37 replies to this topic

[CabbageMechanic]

HowitzerBlitzer, on Nov 06 2017 - 17:12, said:

Kharkiv*

You get the translation right in the game files, even in some announcements about the map, but you never get the map name right in the game! Display the name in the native country's translation, not the one trying to occupy it in today's world!

 

I understand where you're coming from, I think that convention is because the site is known for the "Battles of Kharkov" (probably unfairly) in English reference material.
 

mlinke, on Nov 06 2017 - 21:58, said:

how about some bushes and trees?

 

Note taken - this is an early draft so finishing details like soft cover/concealment placement is not finalized
 

Colddawg

 Have the map designers stop making makes that specifically tell what tank class to go where (or be destroyed) 

 
What specific features would a map that does not do that have?  I understand your point of view but certain kinds of terrain is always going to be advantageous to different types of vehicles, creating a meta in which those vehicles are expected to seize those benefits.

Edited by CabbageMechanic, Nov 07 2017 - 19:46.

[Mikosah]

CabbageMechanic, on Nov 07 2017 - 12:45, said:

What specific features would a map that does not do that have?  I understand your point of view but certain kinds of terrain is always going to be advantageous to different types of vehicles, creating a meta in which those vehicles are expected to seize those benefits.

 

The trend he's referring to is that certain features are localized. In this case, the map is clearly divided into an urban area and an open area. Conventional logic would therefore be that heavy tanks must invariably go to the city and other classes will just as fervently insist on going field. But if the urban and open features weren't so tightly localized then we might get more diverse routes and positions to use. 

 

But the kicker is exactly why the heavies insist on urban environments. And the answer to that is arty. Any heavy with a decent turret would be happy as a clam on all those slopes and hills in the open area if only they didn't have to worry about arty. And if the heavies were comfortable actually using open areas, then gameplay there could actually be very interesting. 

 

 

[_Schneller_Heinz_]

MajorRenegade, on Nov 07 2017 - 16:43, said:

Kharkov- I don't like it when they closed off the inner city with a pile of rubble's blocking all the paths. why not leave that area open? it was fine the way it was. plz open that area up again

 

The changes makes the map just more restricted with just a few corridors.

Edited by _Schneller_Heinz_, Nov 07 2017 - 21:05.

[Colddawg]

CabbageMechanic, on Nov 07 2017 - 13:45, said:

 

What specific features would a map that does not do that have?  I understand your point of view but certain kinds of terrain is always going to be advantageous to different types of vehicles, creating a meta in which those vehicles are expected to seize those benefits.

 

Are we just talking about the Kharkov remake that is completely different from the real city or the fact that it's very obvious that no HT will ever be seen in half of the map just like in Siegfried Line?

 

How about the Grand Battles map?  It has very obvious positions for each class of tank:  raised areas with lots of visual cover for TDs, rocks and steep hills for HTs, small and narrow city for HTs and turreted TDs, paths on the flanks of the HT areas specifically for the MTs, and the LTs are just ignored because there's no good place for LTs to be LTs.  The overall design of the map is completely unrealistic in that the random features strategically strewn throughout the map aren't found in nature coupled with the fact that, unless it's secluded on an island or Neuschwanstein castle, you would be hard pressed to ever find an example of a castle not surrounded by a town or city.

 

The original maps: Prok, Malinovka, Karelia, Mines.  On each of these maps you'll often see players in varying tank classes all over these maps with very few exceptions.

 

The newer maps are designed in a way that says "this area isn't designed for your class, now be punished for trying to play here."  

Siegfried Line: No HT will be 1-5, no LT will do well 6-0

Fjords:  Mostly believable in terms of terrain, but the south middle mountain, mountain bend, and massive cutaways in these mountains are unbelievable

Fisherman's Bay: 1 line corridor is unbelievable that it was naturally made and it panders to the TDs in the north because they have all the cover.  The towns aren't believable because the city would be on the hill with the village by the bay.  The church was also historically positioned in the highest part of the city (when there isn't a castle).

Westfield:  The north west hills aren't believable and the ravine to the east limits HTs from a quarter of the map unless they want to spend 2 minutes driving up a hill either way.  Overall, the map is believable though.

[HowitzerBlitzer]

Colddawg, on Nov 07 2017 - 10:15, said:

They are missing all the buildings in the background of the historic picture.  The Kharkov from today is still surrounded by buildings but they are shielded by a thing WG map designers like to skimp on called "vegetation."  Also, the top of the photo is corrupted/damaged (the shadows from the buildings are going a different way than the top of the photograph), I can understand that it looks like vegetation but it's not, and even if it was, where's all the vegetation in the map?  Like i said.  It just ends into nothingness, void of everything except a few gameplay objects here and there.

 

As for the 2nd image, I'd rather play there!  Use this area as a play area.  Plenty of diverse, realistic, and varying areas are shown in this image.  Enough to make a good map that's dynamic and fun to play on.

 

Also, since we're talking historic photos.  You're right, it does appear that Kharkov from 18th of April, 1941 shows that Kharkov "just ends."

