poland also gets a tank.
arjan
Posts: 1865
Joined: 2007-04-21 12:32

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by arjan »

Really liking the terrain in general. Feels way more natural than some other PR maps and offers nice maneuvering and ambush options for both vehicles and infantry. Find the flag layout along the middle main road and around the fields with varying terrain heights very fun to play as you can really utilize the south and north part of the map for maneuvering and not stray away to much from the objectives.

I also would like to see the view distance upped. Asset balance wise i dont know much, but i personally (and in general) would like to see more uniformity in vehicles on PR maps to simulate organic unit formations. I think this maps lends itselve for some heavier MECHINF gameplay with ground vehicles being mainly (auto)cannons, no thermals and no ATGM's. Making FOBS more important to lock down key terrain positions with their thermal optic ATGM launcher, in turn making mortars important to take these out.

Just me, i am no expert on balance so i could be very wrong. :razz:
rPoXoTauJIo
PR:BF2 Developer
Posts: 1979
Joined: 2011-07-20 10:02

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by rPoXoTauJIo »

There's a reason why we split cas assets(helis and jets) on other maps such as kashan\khami, as helicopters unable to survive against jets on their own. No jet on russian side and trees coverage here just make it useless to even touch hinds unless f16 down.

Perhaps could modify russian base a bit? as mig29's were specifically designed to land&take off on poorly conditions.
Image

Also map could use some tweaks on fog settings, really weird when stuff suddenly disappear on edge of VD.
Image

assetruler69: I've seen things you smurfs wouldn't believe. Apaches on the Kashan. I watched burned down tank hulls after the launch of the single TOW. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time to give up and respawn.
Outlawz7
Retired PR Developer
Posts: 17261
Joined: 2007-02-17 14:59

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Outlawz7 »

rPoXoTauJIo wrote:There's a reason why we split cas assets(helis and jets) on other maps such as kashan\khami, as helicopters unable to survive against jets on their own.
Meh, we still keep transport helis on jet layers.
Image
FFG
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2014-03-18 04:47

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by FFG »

Hades peak has CAS heli + 2 seater for both teams.
solidfire93
Posts: 491
Joined: 2015-06-26 14:21

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by solidfire93 »

floating tree in Op.thunder !

https://prnt.sc/kgxgty

location :

https://prnt.sc/kgxii8
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by tankninja1 »

One thing I have noticed is that the BWP-1s seem to only serve as cannon fodder and the only Polish APC that seems to be halfway useful is the Rosomak. Considering the Russians get 2 BMP-2s I think the balance would work out a lot better if it was 2 Rosomak's and 1 BWP-1.

Also why isn't the UKM-2000 the default AR option instead of the MG kit? The Polish don't seem to have a conventional AR in their army but in terms of balance I think the scoped UKM is much closer to what other factions use than a iron sights PKM. It would seem you could even swap the UKM into the AR kit slot then change the MG kit to the PKM as standard with the alt MG being the MG3.
Last edited by tankninja1 on 2018-08-10 16:31, edited 2 times in total.
Image
FFG
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1468
Joined: 2014-03-18 04:47

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by FFG »

tankninja1 wrote:One thing I have noticed is that the BWP-1s seem to only serve as cannon fodder and the only Polish APC that seems to be halfway useful is the Rosomak. Considering the Russians get 2 BMP-2s I think the balance would work out a lot better if it was 2 Rosomak's and 1 BWP-1.
Both the BWP ATGM and the HEAT shell will 1 shot the BMP-2. Where the Rosomak gets out DPS'd by the BMP-2. You'd have to be a pretty bad gunner to die to a Rosomak in a BMP-2.
tankninja1
Posts: 962
Joined: 2011-05-31 22:22

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by tankninja1 »

FFG wrote:Both the BWP ATGM and the HEAT shell will 1 shot the BMP-2. Where the Rosomak gets out DPS'd by the BMP-2. You'd have to be a pretty bad gunner to die to a Rosomak in a BMP-2.
The 30mm on the Rosomak was working like a charm. Maybe the changes to vehicles damage models changed that in the last day, but the better turret on the Rosomak makes a huge difference to me.
Image
Singh408
Posts: 53
Joined: 2016-12-19 12:12

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Singh408 »

I think on Alt layout Ru side needs a hind with atgms(Hind p-f) instead. Pol side gets the hind with atgms to counter 3x tanks
Rabbit
Posts: 7818
Joined: 2006-12-17 15:14

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Rabbit »

Terrain cover tunnel area is a disaster. Found multiple areas to exploit. As bad as Shikotans tunnels. Give me a breacher and AA kit and game would be screwed.

Image
Image

AfSoccer "I just don't see the natural talent."
Image
Rabbit
Posts: 7818
Joined: 2006-12-17 15:14

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by Rabbit »

I can still get in.
Image

AfSoccer "I just don't see the natural talent."
Image
CAS_ual_TY
PR:BF2 Contributor
Posts: 926
Joined: 2016-01-04 12:30

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Post by CAS_ual_TY »

You expec hotfix mate?
Not coming mate just look chopper bleed best example
Image
Image Image
Post Reply

Return to “Maps”