Jump to content


2018 - 5 new maps

new maps

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Poll: 2018 map concept (34 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Adding player accessible bridges, tunnel networks, shooting platforms outside rach but within range is...

  1. a good idea. (19 votes [55.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 55.88%

  2. a bad idea. (11 votes [32.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.35%

  3. something I don't care. (4 votes [11.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

This map concept is...

  1. interesting (24 votes [70.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.59%

  2. not interesting (10 votes [29.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.41%

WG should...

  1. not test this. Waste of time. (11 votes [32.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.35%

  2. test this. Worth the effort. (23 votes [67.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.65%

Vote Hide poll

WindSplitter1 #1 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:53 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15430 battles
  • 2,231
  • [KROLL] KROLL
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

WG has said that 5 new maps will be introduced this year.

 

Before looking at what might be new, let's see what's old, through two maps with the same playstyle:

 

Ensk

 

Paris

 

Two things this map have.

 


PART 1

These two maps, as you already know are made of the following sectors:

 

1 - "Corridorised" section where HTs, MTs and TDs with armour brawl. There's usually enough room for them to duke it out and I'd say this is the part that sees the most action.

 

2 - Long but narrow strip containing bushes on an open field, typically favoured by paper vehicles/all classes but HTs.

 

In Sector 2, the first vehicle to twitch or sneeze, gets a 150mm+, 750HP+ damage-dealing shot, a couple of arty shells and gets finally rekt by the fart of a LT's gun. Not much space available there.

 

In Sector 1, it's pretty much a war of attrition.


PART 2

The following is more widespread and present in almost every map:

 

As the maps and also the players are "preset" to follow a route that offers the more advantages, along with other factors that your favourite uni will tell you, most drivers will go to the edges of the map. That means (Enemies/Allies):

 

  1. North/South - Erlenberg
  2. East/West - Ensk

 

Few battles take place in the center since that's where you're more likely to be shot at.


CONCERNING THE NEW MAPS

 

EDIT: a similar plot is already in the works. see for yourself here:

https://www.youtube....h?v=W3qwRYd8S5o

 

The point is, if the new maps will bring nothing new but sparkling effects only high end PCs can display, the HT "meta" as people call it, will simply continue.

LTs, go here, MTs, go there, HTs over here, TDs, camp here, SPGs, go drown.

 

It's not hard to see why that is not appealing. But instead of just dumping here what people already know, I'm gonna give you something to ignore and that Jigabachi will tell me that has already been proposed work on.

 

Bridges (rewards tanks with good gun depression)

 

Atolls (separate places within shooting range of each other)

 

Overpass (giving several places to engage in action, promotes constant dynamic gameplay, in theory)

 

Tunnel networks (same as what we already have but in other environments)

 

These are just concepts and would have to be adapted to fit in the WoT concept and not as is on the pictures.

 

Nevertheless, these are 5 examples of what I think that would add more diversity to our current mapset, instead of crossing your fingers to not have a map with more aisles than a LIDL.

 

Currently, if you're not in an HT or a MT with good armour, there are few choices.

 

But what do you Ladies and Gentlemen think?

 

EDIT: Even Qpranger's standards are decreasing...


Edited by WindSplitter1, 02 August 2018 - 08:32 PM.


_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #2 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28964 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015
If you have played this game for some time you will realize maps have been created, dropped and rehashed and what they can do with maps has already been done.

Map size is the definitive container as game mechanics set the minimum size for any effective feature.
We do need some new maps as at higher tiers tanks are pushing the boundaries of many maps.

1.1km x 1.1km for battle tier 9, 1.2 x 1.2km for BT10 to complement the excellent and refreshing change of BT11 grand battles of 30x30 on a 1.4km x 1.4km.

We also need some improvements to map rotation as if you are unlucky it can be absolutely dire at times.  

Derethim #3 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17107 battles
  • 1,844
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

Worth trying it.

 

For tunnels - these would literally be the ULTIMATE corridors. They'd have to be on a flanking route for meds/lights as heavies would be too overpowered to use in these and instead of "go hill" every game on that map would become "go tunnel"

A fix for this would be adding a very open and hard-to-cross area without being fast/using cover well and not getting hit by arty. These areas would have to be on both ends of the tunnel, so that you'll have to perform the same evasive maneuvers until you reach the cover on the other side. Cover should be soft (destroyable), as slow, heavily-armored heavies will abuse hard cover and slowly move towards the tunnel.

 

Atolls sound fun for TDs/sniper meds. You could make a map separated by a large ravine and bridge over by a few thin bridges and a large dam with massed routes through it for heavies.

Then add some additional areas for each team on their side.

 

As for bridges, sorry not much of a fan, but it would be nice to have them back. The map "Port" had this exact thing going on, but once you were on the bridge you exposed your sides to enemy fire.

 

 



Gardar7 #4 Posted 12 January 2018 - 08:30 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22808 battles
  • 1,645
  • [VKG-] VKG-
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

Atolls, bridges: TD / Arty heaven. Who could pass the bridges between islands? Same with bridges, we had the map "Port" and there was a bridge. Nobody used it, as it was a suicide. 

