Jump to content


Badly balanced maps


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

ZlatanArKung #1 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:26 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

We all know there are plenty of imbalanced maps in the game.

 

Sand River assault being one of the more glaring examples.

 

But my current most disliked map due to imbalance is Mines encounter.

 

North spawn is just so much stronger.

 

North gets.

1: Hill, if they go for it, since they start closer.

2: Cap area, again, they start closer, and with Hill protection...

And can just camp in base to prevent any enemy push along that side.

 

South gets nothing except terrible starting position for medium and light tanks.



leggasiini #2 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:40 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14218 battles
  • 6,194
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012
Dont forget a random heavy or TD spawning into MT / LT location on south spawn, often rendering them completely useless

Gremlin182 #3 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:47 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 48822 battles
  • 8,161
  • Member since:
    04-18-2012

Encounter and assault is mostly broken and has been for some time.

Mines encounter is one of the worst though North gets an advantage anyway even in standard mode, they are much more likely to take the hill if they try for it.

 



ExclamationMark #4 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16775 battles
  • 3,727
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

Who cares about assault/encounter, they've always been unbalanced crapmodes. 

 

Malinovka is probably the worst IMO. North spawn almost always loses in my experience. The only chance you have to win from this side is if you take hill, and hope the enemy doesn't try push your base. And going for hill is a joke from North in the first place, South spawn will always get there faster.

 

Arctic Region is also terrible. North is superior on this map, simply because you get a HUGE advantage in taking heavy flank. If South spawn doesn't go down with enough tanks to stop the enemies from going hulldown, you lose that flank 9/10 times. Though it doesn't generally win you the game, if South spawn has a good 2nd line defense it's almost impossible to push through. It basically means that the enemy can't take base, since you can just keep resetting hulldown once you hold the lower part of the heavy flank.

 

Cliff. Don't get me started. In my opinion the map is quite balanced. It's the players that make it terrible. South spawn usually loses this map because all the bads brainlessly go 1/2 to line to camp it, regardless of tank, totally ignoring 80% of the map. Thankfully I rarely get South spawn for some reason, not gonna complain though...

 

Erlenberg. Worst map in the game right now IMO. It's not "unbalanced" really, just terribly designed so that most games are 10+ minute campfest. I would be very interested to see the draw statistics of this map within the last year.

 

Westfield. Again not really an unbalanced map, just badly designed in that whatever team wins the North brawl usually wins the game. Usually, not always, if they try to badly push out the South flank it can go wrong.

 

This is just naming the worst maps right now, every single map in the game has its good and bad points, and I could write far, far more but I just don't care, nothing is going to come out of it either way...



Derethim #5 Posted 01 November 2017 - 03:56 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17518 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View Postleggasiini, on 01 November 2017 - 03:40 PM, said:

Dont forget a random heavy or TD spawning into MT / LT location on south spawn, often rendering them completely useless

 

THIS.

This pisses me off so much. Either you backtrack and lose time as a heavy or you get rekt.



japtank #6 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:01 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27619 battles
  • 1,046
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

All of this would be nothing if we had more obstacles.

Current maps are bad because of corridors and open deathtraps: once you commit on an open field, you more often than not die to campers, which is enough to prevent people wary of their stats to make a move. At tier X, it's pretty much half of the playerbase.

A real battlefield has obstacles.

Everywhere.

We don't, and with the absurd amount of damage of the current meta, you don't have any other choice than to be ultra cautious (aka camp).

With more obstacles, all maps would be playabale, even Mines and *takes a deep breath* Paris.

 

Yeah, Paris, what a wonderful map this could be!

Seriously, it's potentially an amazing map!

But 50 meters wide barren corridors prevent anything interesting from happening.

 

Same for Stalingrad: if only they removed the rubble blocking the way everywhere, this map would be awesome.

 

I know many people will disagree with my opinion though, and I'd like to know for what reasons.


Edited by japtank, 01 November 2017 - 05:02 PM.


TheComfyChair #7 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:09 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7609 battles
  • 748
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-20-2017
Mines is one of those maps that should be designated for low tiers.

Derethim #8 Posted 01 November 2017 - 05:45 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17518 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostTheComfyChair, on 01 November 2017 - 05:09 PM, said:

Mines is one of those maps that should be designated for low tiers.

 

1-5, even 5 is a bit unfit.

Browarszky #9 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,734
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostTheComfyChair, on 01 November 2017 - 04:09 PM, said:

Mines is one of those maps that should be designated for low tiers.

 

Once upon a time I thought it was... :sceptic:

 

I don't actually mind if we have unbalanced maps as long as there is roughly a 50-50 chance of ending up (corrected) on either side so that it evens out over time. I wouldn't mind unbalanced maps at all, if we actually had more maps in rotations and more better maps.


Edited by Browarszky, 02 November 2017 - 12:13 AM.


Aikl #10 Posted 01 November 2017 - 11:36 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View Postjaptank, on 01 November 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

All of this would be nothing if we had more obstacles.

(...)

 

Wargaming has noted this piece of feedback, and coming patch 9.20.2 even more bushes and rocks will be added - in the bases. Thank you for contributing to making WoT a greater game.

