Jump to content


Is there a plan/timeline for re-doing all the old missing maps?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Arctander2 #21 Posted May 17 2018 - 23:51

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20025 battles
  • 1,725
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010

View PostHurk, on May 17 2018 - 14:45, said:

then also realise no maps at all were removed for 1.0, there were simply maps that were not remade. 

 

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude. 



dominator_98 #22 Posted May 17 2018 - 23:58

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18734 battles
  • 2,785
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
To those wanting new maps, consider this. Their last three additions have been Paris, Glacier, and Province. Are you sure you want more maps like these in the game?

Hurk #23 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 49727 battles
  • 15,793
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Postcommander42, on May 17 2018 - 15:47, said:

not being remade=removed

anything that WAS in the game and is not in the game currently is removed no matter what terminology you want to use for it.  They had plenty of time to update the maps to HD that they wanted to keep in the game, they should have either finished faster or pushed back 1.0.

As for the rest of the maps,  them not being good maps is your opinion, many people do not care if one side wins 1% more. Randoms is not competitive play, maps shouldn't have to be entirely balanced.  As long as it isn't really extreme no map should ever be removed for balance reasons, period.(thousands of others share this opinion although apparently you and WG disagree)

you didnt watch the video. 

and its not opinion about the maps removed. there were some i liked and some i didnt like. that had nothing to do with their removal. they were removed because they were not balanced for the game. 

the maps that did not make it into 1.0 from 9.22 were not removed. they just didnt have time to rebuild them. 

 

again, watch the video... learn something. there is a lot more going on here than simply copy/paste. 

1.0 has been being worked on since 2014 at least. 



Silversound #24 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 37670 battles
  • 4,137
  • [-P-] -P-
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011
Hurk, you're boxing below your weight class.

Captain_Rownd #25 Posted May 18 2018 - 00:45

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2153 battles
  • 737
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View Postdominator_98, on May 17 2018 - 23:58, said:

To those wanting new maps, consider this. Their last three additions have been Paris, Glacier, and Province. Are you sure you want more maps like these in the game?

 

The only one of those I have a problem with is Province, which is reheated leftovers. 

 



commander42 #26 Posted May 18 2018 - 03:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 23081 battles
  • 4,344
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

View PostHurk, on May 17 2018 - 18:04, said:

you didnt watch the video.

and its not opinion about the maps removed. there were some i liked and some i didnt like. that had nothing to do with their removal. they were removed because they were not balanced for the game.

the maps that did not make it into 1.0 from 9.22 were not removed. they just didnt have time to rebuild them.

 

again, watch the video... learn something. there is a lot more going on here than simply copy/paste.

1.0 has been being worked on since 2014 at least.

 

I watched the video weeks ago...
its not opinion of the reason was them not being balanced but it IS opinion to say maps that aren't perfectly balanced shouldn't be in the game.  It is my opinion slight imbalance shouldn't matter that much in regards to maps being in the game but it is WG's (and my initial assumption based on your post, yours as well) that maps need to be perfectly balanced.  That is the issue.

I already know what I'm talking about(I understand it isn't copy/paste but my initial statements reign true even though it isn't copy/paste) but clearly you don't.  Learn some synonyms for removed for example.  Not being re-included is the same as being removed, however you/they want to phrase it the fact remains they didn't manage their time well enough so they removed a lot of additional maps even though their intention is to reintroduce many of them.
 

commander42 #27 Posted May 18 2018 - 03:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 23081 battles
  • 4,344
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

View Postdominator_98, on May 17 2018 - 17:58, said:

To those wanting new maps, consider this. Their last three additions have been Paris, Glacier, and Province. Are you sure you want more maps like these in the game?

 

province was a redo of the map that had previously been removed so it isn't "new".  That is like you getting your several year old car getting a new paint job and calling it a new car.  I have played it once since then(and died fast cause I didn't know how to react on the map in a tier7 battle when I didn't even know it was back in the game yet so didn't get the chance to actually experience it)

glacier and paris are meh but because they have removed so many maps we need new maps regardless if they are that good or not, we barely have any maps in the game right now otherwise you wouldn't see the maps you don't like as often.
 

dominator_98 #28 Posted May 18 2018 - 04:39

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 18734 battles
  • 2,785
  • [NUFFS] NUFFS
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View Postcommander42, on May 17 2018 - 20:24, said:

 

province was a redo of the map that had previously been removed so it isn't "new".  That is like you getting your several year old car getting a new paint job and calling it a new car.  I have played it once since then(and died fast cause I didn't know how to react on the map in a tier7 battle when I didn't even know it was back in the game yet so didn't get the chance to actually experience it)

glacier and paris are meh but because they have removed so many maps we need new maps regardless if they are that good or not, we barely have any maps in the game right now otherwise you wouldn't see the maps you don't like as often.
 

 

It's new to tier 5+. And honestly I think I'd be fine playing all day on four maps if they were my four favorites.

Arctander2 #29 Posted May 18 2018 - 13:01

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20025 battles
  • 1,725
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010

View Postdominator_98, on May 17 2018 - 22:39, said:

It's new to tier 5+. And honestly I think I'd be fine playing all day on four maps if they were my four favorites.

