Jump to content


Maps (New and Old or new-old?)

Maps

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

W4RMONGER #1 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 10:07

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 12127 battles
  • 29
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

The center of the game may be tanks, but the canvas of the game is the maps. WG has released new maps in response to the call for them from the community, unfortunately though these "New" maps lack an sort of imagination and add nothing to the game play. It seems that WG has taken a "cheap, fast and easy" approach to map making. They take a existing map, color it different, move a few terrain bits around and release it as "new". The "new" Klondike map for G.B. is a perfect example of this. They basically took Glacier and Mountain pass, blended them into yet another "static Battle" map and ship it out as new. 

WG has either a very lazy Map development team or they need some fresh thoughts on making the game more dynamic. 

So here are some thoughts:

1. Make maps for the higher tiers (8+) that are more strategic in layout. You guys follow the same lame 3 avenue approach to all your maps.I Understand this approach works for the newer players, as it pushes them into a familiar scenario with each battle they play. However for the higher tiers it creates a very static play experience, such as Prokhorovka. Which is a total camp map and if teams are remotely even, the first to push will always lose. Most teams just push out of desperation to get it over with and move on to the next battle. Try making very busy maps with several avenues of attack, areas to sneak around and work with your team strategically to win. Perhaps this will cause issue with people not having the computer that can run these maps (Dragon Ridge was a example of an almost strategic map). But make a few maps like this and see if they work on the test server. Surely, if grand battle maps can be played on your minimum requirements, then more strategic maps should be no problem.

2. Bigger maps for the higher tiers. Use grand battle size maps as regular maps for tiers 8+. The small maps is one of the most limiting factors in higher tiers. 

3. Province is a horrible "camp fest" of a map. It was so bad you removed it from the game and now its worse and back. I have no clue who came up with that idea, but a flogging is required. It may work ok for the lower tiers (1-6) but its is horrid to play in the higher tiers.

4. Frontline was a decent game mode and not a bad map, however I think it was wrong to give new players tanks to play on it. It most likely hurt their perception of the game as players with little skill or experience were forced to play against folks completely out of their league. And it ruined the games for the older players because if you had a bunch of the new players on your team you were pretty much screwed and left to farm damage for points before loosing the match. If you do add Front line as a permanent feature of the game, I would suggest you triple the HP of the guns as well, due to the fact that a couple of auto loaders could kill one in seconds.

 

Take these suggestions as you will, but with the server update happening atm, I thought I would share some of my thoughts.

 

   


Edited by W4RMONGER, Jun 13 2018 - 10:44.


Almighty_Johnson #2 Posted Jun 13 2018 - 15:12

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 21177 battles
  • 1,617
  • [JOY] JOY
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014

View PostW4RMONGER, on Jun 13 2018 - 04:07, said:

The center of the game may be tanks, but the canvas of the game is the maps. WG has released new maps in response to the call for them from the community, unfortunately though these "New" maps lack an sort of imagination and add nothing to the game play. It seems that WG has taken a "cheap, fast and easy" approach to map making. They take a existing map, color it different, move a few terrain bits around and release it as "new". The "new" Klondike map for G.B. is a perfect example of this. They basically took Glacier and Mountain pass, blended them into yet another "static Battle" map and ship it out as new. Klondike is not a Glacier clone.  It was out long before Glacier was developed, and it shares almost zero in commonwith Mountain Pass.  It's closer to a large scale version of Northwest, with better balance.  Now Glacier, on the other hand, is nearly a perfect reskin of Sacred Valley.  

WG has either a very lazy Map development team or they need some fresh thoughts on making the game more dynamic. 

So here are some thoughts:

1. Make maps for the higher tiers (8+) (ALL TIERS) that are more strategic in layout. You guys follow the same lame 3 avenue approach to all your maps.  (Completely Agree) I Understand this approach works for the newer players, as it pushes them into a familiar scenario with each battle they play. However for the higher tiers it creates a very static play experience, such as Prokhorovka. Which is a total camp map and if teams are remotely even (People camp Prokhorovka because they are conditioned to.  That's actually one of the few non-corridor maps we do have) , the first to push will always lose. Most teams just push out of desperation to get it over with and move on to the next battle. Try making very busy maps with several avenues of attack, areas to sneak around and work with your team strategically to win. Perhaps this will cause issue with people not having the computer that can run these maps (Dragon Ridge was a example of an almost strategic map (Dragon Ridge was a "fun" map.  It was still corridor meta and terribly unbalanced.  That's why it got pulled)). But make a few maps like this and see if they work on the test server. Surely, if grand battle maps can be played on your minimum requirements , then more strategic maps should be no problem.

