Jump to content


Instead of blocking mountaingoating spots...


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

WindSplitter1 #1 Posted 13 August 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 16627 battles
  • 2,573
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

... why not let the players go to those locations anyway, but then add a timer, like when drowning/belly-up, for airstrikes/artillery barrage to the said player?

 

If the player didn't move from there, s/he'd be destroyed by fire.

 

The principle is that, if they go to a place to shoot from places people can't return fire to, the same happens to the mountain climber. It would punish "bad" play on the go and passively. That's already part of SH/CW, so it won't take as much work to the devs as well. Especially if the HD maps don't delete all climbs or if they create new ones.

 

WG would simply dispatch an AI unit (planes or arty) that would get rid of the player.

 

This is an easy fix to the issue and would give the said players a taste of their own medicine.



Jigabachi #2 Posted 13 August 2017 - 05:19 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 19,594
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

Or they could simply block the goating paths and be done with it. Oh, wait. That's what they are doing, right?

 

And then they could hire a competent mapmaker and provide us with a few new maps that are... - huh? What? Oh, sorry. Daydreaming again.


Edited by Jigabachi, 13 August 2017 - 05:19 PM.


SABAOTH #3 Posted 13 August 2017 - 05:22 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37239 battles
  • 2,915
  • [-133-] -133-
  • Member since:
    08-28-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 05:15 PM, said:

... why not let the players go to those locations anyway, but then add a timer, like when drowning/belly-up, for airstrikes/artillery barrage to the said player?

 

If the player didn't move from there, s/he'd be destroyed by fire.

 

The principle is that, if they go to a place to shoot from places people can't return fire to, the same happens to the mountain climber. It would punish "bad" play on the go and passively. That's already part of SH/CW, so it won't take as much work to the devs as well. Especially if the HD maps don't delete all climbs or if they create new ones.

 

WG would simply dispatch an AI unit (planes or arty) that would get rid of the player.

 

This is an easy fix to the issue and would give the said players a taste of their own medicine.

 

Spectacular, but no. They would mess it up or make it useless.

 

I don't believe all locations must be closed, but some are really ridicolous.



Spurtung #4 Posted 13 August 2017 - 10:18 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 65991 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 13 August 2017 - 06:19 PM, said:

Or they could simply block the goating paths and be done with it. Oh, wait. That's what they are doing, right?

They say they are. There's proof they're failing at it.



Silas001 #5 Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:08 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48018 battles
  • 1,721
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

I actually hoped you would continue the topic something like

 

"... make them easier accessible and part of a well-balanced map-design that promotes aggressive play and out-playing/flanking tougher enemies."

 

But once again I put too much faith in the WoT-Community it seems. :(



Aikl #6 Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 26054 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 13 August 2017 - 09:18 PM, said:

They say they are. There's proof they're failing at it.

 

Probably doing what they can while working on HD rocks - which judging from the fact that they're suddenly doing something with the mountaingoat issue is more or less proof that HD rocks are closer to freakin' Havok physics than to being implemented. :P

 

It sure appears like WG can't think straight. They've put all their eggs into a HD basket, ignoring the issues at hand. Heck, it's almost like the whole map dev team uninstalled the non-HD version of the mapping software (which after reading enough Tales from Tech Support isn't out of the question) and they had to fix the climbing routes on a 2011-era laptop.

 

HD maps are like the German Wunderwaffen. Promising, advanced, never on time, high on cost and came at cost of reducing actually useful development. If HD maps gets binned, you'd get a Wunderwaffe-Vapourware hybrid. Dampfware? Wunderware? Vapourwaffe? It's hard to decide.

(Without comparing the WG leadership to Hitler in general, it might be the same case of someone totally out of touch calling the shots on development instead of leaving it to the ones with hands-on knowledge.)


Edited by Aikl, 14 August 2017 - 10:56 AM.


Kozzy #7 Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:56 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [RINSE] RINSE
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostSilas001, on 14 August 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

I actually hoped you would continue the topic something like

 

"... make them easier accessible and part of a well-balanced map-design that promotes aggressive play and out-playing/flanking tougher enemies."

