Jump to content


- - - - -

[ST] Mines & Glacier

mines glacier supertest feedback

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Gnomon #1 Posted May 31 2018 - 16:40

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 676 battles
  • 245
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    11-23-2015
Hey, everyone! 
 
I have even more Supertest info for y'all! 
 
After releasing several bits of info on new tanks, we thought you'd be interested to hear about some maps. New versions of Mines and Glacier, slightly modified for balancing purposes, are entering the Supertest.
 
Mines currently favors the team that gets the northern spawn. This usually leads to said team controlling the entire western area, first by taking the western isle then by moving towards the central hill. To offset this advantage, we’ve added multiple firing positions to the southern side of the map.
 
Mines Overview/Screenshots
 
  1. The lesser isle in the southwest will have several great spots to control and use to stop the northern pushes.
  2. You’ll be able to shoot the enemies sitting on the larger isle from the designated TD positions of the southern side.
  3. The same trick will be possible if you get on the slope leading to the top of the central hill. You can provide fire support for allies or prevent the red team from taking control of the western flank.
 
Next up is Glacier! As it currently stands, the southern team has less trouble fighting around the frozen aircraft carrier than the northern team, and their positions for TDs are better. On top of that, the northern team has problems defending the serpentine-like road in the northeast. To set everything right, we’ll give a few changes to the map a try:
 
Glacier Screenshots
 
  1. Now both teams will have equal opportunities to roll onto the carrier, and the northerners may try to dash to small cover on the flight deck. The team that manages to take control of the area will be able to capitalize on their success by having a new covered position.
  2. The firing arc for the southern team TD position in G4 is too wide. It will be limited on the newly modified map.
  3. Small ridges enabling terrain-based play will be added to the serpentine road area.
 
Depending on the Supertest results we’ll decide whether to keep or ditch each of the mentioned changes. Our objective is to equalize both teams’ chances to win while keeping the gameplay for the maps similar. This is why we need your feedback! 
 
Please leave your feedback, comments, and suggestions below.
 
As always, best of luck on the battlefield! 


AndrewSledge #2 Posted May 31 2018 - 16:56

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 30092 battles
  • 1,674
  • Member since:
    04-14-2014

I like those Mine changes. That rock in the last photo of Mines could be really useful in getting shots on people rushing to the hill.

 

Those changes on the west side of the southern base will encourage camping TDs more, as they'll be more useful. I can't complain, as I feel there's not many good places to take a STRV on that map currently.


Edited by AndrewSledge, May 31 2018 - 16:58.


xrays_ #3 Posted May 31 2018 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 47651 battles
  • 3,669
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostGnomon, on May 31 2018 - 10:40, said:

I have even more Supertest info for y'all! 

 

I see these posts about "Supertest", yet I can't recall seeing anything describing the actual framework for the testing process. Can we get a breakdown on just how these tests are carried out, what types of checks and balances are employed to verify the testing is acceptable, and what are the criteria for acceptance or denial of changes or new features?

 

There have been numerous times in the (recent) past where vehicles and map changes have wandered out of said Supertest phase only to be found incredibly unbalanced, so I'm sure many of us would like to understand the process.

 

x.



holdmecloserTonyDanza #4 Posted May 31 2018 - 18:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 61673 battles
  • 6,673
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    08-21-2011

View Postxrays_, on May 31 2018 - 11:14, said:

 

I see these posts about "Supertest", yet I can't recall seeing anything describing the actual framework for the testing process. Can we get a breakdown on just how these tests are carried out, what types of checks and balances are employed to verify the testing is acceptable, and what are the criteria for acceptance or denial of changes or new features?

 

There have been numerous times in the (recent) past where vehicles and map changes have wandered out of said Supertest phase only to be found incredibly unbalanced, so I'm sure many of us would like to understand the process.

 

x.