Tunnels: HT heaven, especially for sidescrapers like Maus and all the incoming new Soviet rear-turreted heavies. Maybe some heavily armoured TDs could work as well. But all the other are just out of league. 

 

In my opinion we need maps like Dragon Ridge was. It was the most interesting, most variable tactics map ever implemented by WG. Plus, it was beautiful.



Makotti #5 Posted 12 January 2018 - 08:47 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 13290 battles
  • 256
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-04-2010

We don't need new maps, we need Komarin :harp:

 

(yes, new OPEN maps are welcome, not some city corridors which are Steve the IS-7 driver's heaven)



Dex022 #6 Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:02 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38389 battles
  • 1,622
  • Member since:
    12-26-2011

View PostMakotti, on 12 January 2018 - 08:47 AM, said:

We don't need new maps, we need Komarin :harp:

 

(yes, new OPEN maps are welcome, not some city corridors which are Steve the IS-7 driver's heaven)

 

I actually liked Komarin very much and as a matter of fact i liked original version much better then reworked one. For me everything is better then freaking Ensk for example. But it's just me because Steve's complaints were reason most of the maps remowed. Even Northwest doesn't look half bad or infamous Severogorsk(but also FIRST version,second was ultimate corridors 2.0)  and most maps were better before "reworks" or dumbing down maps so Steve can focus(barely) on his front. I say barely cause that was also a problem so Steve's got brand new Jap heavy line so point and click were never easier....

anonym_kL7qtn3e52MB #7 Posted 12 January 2018 - 09:10 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 0 battles
  • 6,815
  • Member since:
    07-10-2018

Yes, we need more corridorized maps, with atolls and bridges and tunnels (which don't allow flanking at all...). Gud idea...

 



SydneyxD #8 Posted 12 January 2018 - 10:21 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 23150 battles
  • 137
  • [L-REM] L-REM
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011
Yeah great, so badgers and e3's can go in tunnel and cant be shot by arty or get flanked gg nice map design

Bennie182 #9 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 51455 battles
  • 1,251
  • Member since:
    03-13-2012
one of the new maps will get tunnels, it's called Japort. doesn't seem a great idea, as you already know it will be campfest there.

adameitas #10 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:29 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 61770 battles
  • 792
  • [KITTY] KITTY
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

better they wont add new maps but just fix current ones. Just look at several last maps. They are horrible.. like Paris, Pilsem, Stalingrad, Charkov... Maybe only Overlord map is better but again that useless bad players magnet beach ruins it..

 

Also some old maps just dont suit current t10. Mines are pure horror on high tiers.. And encounter mode on that map is just beyond any sanity...

Enks also fails on high tiers..

 

from positive things i like idea that on some HD maps it is possible to use more parts of map (making them useful) like crossing river wherever you want on one of the maps.

 



Derethim #11 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 17107 battles
  • 1,844
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostGardar7, on 12 January 2018 - 08:30 AM, said:

Atolls, bridges: TD / Arty heaven. Who could pass the bridges between islands? Same with bridges, we had the map "Port" and there was a bridge. Nobody used it, as it was a suicide. 

Tunnels: HT heaven, especially for sidescrapers like Maus and all the incoming new Soviet rear-turreted heavies. Maybe some heavily armoured TDs could work as well. But all the other are just out of league. 

 

In my opinion we need maps like Dragon Ridge was. It was the most interesting, most variable tactics map ever implemented by WG. Plus, it was beautiful.

 

I used the bridge a lot with my tier V Chaffee back then - it was a quick route for a light towards arty :trollface:

 

Also people, he has some nice ideas, give him some credit. The flanking routes/lack of cover can be easily adressed, bridges are fun and each map already has arty/TD heavens.



Th3M8dH8tt3r #12 Posted 02 August 2018 - 10:33 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6746 battles
  • 385
  • [PXR] PXR
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

Best maps that have been got rid, funnily enough - Northwest, Pearl River, Hidden Village, the old snow one with the two high passes either side. 

 

Original swamp was awesome, then they changed it - it became crapand is now gone completely. Same story for a lot of maps that are now dead. 

 

The new maps that WG are introducing and the work they're doing to existing maps is utter utter gash in my opinion. They say they're doing it because one side would have an advantage but that is what made the maps good. You had to think about what you're doing. Ensk used to rock. In my opinion, it's now one of the most boring and worst maps in the game. 

 

I would love it if WG would go back to the philosophy they followed 3 or 4 years ago when the maps were different and fun. It's beyond me why they felt Kharkov, Highway and others had to be removed. 



Rati_Festa #13 Posted 02 August 2018 - 10:41 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 41345 battles
  • 1,062
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012
They need to make bigger maps with areas for heavies to fight but where they can also be flanked.

They remove maps randomly for me ensk and pilsen for example are very similar. I would actually say pilsen was better of the two but they removed it.

More maps like klondike and glacier for me, those two are by far the best new maps of recent years as all classes can fight and contribute.





Also tagged with new maps

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users