Jump to content


Changes needed for maps to address gameplay issues. - Discuss


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

Gt_Scorphio #1 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:15 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 3758 battles
  • 9
  • Member since:
    11-02-2013

This is more to start a discussion than a list of issues I would like discussed and potentially addressed, particularly with older maps that haven't been addressed for a while. 

My main map that i have a complete hatred for is Fiery Salient / Prokhorovka. There is so much foilage for tank destroyers to hide in and completely stop and entire side of the map being used its just ridiculous, and the otherside is dominated by a hill, that only serves as a place for tanks to go and die from the little section cut off by the stream/river.

 

As for addressing this, I feel like the railroad should run across the map sideways with breaches in the embankment to fight through, and destroyed and derailed carriages for cover, rather than the current mess of rises and dips.



Chuwt #2 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:50 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 25854 battles
  • 66
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012
I like Fiery Saliant/Prokhorovka. Its more interesting than many of the maps to fight over.

In general, I would say we need larger maps, less corridors: Mines is fine for low tier, but a pain for high tier battles, unless you are a certain few tanks, and the very unequal spawn is not very equitable either, especially when your team does not seem to understand what an objective is.

Derethim #3 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:58 AM

    Lieutenant

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

View PostChuwt, on 12 January 2018 - 01:50 AM, said:

I like Fiery Saliant/Prokhorovka. Its more interesting than many of the maps to fight over.

In general, I would say we need larger maps, less corridors: Mines is fine for low tier, but a pain for high tier battles, unless you are a certain few tanks, and the very unequal spawn is not very equitable either, especially when your team does not seem to understand what an objective is.

 

The corridors are not the biggest problem. It's the size.

Compare the size of Himmelsdorf to the size of Prokhorovka - Prokhorovka is huge compared to it. 1000x1000 vs 700x700. Also, Ensk is 600x600, which is terrible for lights to do anything.

If even city maps were big, but the team sizes stayed the same and there would be corridors, but a crapton of them with different possible flanking routes you can't possibly cover all, heavies would lose their primary strenght - which is basically blocking a corridor and trying to hit each-other's weakspots.

 

Let's say all maps for tier X would have to be 1200x1200 with new areas added to all existing maps. Unless they would add a single, huge corridor, this will work to eliminate the OPness of the heavy meta.

What's especially important, is to add a mix of soft and heavy cover into the city maps, just like the edges of the village on Lakeville. You can go through some houses, but not all of them. This combined with the large maps, some hillier terrain and a lot of cover would maybe hurt TDs a bit, but light and mediums would be useful again and heavies wouldn't be so OP.

 

EDIT: I agree, though. I like Prokhorovka in anything but a heavy, altough there are spots you can use heavies on it.


Edited by Derethim, 12 January 2018 - 01:58 AM.


Jigabachi #4 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:08 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17923 battles
  • 19,028
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
Nononono. No. Really. Keep your hands off that map. Before anyone touches that one borderline open map, go fiddle with all the other ones. THOSE are the ones that need a major rework...

_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #5 Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:12 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31191 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015

View PostDerethim, on 12 January 2018 - 01:58 AM, said:

 

The corridors are not the biggest problem. It's the size.

Compare the size of Himmelsdorf to the size of Prokhorovka - Prokhorovka is huge compared to it. 1000x1000 vs 700x700. Also, Ensk is 600x600, which is terrible for lights to do anything.

If even city maps were big, but the team sizes stayed the same and there would be corridors, but a crapton of them with different possible flanking routes you can't possibly cover all, heavies would lose their primary strenght - which is basically blocking a corridor and trying to hit each-other's weakspots.

 

Let's say all maps for tier X would have to be 1200x1200 with new areas added to all existing maps. Unless they would add a single, huge corridor, this will work to eliminate the OPness of the heavy meta.

What's especially important, is to add a mix of soft and heavy cover into the city maps, just like the edges of the village on Lakeville. You can go through some houses, but not all of them. This combined with the large maps, some hillier terrain and a lot of cover would maybe hurt TDs a bit, but light and mediums would be useful again and heavies wouldn't be so OP.

 

EDIT: I agree, though. I like Prokhorovka in anything but a heavy, altough there are spots you can use heavies on it.

 

The current mechanics of  564m render & 450m spot create defined limits of what you can do in a 1km x 1km map.
The maps have been made and dropped and revamped at regular intervals and what is quite obvious is that they have run out of ideas with maps.
Each map always has some elements of another and not one in anyway is unique apart from maybe the ones disliked in the OP.

Map size is the definitive container of what a map can compromise of as choke points, view ranges and features have minimum effective sizes because of game mechanics.
You can only fit so much in a certain space and that limit is what currently limits map diversity.

We should have larger maps that increase space and possibility and create a better environment for higher tiers.
Ensk, Himms & Mines turn battle tiers above 8 into a ridiculous match ups where tanks in specification are too big a fit.
BT9 1.1km x 1.1km, Bt10 1.2km x 1.2km to complement the excellent introduction of Bt11 30x30 Grand Battles of 1.4km x 1.4km.
I am not saying remove maps or change them, as we need additional different maps and that doesn't mean the same crap in the supposed representation of a historical site as they are just the same crap.

We need new maps, we need some new meta not some feng shui of rearranging what we have to make no appreciable difference of meta.
Maybe the author of the OP should have a couple of thou battles in a few T10s and experience a bit more of the extremely limited difference in maps. 
  

Edited by DumbNumpty, 12 January 2018 - 02:20 AM.


Phobos4321 #6 Posted 12 January 2018 - 05:12 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 43226 battles
  • 8,399
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011

probably any map discussion are worthless right now knowing we will get the (changed) HD maps in a few weeks

i dont know how they changed most maps so i cant say if the issues now stay an issue in the future



malachi6 #7 Posted 12 January 2018 - 10:53 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 49911 battles
  • 3,463
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
Remember when these maps really did have a lot of bushes?  Looks really barren now.

omgdontkillme #8 Posted 12 January 2018 - 12:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 38504 battles
  • 404
  • Member since:
    03-20-2015

View PostPhobos4321, on 12 January 2018 - 05:12 AM, said:

probably any map discussion are worthless right now knowing we will get the (changed) HD maps in a few weeks

i dont know how they changed most maps so i cant say if the issues now stay an issue in the future

 

The seize of the maps stays same. That leads that issues with the maps remain aswell.

 

What i really hate about the maps are that one side has advantage over other. You can see that by checking WR% on the maps.

Up to 5% WR% difference just because you start on south or north side is just stupid.



_Anarchistic_ #9 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38750 battles
  • 1,081
  • Member since:
    01-07-2015
they are starting to address some maps, Pilsen getting a huge size buff for example, so hopefully with HD maps mostly ready map balancing and new maps be the priority

Derethim #10 Posted 12 January 2018 - 01:30 PM

    Lieutenant

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

View Post_Anarchistic_, on 12 January 2018 - 01:08 PM, said:

they are starting to address some maps, Pilsen getting a huge size buff for example, so hopefully with HD maps mostly ready map balancing and new maps be the priority

 

I like Pilsen, size is the really only thing that makes it annoying to play for me.

Because, size matters.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users