 

My point was simply that Kharkiv ends similarly to how it does in game right now. 

Spoiler

As for all the other things you brought up (such as vegetation), I made no points on those topics so I don't really know what to say about it. But the map in-game is set during the winter season, so there won't be many trees/bushes with leaves if any at all. Most of the trees were likely cut down for resources during the war, too.

I'd agree with making the map more centered around the Derzhprom building and the spaces around it, it's a lot more open and there could still be some vegetation around the south eastern area. (If someone could find me the loading screen image without leader board and all, that'd be nice.) 

Spoiler

 

On these changes... The current map is fine as it is unless you're an artillery (north spawn lacks positions similar to those provided by the south spawn), or a slow tank with no armour. At least it's one of the better city maps right now in terms of gameplay diversity. The new proposed map seems closer in characteristics to the rejected Minsk draft with wide open spaces for a city map and all.

CabbageMechanic, on Nov 07 2017 - 13:45, said:

I understand where you're coming from, I think that convention is because the site is known for the "Battles of Kharkov" (probably unfairly) in English reference material.

 

But that still doesn't explain why many of the map related game files spell the city's name correctly. 

 

 

 

 

[Colddawg]

HowitzerBlitzer, on Nov 07 2017 - 16:59, said:

 

My point was simply that Kharkiv ends similarly to how it does in game right now. 

Spoiler

As for all the other things you brought up (such as vegetation), I made no points on those topics so I don't really know what to say about it. But the map in-game is set during the winter season, so there won't be many trees/bushes with leaves if any at all. Most of the trees were likely cut down for resources during the war, too.

I'd agree with making the map more centered around the Derzhprom building and the spaces around it, it's a lot more open and there could still be some vegetation around the south eastern area. (If someone could find me the loading screen image without leader board and all, that'd be nice.) 

 

 

 

Right, but this thread is about the changes to Kharkov, and when I said "I'd like to play there" I mean the south to south-east portions of the city from the Derzhprom building.  Looking at this photograph you can see that south of the building and plaza there is a park/quad/green plaza with buildings north and east of it.  If i was designing the Kharkov map I'd put this area to the left of the south center of the map and the Derzhprom building towards the north, even if it was just off map.  It'd be much more playable for all classes than what WG is planning on giving us.

[HowitzerBlitzer]

Colddawg, on Nov 07 2017 - 17:07, said:

Right, but this thread is about the changes to Kharkov, and when I said "I'd like to play there" I mean the south to south-east portions of the city from the Derzhprom building.  Looking at this photograph you can see that south of the building and plaza there is a park/quad/green plaza with buildings north and east of it.  If i was designing the Kharkov map I'd put this area to the left of the south center of the map and the Derzhprom building towards the north, even if it was just off map.  It'd be much more playable for all classes than what WG is planning on giving us.

 

But if the Derzhprom building is at the north of the map, there won't be much space for some city space behind it. I was thinking of putting it in the middle and having the green space south of it, and the city space north of it. So tanks that are better in open spaces with bushes could go south, and the heavy brawlers could go north. But I'm fine with it either way, as long as we get some of that open space.

 

This might be one of those maps that could benefit from being larger than 1x1km and having larger teams. There's a lot that could be put into it, and with the current map, teams usually have to ditch a flank as they don't have enough tanks to effectively hold it.

[CabbageMechanic]

Mostly good stuff guys, thank you

 

HowitzerBlitzer

 

 

But that still doesn't explain why many of the map related game files spell the city's name correctly. 

 
It does, the convention meaning the choice of what to use for its public name for an english-speaking audience.  We have a studio in Kiev - knowledge of how Kharkiv is spelled isn't the issue.  The dominant English colloquial term for the battles the map is intended in evoke is - check the Wiki pages for the battles or most of the english language books on the subject.

That said, you may be right that it is not fair and that the terminology should change - it is worth considering and I will pass it on.

[Almighty_Johnson]

CabbageMechanic, on Nov 06 2017 - 19:52, said:

Hey Tankers,

 

Updates on two maps hit the Super Test last Friday, and we have videos!

We've made some significant changes to Kharkov to make it more enjoyable for each vehicle class, And we’ve also increased the sizes of the map – to 850x850:

 

In addition we have an updated version of Province that incorporates some of what we have learned from testing:



Video quality is a bit rough this time around, but let us know what you think!

 

 

Provence was, for all of its flaws, one of my favorite maps.  The middle needs more cover, or nobody will ever be able to cross it, but it looks good so far.  It feels bigger than the old map.  One thing I've been saying forever, the maps themselves aren't "bad" per-se, they're just too small.  Especially maps like Ensk and Himmelsdorf.  Increase their size by 30-50% and they'll be far more playable at higher tiers.

[HowitzerBlitzer]

CabbageMechanic, on Nov 07 2017 - 17:25, said:

It does, the convention meaning the choice of what to use for its public name for an english-speaking audience.  We have a studio in Kiev - knowledge of how Kharkiv is spelled isn't the issue.  The dominant English colloquial term for the battles the map is intended in evoke is - check the Wiki pages for the battles or most of the english language books on the subject.

