Page 2 of 3

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-02-14 09:49
by mebel
floating/disappearing grainfield:
https://imgur.com/a/bOQq6

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-02-24 18:26
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).

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-03-01 08:29
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-03-01 09:56
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-03-01 14:58
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-03-01 15:02
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

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-05-30 14:00
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

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-05-30 18:10
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-05-31 07:30
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:

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-06-21 07:03
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-06-21 14:19
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-06-21 22:38
by FFG
Hades peak has CAS heli + 2 seater for both teams.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-08-10 07:31
by solidfire93
floating tree in Op.thunder !

https://prnt.sc/kgxgty

location :

https://prnt.sc/kgxii8

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-08-10 16:24
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-08-10 17:51
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-08-10 22:10
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.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2018-09-08 20:37
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

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2019-08-19 12:52
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

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2020-02-23 15:01
by Rabbit
I can still get in.

Re: Operation Thunder Map Feedback

Posted: 2020-02-24 10:28
by CAS_ual_TY
You expec hotfix mate?
Not coming mate just look chopper bleed best example