 

:teethhappy: "tested"  like the 268v4?  lol i appreciate the sentiment but you are chasing ghosts

Gnomon #5 Posted May 31 2018 - 18:28

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 676 battles
  • 245
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    11-23-2015

View Postxrays_, on May 31 2018 - 11:14, said:

 

I see these posts about "Supertest", yet I can't recall seeing anything describing the actual framework for the testing process. Can we get a breakdown on just how these tests are carried out, what types of checks and balances are employed to verify the testing is acceptable, and what are the criteria for acceptance or denial of changes or new features?

 

There have been numerous times in the (recent) past where vehicles and map changes have wandered out of said Supertest phase only to be found incredibly unbalanced, so I'm sure many of us would like to understand the process.

 

x.

 

Supertests happen at the early stages of development, usually a month or more before release. They involve checking new changes and trying to find the most critical issues before opening the tests to the public. STs are divided into production tests (new maps, balancing vehicles, etc.), and version tests (the entirety of the update).

 

After we finish the Supertest, it then goes to the Common Test for all players to try (like Update 1.0.2, currently). 



pickpocket293 #6 Posted May 31 2018 - 18:36

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 27193 battles
  • 837
  • [FD_UP] FD_UP
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015
Can we make Mines bigger, or limit it to tier 6 and below? Currently it's INCREDIBLY small for tier 10 games.

Nudnick #7 Posted May 31 2018 - 18:45

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 23928 battles
  • 3,404
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
The tiny maps are the main reason I don't play upper tier in randoms anymore. The maps are a joke.

xrays_ #8 Posted May 31 2018 - 19:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 47651 battles
  • 3,669
  • [FELOW] FELOW
  • Member since:
    08-02-2013

View PostGnomon, on May 31 2018 - 12:28, said:

Supertests happen at the early stages of development, usually a month or more before release. They involve checking new changes and trying to find the most critical issues before opening the tests to the public. STs are divided into production tests (new maps, balancing vehicles, etc.), and version tests (the entirety of the update).

 

Unfortunately, you haven't really answered my questions.

 

I am curious about the team, number of people involved, level of skill, expected goals, criteria used for appraising the changes, etc. If these specifics are secret, please let me know that as well, but I would appreciate more information so I can understand the thought process behind the attempts to introduce "balanced" new features and changes compared to the results that appear to slip through all too commonly (i.e. NorthWest map received multiple changes but was removed after maybe a year in rotation despite lack of complaints from the players, and vehicles like the WTE-100 receiving similar adjustments before being scrapped completely).

 

Honestly, I'm just curious about what goes on in these "Supertest" environments, and if it isn't just a ruse to make us believe WarGaming cares.

 

x.



TwixOps #9 Posted May 31 2018 - 19:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 46884 battles
  • 4,314
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011

View Postxrays_, on May 31 2018 - 14:11, said:

 

Unfortunately, you haven't really answered my questions.

 

I am curious about the team, number of people involved, level of skill, expected goals, criteria used for appraising the changes, etc. If these specifics are secret, please let me know that as well, but I would appreciate more information so I can understand the thought process behind the attempts to introduce "balanced" new features and changes compared to the results that appear to slip through all too commonly (i.e. NorthWest map received multiple changes but was removed after maybe a year in rotation despite lack of complaints from the players, and vehicles like the WTE-100 receiving similar adjustments before being scrapped completely).

 

Honestly, I'm just curious about what goes on in these "Supertest" environments, and if it isn't just a ruse to make us believe WarGaming cares.

 

x.

 

As someone who was in the (Warplanes) supertest, I can shed some limited light.  WG has publicly said on multiple occasions that they try to get players of all skill levels into the supertest, and I can confirm that it ranged from unicums to straight up baddies on the ST server.   

 

As to your later questions, I cannot answer without possibly violating the NDA, but I can say that I was impressed with the testing methodology.  



KaiserWilhelmShatner #10 Posted Jun 01 2018 - 02:24

    Major

  • Players
  • 15711 battles
  • 4,188
  • [F_O_G] F_O_G
  • Member since:
    03-03-2012
How about testing the removal of Mines from Tier 6 - 10 matches?