That said, you may be right that it is not fair and that the terminology should change - it is worth considering and I will pass it on.

(How am I supposed to explain this without going political? sigh...) 

My point is more based around the fact that Kharkov is the Russian → English translation rather than the Ukrainian → Translation (Kharkiv) and how Russia is actively at war with Ukraine. It can give off the idea to some players that WG supports the invasion of Ukraine, as WG's games are big in Russia. I know it isn't the case, but I've seen people claim it even in 2017.

[indoctrinated]

Not a bad idea but can you guys also introduce more complexity in the terrain like dips, rubble mounds, etc etc to allow for more hulldown and angling techniques to be used than generic flat pieces of land?

[Cowcat137]

84Doc04, on Nov 07 2017 - 23:46, said:

 

Provence was, for all of its flaws, one of my favorite maps.  The middle needs more cover, or nobody will ever be able to cross it, but it looks good so far.  It feels bigger than the old map.  One thing I've been saying forever, the maps themselves aren't "bad" per-se, they're just too small.  Especially maps like Ensk and Himmelsdorf.  Increase their size by 30-50% and they'll be far more playable at higher ti    

84Doc04, on Nov 07 2017 - 23:46, said:

 

Provence was, for all of its flaws, one of my favorite maps.  The middle needs more cover, or nobody will ever be able to cross it, but it looks good so far.  It feels bigger than the old map.  One thing I've been saying forever, the maps themselves aren't "bad" per-se, they're just too small.  Especially maps like Ensk and Himmelsdorf.  Increase their size by 30-50% and they'll be far more playable at higher tiers.

 

Yes!

 

[Omega_Weapon]

Province was a great map and I think Super Province looks promising. I think Kharkov will improve a bit giving some more flexibility to other classes. Its a shame to lose so much of the original city area though. Why not simply keep what existed and stretch the map boundaries out to include some areas of more open terrain?

[BeanHoleBandit]

I do not like the changes to Kharkov..  As soon as i seen it, it reminds me of how they made the grand battles.. One small city section VS WIDE OPEN FIELD..  

This is going to turn into take city and shoot into open field.  At least in Grand battles you did have the center castle to break field from city.. So you couldn't really do that..

 

Why is the field so open?  TD's are going to put in massive work.. 

 

I was also wondering why in the court yard you took down the buildings that where in there.. It makes it stupid to even go there.. What your going to drive your Maus right in the middle of the court yard.. With NO COVER... Your not going to hull down a IS7 or OBJ 140.. A type 5 would have a field day with your exposed Turret. 

Then I noticed the court yard has no cover from the field.. no buildings to stop the flanking shots.. For TD's.. So its just a death trap that is stupid in every way.. You can't brawl in it with heavys... And if you do TD's are going to show you why it was stupid to begin with.. And if your trying to snipe TD's in your heavy from there well LOL good luck. 

With these new map changes the STRV 103 is looking like the best tank in the game more and more.

 

I'm really curious if WG is doing any hiring?  Some of these idea's who hatched them?

 

So pretty much once the heavys clear the city, and you only really have one line to fight in cause the court yard is a death trap.. 

 

You know what forget city, i see why its so small its irrelevant.. Its just there because.. No good reason..  Cause if you lose field your screwed..  I mean what your going to take the heavy's in the small city and out spot the lights mediums and TD's in the field.. NO.. You going to rush your slow heavy into the mediums lights or td's? NO... So what you do kemp? That is your only smart thing.. A stale mate. I mean what is the heavys going to do?  lol this is a joke..  Are you guys even close to serious on this?

 

 

The OTTER guy is right your really forcing ppl where to go..  And then its just a stupid trap when u get them there.. 

Edited by BeanHoleBandit, Nov 08 2017 - 18:15.

[LeaveIT2Beaver]

indoctrinated, on Nov 07 2017 - 18:04, said:

Not a bad idea but can you guys also introduce more complexity in the terrain like dips, rubble mounds, etc etc to allow for more hulldown and angling techniques to be used than generic flat pieces of land?

 

 

THIS in spades !!!!

 

Stick 'em both into rotation 

Edited by LeaveIT2Beaver, Nov 08 2017 - 18:16.

[Fett713]

I'm liking the Province remake, looks less campy than before, what spots of potential campiness I see look more exposed to get to for the most part. Kharkov is just so much the same as Winterburg as it is, I think closing off the circle could go either way, could make it better or it could make it worse, to early to tell in this first raw preview. Klondike looks pretty sick though, looks like a good mash up of Severogorsk and Northwest, two maps I miss very much.

[HOTA_CHATON]

I am not real impressed with either of those maps and would rather have the original versions of them.  They are way to clean and clinical with lots of wasted area that could be used enhance the play experience.  Nice try but no banana for you.

[SuperJaws100]

That track around the border of Province had better stay accessible, it looks like it would be oodles of fun at low tiers.