2. Bigger maps for the higher tiers (Absoutely, 110%, YES!) . Use grand battle size maps as regular maps for tiers 8+. The small maps is one of the most limiting factors in higher tiers. 

3. Province is a horrible "camp fest" of a map. It was so bad you removed it from the game and now its worse and back. I have no clue who came up with that idea, but a flogging is required. It may work ok for the lower tiers (1-6) but its is horrid to play in the higher tiers. (When I played Tier 1-3 it was my favorite map.  Tier 5 and up, it's abysmal.)

4. Frontline was a decent game mode and not a bad map, however I think it was wrong to give new players tanks to play on it. It most likely hurt their perception of the game as players with little skill or experience were forced to play against folks completely out of their league. And it ruined the games for the older players because if you had a bunch of the new players on your team you were pretty much screwed and left to farm damage for points before loosing the match. (Now, I'd argue against this.  Your premise is based on the idea that new players need the corridor maps to learn well.  Except that's not the case.  This game is simple to learn, but very hard to master.  Why would you teach the noobs one way to play, only to completely change the character of the gameplay later on?  When was the last time you played pub randoms?  Noobs who move up tier too fast get farmed.  It's just a fact of life in WoT.  You can't, and shouldn't, limit the play based on number of battles fought.  Besides there are plenty of 25,000+ battle terribads out there.  

Also, the Frontline was super fun to play for several main reasons.

.

  1. No Corridor Meta: The map was wide open allowing for fluid dynamic play that wasn't the same exact game every time
  2. Large Map Size:  More room to maneuver, varied terrain, and a mixture of cover and concealment meant that any tank with any style of play had multiple options.  This made for a more comfortable map (not like an arty in Paris or a Swedish TD in Himmelsdorf) 
  3. Same Tier MM:  Only seeing tanks of same tier meant that you were not pressured to use an excessive amount of premium ammo, and your armor was meaningful.  Intelligent play was rewarded far more than the typical "Press 2 for Skill" we see in most other modes.
  4. Longer Duration Battles:  Since there was respawn, the map was very well balanced, and the tanks were all same tier, the chances of getting a 2 minute ROFL-Stomp were slim to none.  The mode was not punishing.  
  5. Excellent Economy:  Win or lose, I made a bloody ton of credits during the month it was active.  I hear constantly from others who say the same.  It made winning feel great, but losing wasn't bad either.  I made money, had a ton of fun.

.

 If you do add Front line as a permanent feature of the game, I would suggest you triple the HP of the guns as well, due to the fact that a couple of auto loaders could kill one in seconds. (This wasn't my experience.  The game seemed very well balanced, with about equal chances of winning for Attackers or Defenders.  For once, I think they absolutely nailed it)

.

Take these suggestions as you will, but with the server update happening atm, I thought I would share some of my thoughts.

 

   

 



StormLegion828 #3 Posted Jun 14 2018 - 06:54

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 9258 battles
  • 178
  • [E-603] E-603
  • Member since:
    06-02-2011
Bump

Risky_Dingo #4 Posted Jun 14 2018 - 16:30

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 12382 battles
  • 51
  • Member since:
    11-02-2017

I keep telling everybody, randomly vary locations of the bases game-to-game, while maintaining their diametrical axis.

Won't be the equivalent of making new maps, but it will spice things up a little. Maybe more than a little.

And I refuse to believe such simple modification requires a monumental re-programming effort. It's all pluggable modules, right, with nips and tucks here and there?

 

BTW, I'm sick and tired of countering complaints about how that will make games "unbalanced" between teams.

SCREW BALANCE! Every game ends up "unbalanced", not counting draws.

Besides I think many if not most games become quickly unbalanced by sheer bad luck, like a few tanks lost too soon by one side, or starting with one- or two-too-many inexperienced players (or just plain stupid players).

 

STOP  LISTENING  TO  THE   SNOWFLAKES


Edited by Risky_Dingo, Jun 14 2018 - 16:31.


MeanRage #5 Posted Jun 20 2018 - 02:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 9183 battles
  • 94
  • [TXV] TXV
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
Ensk should be only for tiers 1 to 3. It is to small for higher tiers.





Also tagged with Maps

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users