 

But once again I put too much faith in the WoT-Community it seems. :(

 

 

"promotes aggressive play" yeah camping in a hard to reach/hard to spot location for minutes at a time, often 100s of metres away from the 'action' is really 'aggressive play'.  I been on the giving and taking ends of these stupid climb locations and they are just ridiculous, easy mode damage farm locations.  They break what little immersion this game has in terms of tank warfare.



Silas001 #8 Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:16 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48018 battles
  • 1,721
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostKozzy, on 14 August 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

 

 

"promotes aggressive play" yeah camping in a hard to reach/hard to spot location for minutes at a time, often 100s of metres away from the 'action' is really 'aggressive play'.  I been on the giving and taking ends of these stupid climb locations and they are just ridiculous, easy mode damage farm locations.  They break what little immersion this game has in terms of tank warfare.

 

I suggest you read my comment again. It is not a long sentence but let me help you focus on some of the important parts:

View PostSilas001, on 14 August 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

"... make them easier accessable part of a well-balanced [!!11!!1one1eleven] map-design THAT PROMOTES AGGRESSIVE PLAY and [...] flanking enemies."

 

If that is not enough a little lesson on the basics of tactical warfare:

A good map-design that would do what I said would mean you have to get map-control and create cross-fire situations - while important and easily accessable flanking positions means the enemies will fight your claims to it if they want to prevent getting flanked. Of course it also means that sometimes you have to set priorities ... spread out your forces to get map-control and avoid getting flanked or keep them together to have a harder punch and overwhelm the split enemy forces (aka. PUUUUUSH). That applies to both - team-modes with proper tactical coordination and random as well where at least some form of teamplay should exist. (I know sounds like a utopia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Silas001, 14 August 2017 - 11:29 AM.


Kozzy #9 Posted 14 August 2017 - 11:21 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [RINSE] RINSE
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
I don't think WG should turn WoT into a comedy tank climbing bonanza.  I feel WG has started to realise how ridiculous it is to have 50 tonne armoured vehicles just see-sawing their way up icy rock faces.  It's not ALL about balance either some of it is about immersion. 

Edited by Kozzy, 14 August 2017 - 11:23 AM.


StinkyStonky #10 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:03 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29479 battles
  • 2,247
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostWindSplitter1, on 13 August 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

... why not let the players go to those locations anyway, but then add a timer, like when drowning/belly-up, for airstrikes/artillery barrage to the said player?

 

This is an easy fix to the issue and would give the said players a taste of their own medicine.

 

Software is never as easy as it sounds.

 

There are lots of things they could do (large penalties to aim time, reload, accuracy, camo value, XP and credit earnings, damage reduction, biased low rolls to the RNG.

 

I suspect the problem is detection of the "illegal" locations.  If this feature isn't already built into the map technology then retro-fitting it might be a huge amount of work.  Much simpler to just stick a rock barrier on the access ramp.

 

The fact that WG isn't making a huge effort on this is probably because it doesn't affect game outcome very much.



Silas001 #11 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:06 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48018 battles
  • 1,721
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostKozzy, on 14 August 2017 - 11:21 AM, said:

I don't think WG should turn WoT into a comedy tank climbing bonanza.  I feel WG has started to realise how ridiculous it is to have 50 tonne armoured vehicles just see-sawing their way up icy rock faces.  It's not ALL about balance either some of it is about immersion. 

 

Dammit I let myself get dragged into a discussion in the Gameplay-section of the forum. :ohmy: Anyways:

 

Immersion/realism vs. fun/playability is always a tough balance (aka. reality is boring as [edited]) and you will never make everyone happy since people have different expectations and preferences. Thats why there should be alternatives with some variations in the same genre and to some extent there are(WT, AW, ...).

Personally I could care less about realism as long as the mechanics are intuitive (and thus sometimes a little bit realistic). Beyond that the game should be (and is) a purely arcade tactical shooter with some unique elements. (like no mid-battle respawn). On the other hand I dont mind if you want to make the game feel as realistic as possible as long as it doesnt has a negative effect on the mechanics (like grass and annoying effects -> game runs in almost all graphics categories on lowest settings and im still fine if WG invests in polishing their shiny graphics stuff).

 

In that sense the mountain-goating over extremely steep "walls" should really freak you out and is totally counter-intuitive. But height always plays an important role in positioning yourself vs. your enemies and I dont see the point why you shouldnt build routes to higher/lower positions on the map.

