Jump to content


Incoming! Recon Mission 2022 results.

KRZY

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

KRZYBooP #1 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 17:49

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 5487 battles
  • 1,668
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    08-10-2015

Howdy Boom Jockeys!

 

The results are in from Recon mode with all the feedback gathered from our players on six locations. The top two are Aquila and Anykeyyevka.

Aquila will be aimed for release in 2023 after some polishing.

 

For more information on the results and some nice heat maps click HERE.



cloudwalking #2 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 18:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 198 battles
  • 2,735
  • Member since:
    08-29-2016

wow...you mean one of those MANY maps that have gone through recon are actually being brought into the game?   Well...next year anyway lolololol  Maybe...

 

The time it takes you guys to create maps is pathetic.  Put out 300 new premiums a year but takes years for a map to make it through 'testing' and then they typical always go back into 'testing'.

 

 

I'm not holding my breath with you guys and map creation is what I'm trying to say.



Angry_Johnny_Killbillys #3 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 18:15

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24 battles
  • 2,996
  • Member since:
    07-22-2021

Glad to see this part As a reminder, the first "graduate" of Recon Mission, the Outpost map, will enter Random Battles in September 2022 and the second, Oyster Bay, will arrive in early 2023.

But come on get them in the game as you and I would hope everyone working on maps at WG stale maps are a huge complaint by the player base.



warrends #4 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 19:35

    Major

  • Players
  • 25341 battles
  • 3,117
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011
Thank you.

ArcticTankHunter #5 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 20:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 27069 battles
  • 1,061
  • [OSU-V] OSU-V
  • Member since:
    05-22-2014
Played the Airshipyard multiple times and the middle of the map is still too broken for hull down heavies or mediums with armour like Emil or UDES 15/16. There is no way to counter them on those slope hills. I still think It should be released for low tiers only due to its size, if it isn't able to be balanced for high tier. It is perfect for Tier 6 and below due to T29s like Wide Park. Keep that in mind. It seems more balanced for those tier.

Edited by ArcticTankHunter, Jun 29 2022 - 21:01.


martingalindo #6 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 21:12

    Captain

  • Players
  • 55921 battles
  • 1,116
  • [CRDWN] CRDWN
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011
Most of this maps are better than others that are in the game. Airfield is super bad map, Mines is a tier 6 max map. El halluf is outdated (south is useless in the current wot). Pearl river is a terrible map and people make it worst with its bad gameplay going full mid.
Berlin was a descent map until WG ruined it and make it useless for TDs and lights.
Empire border is super bad and its in my blacklist
Tundra is same as Mines is a tier 6 max map no sence to play that in tier 7+.

This new maps every one of them are better than the maps mention above.
Yea there are ones that are the betters like Airshipyard, Klostertal  and Anykeyyevka
Aquila and Far East were good enought also
Only Canyon was ""okey""

My strong believe: Airshipyard was downvoted because people cross the bridge and die :facepalm:, where the real crossing was around the bridge, its not actually wg fault that people just go full brainless in their moves

Panzergraf #7 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 21:35

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • 27323 battles
  • 593
  • [MK2] MK2
  • Member since:
    07-09-2010
Great news, Anykeyyevka was my favorite of the bunch, and Aquila was fine too.
I'd love to see some more small-ish maps, like Himmels and Ensk, if Recon missions return in the future. Including super-sized maps like Aquila (1200x1200) and Oyster Bay (1300x1300?) is fine for the sake of variation, and at least Aquila (and Foothills from last year, also 1200x1200) surprisingly didn't feel too big, I'd still like to see more compact urban maps like Ensk in the game.

ezpzggsqueezy #8 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 22:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 14369 battles
  • 7,856
  • [GNZU] GNZU
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012

Absolutely pathetic. Just put them all in already, jesus. Safe haven was added how long ago and I have maybe 1/3 as many battles on it as any other map that's been in for years.


THEY ALL WORK
THEY ARE ALL FINE

THEY WOULD ALL ADD DIVERSITY

 

Jesus. Give us something new of substance. Not one map every two years. Fix them as you go, you already update to micro patch maps. Just do that.


Edited by XOIIO, Jun 29 2022 - 22:47.


Angry_Johnny_Killbillys #9 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 22:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24 battles
  • 2,996
  • Member since:
    07-22-2021

View PostPanzergraf, on Jun 29 2022 - 14:35, said:

Great news, Anykeyyevka was my favorite of the bunch, and Aquila was fine too.
I'd love to see some more small-ish maps, like Himmels and Ensk, if Recon missions return in the future. Including super-sized maps like Aquila (1200x1200) and Oyster Bay (1300x1300?) is fine for the sake of variation, and at least Aquila (and Foothills from last year, also 1200x1200) surprisingly didn't feel too big, I'd still like to see more compact urban maps like Ensk in the game.

Surprising since by a large margin you play heavy's :) and since the current group of maps have plenty of choke points for the rubble humpers I would vote no to that. But they could bring back a bunch of the old maps for you and the rest of us which I would love.



Angry_Johnny_Killbillys #10 Posted Jun 29 2022 - 22:51

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 24 battles
  • 2,996
  • Member since:
    07-22-2021

View Postmartingalindo, on Jun 29 2022 - 14:12, said:

Most of this maps are better than others that are in the game. Airfield is super bad map, Mines is a tier 6 max map. El halluf is outdated (south is useless in the current wot). Pearl river is a terrible map and people make it worst with its bad gameplay going full mid.
Berlin was a descent map until WG ruined it and make it useless for TDs and lights.
Empire border is super bad and its in my blacklist
Tundra is same as Mines is a tier 6 max map no sence to play that in tier 7+.