 

I'd rather have completely dynamic maps all the time without "cap spot A, snipe spot B, flank hiding spot C" on particular maps that we've played just too many damned times.

 

Anyway, I am not a fan of Provence (which is a re-hash as others mentioned.) I don't mind Paris (though I do think it is a bit boring,) and I find Glacier decent enough, though I think one side has a good advantage. What I would like to see is the return of the other maps that were left out of the update. 



hllrbrn #30 Posted May 19 2018 - 15:15

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 22038 battles
  • 130
  • Member since:
    08-11-2012

Since this has not received a response from the moderators I will endeavor to simulate a response in order to bring closure to this discussion and perhaps satisfaction to the OP on having his questions answered. 

 

Moderator response follows, or perhaps envision one of those WG Dev team videos with the English translation dubbed over.  

 

 

"We are glad that you are enjoying the new HD maps, thanks for not bringing up that we have once again spent countless hours on window dressing while ignoring long standing problems that have been identified for years by our player base. As long as they keep playing and paying we will continue to do things as we see best. 

 

Yes there are no plans to put the following maps back into the game: Dragon Ridge, Pearl River, Northwest, & South Coast. 

Our map team looked at these maps and we decided not to create them in HD because there were just too many changes that would have to be done to fit into what we want maps to be currently. 

 

Just take Dragon Ridge for example we would have to add so much terrain to the map to prevent cohesive strategies and support by fire of team members and most importantly prevent heavy players from crying from getting shot by snipers that it just was not worth the effort. There is already a lot of terrain on this map. Remember with the new roll out we made most surfaces with an angle of more than 15 degrees as if they are covered in ice so you cant drive up them, and in addition just have a tank stop working even though the player is still pressing the w key fully. This again is to prevent players from coming up  with their own ideas and using terrain to their advantage. We would like to have engagements where we want them not where players want to have them . This is our game not the players game. 

 

South Coast was a huge problem related to where we want our maps to go. If you remember there were 4 to 5 routes that players could decide to utilize when trying to get to each other's bases and engage the enemy team. They could even vary the routes to perhaps use one route initially and then when presented with an aspect of the enemy team they could not successfully engage frontally switch mid stream to one of the other routes. They could do this without having to go through a huge "no go" zone where they would be immediately destroyed. We just are not comfortable with that kind of dynamic game play.

 

We would like to have maps with no more that two main routes that players can utilize. We are working on a map right now that only has one route. We think this is the ideal type of map for our game. We have been able to maximize the amount of premium ammunition being used on the maps we have in the game currently using variations of this plan. When players are forced to engage frontally with an opposing tank that their regular rounds can not penetrate or hit the weakspots due to our +-25% RNG they often switch to premium rounds. This is great because it  often results in players with larger post battle resupply costs encouraging them to purchase premium accounts and premium tanks. There has been much complaining from players getting hit with premium ammunition even though in the tank that they were driving at the time would have been penetrated with regular ammunition, we are a bit confused by this complaint but in an effort to silence the complaining we plan on completely reworking the ammunition system. As with most changes that we make to the game it will not actually be in line with what the players are complaining about but something completely different that we will label as us addressing their complaint. What we are kicking around right now is still having a round that requires a higher cost than what would be seen now as a regular round with higher penetration but lower damage. So in essence it still is a premium round with reduced damage but we wont call it that. This way players will have to actually shoot more of this higher penetration round that costs more which ties nicely into the one to two route map plan that I laid out.  Players will have the opportunity to have the same or higher post battle resupply costs that they have now but we will be able to say we have fixed the premium ammunition problem because we wont call it premium ammunition any more.  

 

I hope this answers all your questions about maps. Please take a moment to visit our Premium Shop we have lots of stuff you can give us money for. 

 

Best regards"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Arctander2 #31 Posted May 19 2018 - 16:18

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 20025 battles
  • 1,725
  • Member since:
    08-08-2010

Ok, just to keep it going... The three maps that I miss the most are: Highway, Swamp, and Pilsen.

 

I was not a huge fan of Sacred Valley, but at least it was different. I thought Widepark was fine for very low tiers, and had potential if the map were made larger to be fine for higher tiers. I get that there were balance problems with both Pearl River & South Coast, but I do miss the settings, and would love to see something come back that was similar.



FrozenKemp #32 Posted May 19 2018 - 16:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 45382 battles
  • 6,532
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-24-2011

View Postcommander42, on May 17 2018 - 17:47, said:

 

not being remade=removed
anything that WAS in the game and is not in the game currently is removed no matter what terminology you want to use for it.  They had plenty of time to update the maps to HD that they wanted to keep in the game, they should have either finished faster or pushed back 1.0.

As for the rest of the maps,  them not being good maps is your opinion, many people do not care if one side wins 1% more. Randoms is not competitive play, maps shouldn't have to be entirely balanced.  As long as it isn't really extreme no map should ever be removed for balance reasons, period.(thousands of others share this opinion although apparently you and WG disagree)

 

Making assertions about how long game development tasks take while not having any information to go on is one of the least attractive features of the modern gamer.

 

As far as balance goes, it doesn't matter whether we care or not about unbalanced maps.  WG cares and they make the decisions.

 

TLDR: Tough.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users