 

Especially for Tier10 maps are way too small, and on top of that on most maps the vast majority of the fighting is crammed into tiny little areas without giving smaller/weaker and faster vehicles the possibility to out-flank the enemies. All that while huge areas are unused - either because they are just flat plains without any cover or they are cut off by steep mountains, cliffs or water.

 

The reworks of some maps like Redshire(the worst camp-fest there was), Komarin, ... already addressed this to some extent but still nowhere enough.

 

So the issue at hand achieved for at least some people a slightly bigger map by using areas that were previously cut off but since they are not designed to be part of the game they are completely broken/un-balanced. My proposal was just to integrate them into the map-design.

 

Edit: And if map-designers are too close minded for that or think players are too close-minded beyond brawling in small corridors, it shouldnt be too hard to watch a few of Xaneleons videos and just put extensive rocks or overhanging cliffs on the important spots. Do it again after the fixes and after 2-3 patches it should be next to impossible to find new unintended ways. My guess is that WG themself dont really know(care enough) how to handle the situation. Wether those boosts should be "fixed" or expanded or are fine as they are.

 

All that just within that little sentence:

View PostSilas001, on 14 August 2017 - 09:08 AM, said:

"... make them easier accessible and part of a well-balanced map-design that promotes aggressive play and out-playing/flanking tougher enemies."

 


Edited by Silas001, 14 August 2017 - 12:15 PM.


SovietBias #12 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37407 battles
  • 1,334
  • Member since:
    06-10-2013

View PostStinkyStonky, on 14 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

 

Software is never as easy as it sounds.

 

There are lots of things they could do (large penalties to aim time, reload, accuracy, camo value, XP and credit earnings, damage reduction, biased low rolls to the RNG.

 

I suspect the problem is detection of the "illegal" locations.  If this feature isn't already built into the map technology then retro-fitting it might be a huge amount of work.  Much simpler to just stick a rock barrier on the access ramp.

 

The fact that WG isn't making a huge effort on this is probably because it doesn't affect game outcome very much.

 

I'm pretty sure they can use the same logic of a flag/base and apply a timer similar to drowning. It should not take much time to come up with an explosion like those at the start of the battle and you got an out of bounds timer. 

 

And it seems to me not easier to figure out all possible routes to said locations, together with the possibility of having a few players making a train and push you up and block them with HD rocks, than it is to 'paint' an area on the map as inaccessible. 


Edited by SovietBias, 14 August 2017 - 12:08 PM.


Isharial #13 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:13 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 20491 battles
  • 2,406
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

tbqh I think they should open the spots up more, and allow more usage of the terrain within each map rather than funnelling us into corridors

 

maybe that's just me though...



Kozzy #14 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:14 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [RINSE] RINSE
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostSilas001, on 14 August 2017 - 11:06 AM, said:

 

Dammit I let myself get dragged into a discussion in the Gameplay-section of the forum. :ohmy: Anyways:

 

Immersion/realism vs. fun/playability is always a tough balance (aka. reality is boring as [edited]) and you will never make everyone happy since people have different expectations and preferences. Thats why there should be alternatives with some variations in the same genre and to some extent there are(WT, AW, ...).

Personally I could care less about realism as long as the mechanics are intuitive (and thus sometimes a little bit realistic). Beyond that the game should be (and is) a purely arcade tactical shooter with some unique elements. (like no mid-battle respawn). On the other hand I dont mind if you want to make the game feel as realistic as possible as long as it doesnt has a negative effect on the mechanics (like grass and annoying effects -> game runs in almost all graphics categories on lowest settings and im still fine if WG invests in polishing their shiny graphics stuff).

 

In that sense the mountain-goating over extremely steep "walls" should really freak you out and is totally counter-intuitive. But height always plays an important role in positioning yourself vs. your enemies and I dont see the point why you shouldnt build routes to higher/lower positions on the map.

 

Especially for Tier10 maps are way too small, and on top of that on most maps the vast majority of the fighting is crammed into tiny little areas without giving smaller/weaker and faster vehicles the possibility to out-flank the enemies. All that while huge areas are unused - either because they are just flat plains without any cover or they are cut off by steep mountains, cliffs or water.

 

The reworks of some maps like Redshire(the worst camp-fest there was), Komarin, ... already addressed this to some extent but still nowhere enough.