 

Jokes aside, I like the idea. WG doesn't even have to redesign maps that much, and there could even be a random distribution of wrecks and whatnot. Problem is, maps are kind of obviously made for camping and corridors, so I can't really see it happening. :<



BP_OMowe #11 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:00 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 24764 battles
  • 2,047
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    01-08-2013

View PostBrowarszky, on 01 November 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

I don't actually mind if we have unbalanced maps as long as there is roughly a 50-50 chance of ending on either side so that it evens out over time. I wouldn't mind unbalanced maps at all, if we actually had more maps in rotations and more better maps.

 

What is the point of playing a game where the toss of the coin decides the result beforehand?

Aikl #12 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:06 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25547 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostBP_OMowe, on 01 November 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

 

What is the point of playing a game where the toss of the coin decides the result beforehand?

 

You might've misunderstood; he doesn't mean the battle outcome should be a 50-50 chance, but rather which side of an unbalanced map you end up on. Makes a lot of sense; less nitpicking on balance might be positive for map design... Sand River, Ruinberg and Mines have way worse things than skewed winrates going for them.

K_A #13 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:07 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 13641 battles
  • 4,665
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    04-18-2013

View PostGremlin182, on 01 November 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

Encounter and assault is mostly broken and has been for some time.

Mines encounter is one of the worst though North gets an advantage anyway even in standard mode, they are much more likely to take the hill if they try for it.

 

 

Some maps actually work really well in encounter and assault. I really like Siegfried Line especially for assault, but for standard it feels kinda stupid.

Browarszky #14 Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:08 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,734
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostBP_OMowe, on 01 November 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

 

What is the point of playing a game where the toss of the coin decides the result beforehand?

 

I thought the RNG concept was baked in to begin with?

 

Funnily enough, I've seen these unbalanced maps go either way, so a lot depends on the fact that more often than not the teams are just as unbalanced as the maps are.

 

View PostAikl, on 01 November 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

 You might've misunderstood; he doesn't mean the battle outcome should be a 50-50 chance, but rather which side of an unbalanced map you end up on. Makes a lot of sense; less nitpicking on balance might be positive for map design... Sand River, Ruinberg and Mines have way worse things than skewed winrates going for them.

 

Yes, that's what I meant. 50-50 chance of ending up on either side.


Edited by Browarszky, 02 November 2017 - 12:12 AM.


Tipperty #15 Posted 02 November 2017 - 01:27 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19599 battles
  • 456
  • Member since:
    12-27-2013

View Postleggasiini, on 01 November 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

Dont forget a random heavy or TD spawning into MT / LT location on south spawn, often rendering them completely useless

 

Yeah, I got that spawn the other day on mines on encounter in my AMX 50 100, I mean what the feck am I to do with that tank there. Huddle up and wait for the 47 secs until my first clip is loaded or try and cross and get spotted with no way to defend myself. I was a sad puppy :( and also has anyone one managed to avg roll in that tank, I swear I hit for 250 on average with the top gun. I hate that stupid tank

Edited by Tipperty, 02 November 2017 - 01:27 AM.


Derethim #16 Posted 02 November 2017 - 01:40 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17518 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View Postjaptank, on 01 November 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

All of this would be nothing if we had more obstacles.

Current maps are bad because of corridors and open deathtraps: once you commit on an open field, you more often than not die to campers, which is enough to prevent people wary of their stats to make a move. At tier X, it's pretty much half of the playerbase.

A real battlefield has obstacles.

Everywhere.

We don't, and with the absurd amount of damage of the current meta, you don't have any other choice than to be ultra cautious (aka camp).

With more obstacles, all maps would be playabale, even Mines and *takes a deep breath* Paris.

 

Yeah, Paris, what a wonderful map this could be!

Seriously, it's potentially an amazing map!

But 50 meters wide barren corridors prevent anything interesting from happening.

 

Same for Stalingrad: if only they removed the rubble blocking the way everywhere, this map would be awesome.

 

I know many people will disagree with my opinion though, and I'd like to know for what reasons.

I don't disagree, I actually made a post about how soft-cover is important for the game. Soft cover helps meds and lights a ton, which are atm the underdog classes of WoT. Heavies rule and TDs are the only ones penning them.

But I think we're missing a semi-soft cover and semi-destructible buildings. What I mean by this is for example a house, that is hard to move through with a tank and slows you down, but gets destroyed like the rest of the environment.



leggasiini #17 Posted 02 November 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14218 battles
  • 6,194
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostTipperty, on 02 November 2017 - 02:27 AM, said:

 

Yeah, I got that spawn the other day on mines on encounter in my AMX 50 100, I mean what the feck am I to do with that tank there. Huddle up and wait for the 47 secs until my first clip is loaded or try and cross and get spotted with no way to defend myself. I was a sad puppy :( and also has anyone one managed to avg roll in that tank, I swear I hit for 250 on average with the top gun. I hate that stupid tank

 

Atleast AMX is fast, now imagine spawning there with a bottom tier super-heavy...

RamRaid90 #18 Posted 02 November 2017 - 07:33 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21467 battles
  • 6,481
  • [D0NG] D0NG
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

I think the majority of players will only be happy when there are two spawns, completely out of render range of each other, both surrounded entirely by rocks meaning neither team can move from the base...

 

Sadly I have a feeling there are some "players" who would find this fun...






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users