This new maps every one of them are better than the maps mention above.
Yea there are ones that are the betters like Airshipyard, Klostertal  and Anykeyyevka
Aquila and Far East were good enought also
Only Canyon was ""okey""

My strong believe: Airshipyard was downvoted because people cross the bridge and die :facepalm:, where the real crossing was around the bridge, its not actually wg fault that people just go full brainless in their moves

Unfortunately people get to vote and to me that is not how the process should work. All of the new maps are IMO better than what we have.



Mojo_Riesing #11 Posted Jun 30 2022 - 00:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 25129 battles
  • 3,254
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

I only got to play the Recon for a few days but overall any one of them would be an improvement over most, if not all, of the existing maps. 

It really is ridiculous how long it takes for WG to bring new maps on line AND the excuses  ... REASONS, why that is.  Wargaming should ask the question of how much "balance" the majority of players actually want or need.  As if Random battles were balanced at all, which they are NOT, but that's at least 3 other completely separate threads there. That includes a thread also dedicated to asking WHY Wargaming Devs spend SO much time on junk throw-away modes and game variations.

 

My guess is a majority would glady accept the MINOR imperfections in these maps for the opportunity to have them ALL in rotation. The simple plain truth of the matter is, the people most likely to have played enough games to actually commnent are the players to whom infintesimal flaws matter. They will NEVER be satisfied.  Ever.  WHY does Wargaming cater to what is probably a small fraction of players?

So, it's thanks..i hope we're all still above ground and actually playing this game by the time this maps come out.



ImYourFodder #12 Posted Jun 30 2022 - 00:53

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23370 battles
  • 1,821
  • [TONKX] TONKX
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013
Maps wernt perfect , but gave you options on the field and more room to run . At least was more enjoyable then the maps we play on now . Now that they are gone the game goes back to the sidelines till the next worthwhile event comes along . Like Front-lines

maiingun #13 Posted Jun 30 2022 - 01:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 35314 battles
  • 308
  • [CDN] CDN
  • Member since:
    12-17-2012

View PostAngry_Johnny_Killbillys, on Jun 29 2022 - 16:51, said:

Unfortunately people get to vote and to me that is not how the process should work. All of the new maps are IMO better than what we have.

 Yes, I agree, all of the maps are better than what we have now.

Just bring them in already.

 



martingalindo #14 Posted Jun 30 2022 - 17:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 55921 battles
  • 1,116
  • [CRDWN] CRDWN
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

View PostAngry_Johnny_Killbillys, on Jun 29 2022 - 18:51, said:

Unfortunately people get to vote and to me that is not how the process should work. All of the new maps are IMO better than what we have.

Agree, only canyon i feel that maybe will become bad in random but the rest were good



valeman12345 #15 Posted Jun 30 2022 - 19:26

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22694 battles
  • 1,176
  • [-LHN-] -LHN-
  • Member since:
    05-19-2012

View PostKRZYBooP, on Jun 29 2022 - 08:49, said:

Howdy Boom Jockeys!

 

The results are in from Recon mode with all the feedback gathered from our players on six locations. The top two are Aquila and Anykeyyevka.

Aquila will be aimed for release in 2023 after some polishing.

 

For more information on the results and some nice heat maps click HERE.

Aquila is too big and it encourages more "DRAWS" due to the size map. The map should be either smaller  than 1000x1000 or  most edges of map should be blocked off.



Waarheid #16 Posted Jul 01 2022 - 14:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 26226 battles
  • 2,603
  • Member since:
    09-30-2017
All of the new maps are more than good enough to be put into the game as-is, especially since we can still blacklist a map or two. Some of the flaws make you have to work harder for the win, and that’s a good thing. 

Elevendy #17 Posted Jul 03 2022 - 07:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 23879 battles
  • 2,674
  • [GIVUP] GIVUP
  • Member since:
    03-30-2011
I really hope they consider introducing the other maps too they were really good.

Mojo_Riesing #18 Posted Jul 03 2022 - 16:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 25129 battles
  • 3,254
  • [ACATS] ACATS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2011

Regarding the whole "Recon" mode concept, beyone what i've already said about the map sizes and how when to introduce them into game play it seemed to me there was a problem in how the "trial" was conducted and how that impacts results gathered.

 

I do understand that Wargaming wants to know that players actually played the maps and "enough", whatever that means, to be able to make an informed comment about them.  I don't really have a problem with how many times a map should have been played on, i guess it was 12?  Make it 10, or 15 that also isn't the issue but having that number achieved in random from repeated play over only 2 weeks i think could skew the demographic of players surveyed. I think you'd get players with who simply have more time on their hands to play than skills or game knowledge. Just looking at how the population of the server fluctuates it's clear many players ONLY have a limited window they can play in.

 

If Wargaming only wants a certain segment of it's player base to advise it on the maps fine, but i think they'd get a wider range of input by either extendingthe duration of time the mode was available (like a month?), decreasing the number of "plays" threshold (>12), or letting a player selectively focus play on specific maps

The outcome might be more conclusive of the overall player base.


 







Also tagged with KRZY

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users