 

So the issue at hand achieved for at least some people a slightly bigger map by using areas that were previously cut off but since they are not designed to be part of the game they are completely broken/un-balanced. My proposal was just to integrate them into the map-design.

 

All that just within that little sentence:

 

 

"Personally I could care less" means you actually care a great deal.  I think you meant "Personally I could NOT care less".

 

Anyway, you need to be able to draw a line somewhere otherwise we could have lazers, jump pads,Edited or whatever all smashing into each other and this could be a great, fun game but it wouldn't be a WWII/cold war era tank shooter anymore.  Again, I feel this line gets drawn WAY before tanks being able to climb up slippery rock faces.  It just makes no sense and is clearly a flaw in the physics engine/poor map development.

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.


Edited by VMX, 16 August 2017 - 02:41 PM.


Silas001 #15 Posted 14 August 2017 - 12:29 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48018 battles
  • 1,721
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostKozzy, on 14 August 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

 

Anyway, you need to be able to draw a line somewhere otherwise we could have lazers, jump pads, Edited or whatever all smashing into each other and this could be a great, fun game but it wouldn't be a WWII/cold war era tank shooter anymore.

 

As I said. I think it could be fun to shoot with Edited and all that. That is just cosmetics and I dont care. I care about interesting (as in "tactical" ) gameplay ( and camping hard is not interesting tactical gameplay).

 

I unterstand that there are people who do care about cosmetics and it is fine with me when WG puts some effort into pleasing those players. But that isnt really the topic here, is it? Unbalanced boosts do have a negative effect on gameplay and should be fixed (imho: by expanding the maps and integrating those areas into the map-design)

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks. 


Edited by VMX, 16 August 2017 - 02:42 PM.


StinkyStonky #16 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 29479 battles
  • 2,247
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostSovietBias, on 14 August 2017 - 11:08 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure they can use the same logic of a flag/base and apply a timer similar to drowning.  

In principle yes but if the game engine doesn't currently support an "out of bounds" concept then it would have to be added to the engine.

 

As an alternative to rocks they could probably have super high ground resistance on all the AoB areas ... but they haven't bothered with any of these ideas.

 

I suspect it's just not worth the effort.



HaZardeur #17 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34595 battles
  • 1,279
  • Member since:
    08-14-2010
How about no ?

uglycousin #18 Posted 14 August 2017 - 01:45 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 46351 battles
  • 3,898
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014
:popcorn:

Kozzy #19 Posted 14 August 2017 - 02:02 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 38855 battles
  • 2,705
  • [RINSE] RINSE
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

View PostSilas001, on 14 August 2017 - 11:29 AM, said:

 

As I said. I think it could be fun to shoot with Edited and all that. That is just cosmetics and I dont care. I care about interesting (as in "tactical" ) gameplay ( and camping hard is not interesting tactical gameplay).

 

I unterstand that there are people who do care about cosmetics and it is fine with me when WG puts some effort into pleasing those players. But that isnt really the topic here, is it? Unbalanced boosts do have a negative effect on gameplay and should be fixed (imho: by expanding the maps and integrating those areas into the map-design)

 

Physics != Cosmetics.

 

What you appear to want is a more sci-fi/fantasy game (based on the physics you seem to want).  I believe WoT appeals to people who like the idea of tanks shooting at other tanks (not laser-firing space mechs).  There are plenty of games where you can do the kinds of things you want to do, I don't think woT (with physics based on real world maths) is what you're after.


Edited by VMX, 16 August 2017 - 02:45 PM.


Silas001 #20 Posted 14 August 2017 - 02:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 48018 battles
  • 1,721
  • [JUST] JUST
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011

View PostKozzy, on 14 August 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

 

Physics != Cosmetics.

 

What you appear to want is a more sci-fi/fantasy game (based on the physics you seem to want).  I believe WoT appeals to people who like the idea of tanks shooting at other tanks (not laser-firing space mechs).  There are plenty of games where you can do the kinds of things you want to do, I don't think woT (with physics based on real world maths) is what you're after.

 

You continuously miss my points. (Deliberately?)

 

Fine ill concede, I only play WoT because I hope it becomes a Space-Edited-Shooter.

I wont bother you anymore with my arguments about how you could improve the situation

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks. 


Edited by VMX, 16 August 2017 - 02:46 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users