ThePigSheFlies #11 Posted Jun 12 2018 - 14:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 63104 battles
  • 16,202
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

View PostGnomon, on May 31 2018 - 12:28, said:

 

Supertests happen at the early stages of development, usually a month or more before release. They involve checking new changes and trying to find the most critical issues before opening the tests to the public. STs are 

 

here, let me help you with identifying the critical issues:

  1. Mines is too small, even if all of the terrain was passable
  2. factor in the terrain that is not passable due to bullying the mountain goaters and it's way way way way too small
  3. add in a dose of butter coated teflon rocks which means one cannot efficiently and safely descend from the central hill, and it's now way way way way way way way way too small
  4. in case you've missed it.  mines is too small

 

you guys no doubt are still collecting feedback and statistics about front line.  credits, no tier 10s, bonds, special camo's whoooo.  know what the best thing about front line was?  a reprieve from ancient, tiny, crappy, funnel maps.  like mines, ensk, ruinberg, himmels and countless other trashy tiny maps.



xtc4 #12 Posted Jun 12 2018 - 21:53

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24114 battles
  • 713
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    01-31-2013

View PostThePigSheFlies, on Jun 12 2018 - 08:27, said:

 

here, let me help you with identifying the critical issues:

  1. Mines is too small, even if all of the terrain was passable
  2. factor in the terrain that is not passable due to bullying the mountain goaters and it's way way way way too small
  3. add in a dose of butter coated teflon rocks which means one cannot efficiently and safely descend from the central hill, and it's now way way way way way way way way too small
  4. in case you've missed it.  mines is too small

 

you guys no doubt are still collecting feedback and statistics about front line.  credits, no tier 10s, bonds, special camo's whoooo.  know what the best thing about front line was?  a reprieve from ancient, tiny, crappy, funnel maps.  like mines, ensk, ruinberg, himmels and countless other trashy tiny maps.

 

#3 was the absolute breaking point for me. On top of everything else, it is now extraordinarily difficult to try to drop off the hill without smashing your tank. The hill really has one exit now. No good.

spud_tuber #13 Posted Jun 17 2018 - 15:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 50013 battles
  • 6,062
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Concerning mines.  I think you're taking the exact opposite approach to what you need to do.  You're making it easier for south to defend in the west, further choking out aggressive options that aren't the hill furball.  Instead, you should be making it easier for the south spawn to push in the west, such that they have options similar to what the north has.  Or, barring that, make it easier for south to push in the east.

yruputin #14 Posted Jun 17 2018 - 16:15

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21837 battles
  • 124
  • [A_P] A_P
  • Member since:
    03-08-2016

View Postpickpocket293, on May 31 2018 - 18:36, said:

Can we make Mines bigger, or limit it to tier 6 and below? Currently it's INCREDIBLY small for tier 10 games.

 

I completely agree with this intelligent observation.

:bush:



Tahllol #15 Posted Jun 17 2018 - 22:28

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 10792 battles
  • 1,014
  • Member since:
    01-31-2016

100% FAIL like every other map you are remaking. You as expected redid the maps to favor your fake Russian tanks by removing most of the areas to benefit the tanks that require gun depression. Basically made them all low hills to benefit the fake [edited]Russian tanks with no depression and super armor. 

 

Besides you still can't get a clue and make the maps the correct size so tanks can't see across them from the start. IE ALL MAPS NEEDS DOUBLED IN SIZE AT A MINIMUM


Edited by Tahllol, Jun 17 2018 - 22:29.


_SALT_WAGON_ #16 Posted Jun 23 2018 - 23:52

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 4636 battles
  • 15
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

1. Limit Mines to tier VI and below. Its just way too small for tiers above that - even squishing tier VI into this map is a stretch.

2. I think another means to enter/exit the hill on the East side would make the terrain a little less controlling and allow the team that doesn't take the hill in the first 20 seconds to have the ability to try and push the owners off.



latvius #17 Posted Jun 25 2018 - 14:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 26517 battles
  • 26
  • [-DIG-] -DIG-
  • Member since:
    11-26-2013
Ditto the map is too small, it and all the other small ones should be for Tier 5 and below.  I would rather have the dev time spent in creating new maps than "fixing" current ones.





Also tagged with mines, glacier, supertest, feedback

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users