Jump to content


Add higher tier maps

maps grand battles higher tier

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Poll: New Map Options (45 members have cast votes)

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

We need better maps for higher tiers

  1. Yes (40 votes [88.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 88.89%

  2. No (2 votes [4.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.44%

  3. Mweh (3 votes [6.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Higher tiers need bigger maps

  1. Yes (36 votes [80.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.00%

  2. No (2 votes [4.44%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.44%

  3. Mweh (7 votes [15.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.56%

A few current maps need deleting

  1. Yes (27 votes [60.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.00%

  2. No (12 votes [26.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.67%

  3. Mweh (6 votes [13.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.33%

Higher tier Maps should be optional under Grand Battles

  1. Yes (17 votes [37.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.78%

  2. No (14 votes [31.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.11%

  3. Mweh (14 votes [31.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.11%

Vote Hide poll

_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #1 Posted 28 January 2018 - 11:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31308 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015
For some reason in a linear progression tree game maps stop at T6 and are then just offered in rotation.
The design restrictions @ T6 starts to become very apparent @ high tiers where tanks just no longer fit and the map struggles to be suitable.

@ Battle tiers 9, 10 & 11 give us some new maps designed for those battle tiers with unique meta where 1.1kmx1.1km, 1.2kmx1.2km 15vs15 can compliment the 1.4kmx1.4km 30vs30 grand battles.

I actually think Grand Battles is a great introduction to WoT but currently suffers in isolation with 2 maps of a certain format and requires complementary maps of the above.
Some might just think we need better maps and bigger maps anyway as size is the definitive container for features & uniqueness.

Personally I believe some of the terrible new maps can be lost such as Pilsen, Karkov, Stalingrad, Overlord, Paris but in a 1kmx1km map all that can be done has and now many maps offer slightly different arrangements of roughly the same feature sets.
Some maps are now broken because of power creep and there is probably a wide choice of maps needing to be removed, there is at least 3 or 4 that are poor and offer very little real difference.

Personally I think WG should start designing some maps that are specific to higher tiers and match the powercreep and capabilities of tanks with bigger maps.
We prob need at least 3 or 4 larger higher tier maps that start at battle tiers 9, 10 & 11 that should be under the grand battles option.

Maybe they shouldn't be optional and the newer larger maps with the grand battle ones should be just part of normal map rotation and all will have to partake.
Not all may like GB but they are a huge higher tier sink of tanks and should help re-balance T8s MM with better maps & more 5-15 / 15 templates. 
    


 

Edited by DumbNumpty, 28 January 2018 - 11:25 PM.


Jigabachi #2 Posted 28 January 2018 - 11:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17927 battles
  • 19,063
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

We need better and bigger maps in general. Up to tV everything is more or less fine, but everything that comes after that isn't fun anymore.

 

Hint: Poll needs third options. Can't answer the last question.



_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #3 Posted 28 January 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31308 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015

View PostJigabachi, on 28 January 2018 - 11:10 PM, said:

We need better and bigger maps in general. Up to tV everything is more or less fine, but everything that comes after that isn't fun anymore.

 

Hint: Poll needs third options. Can't answer the last question.

 

Yeah but would like to see specific designs for higher tier maps and stated battle tiers 9, 10 & 11.
With BT 9 & 10 with -+1 MM templates such as 3-5-7 that will include tank tiers 7 & 8.

I think many of the maps are fine up till T6 tanks and they quickly start to be a grind as tiers progress.
Just too many that are a different paint of rearranged features, so even though the map changes very little meta does.

Apart from being no reward for higher tiers in maps I agree that same rotation often isn't fun.
They could prob grab 3 or 4 maps out of the current pool expand them to 1.1kmx1.1km, 1.2kmx1.2km and rearrange slightly to create more difference.
Those maps should be specific to battle tiers 9,10 & 11 as a repeat of the same through all tiers does make it repetitive and boring.

They are having to update maps for WoT 1.0 for HD so WG please don't just drop expand size and create higher tier maps.
At least that would be a start where maybe they could be replaced with totally new larger scale maps at a latter stage.

Added a "mweh" option cheers for the input.

Edited by DumbNumpty, 28 January 2018 - 11:44 PM.


Junglist_ #4 Posted 29 January 2018 - 12:05 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37139 battles
  • 1,348
  • Member since:
    06-17-2013
Agreed especially tier 10 gameplay is terrible on majority of the maps due to its size. And Grand Battles I also find terrible, bigger map but since there's twice as many players the result is completely the same sometimes even worse!! I mean what's the point of 30v30 Nebelburg when it's just a bigger version of Mines? 15v15 or maybe 20v20 on those maps would be far better IMO.

Laur_Balaur_XD #5 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:12 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 35898 battles
  • 640
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
This game needs bigger maps badly. I think 1.1X1.1km or 1.2X1.2km would be just fine.

Balc0ra #6 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:33 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66296 battles
  • 16,313
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

They need to kick off the smaller maps from high tiers like Ensk and Mines first. As for 15 vs 15 on bigger maps. Not sure how more "fun" that would be adding 200m considering most are to slow as is to even get around Paris in less then 10 min. As we also see on the GB maps late game. But high tiers needs more space to work on indeed. But no point in that if it's a 1.2km x 1.2km corridor map that makes super heavies even more sluggish with cap reset in mind if he is on the other side of the map etc.

 

Tho there are currently 9 maps on super test, none of them bigger then 1000x1000. 10 if you count the reworked Kharkov that is actually 200m wider and longer in that version, and half the town is gone. No idea what tiers those maps will be locked to etc. But I suspect the new version of Province on super test will be a low tiers again going by the map size. 


Edited by Balc0ra, 29 January 2018 - 01:35 AM.


Dava_117 #7 Posted 29 January 2018 - 11:06 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19497 battles
  • 3,305
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

We don't need map removal. There are already to low map. At most some rework of map like Erlenberg or Paris.

The devs are also already working on new maps for after 1.0, so let's hope in some new content after march. :)



eldrak #8 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47507 battles
  • 1,040
  • [NE-VO] NE-VO
  • Member since:
    01-27-2011
We don't need removal of maps, just a few should be restricted to max tier 6 or 8.

Gardar7 #9 Posted 29 January 2018 - 01:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22857 battles
  • 1,645
  • [VKG-] VKG-
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
Yes, please. At the moment this is the biggest problem of the game - the small size maps and city/corridor maps. WG should get some better map designers. 

Bucifel #10 Posted 29 January 2018 - 06:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 30989 battles
  • 1,373
  • [B4DD] B4DD
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostJunglist_, on 29 January 2018 - 12:05 AM, said:

Agreed especially tier 10 gameplay is terrible on majority of the maps due to its size. And Grand Battles I also find terrible, bigger map but since there's twice as many players the result is completely the same sometimes even worse!! I mean what's the point of 30v30 Nebelburg when it's just a bigger version of Mines? 15v15 or maybe 20v20 on those maps would be far better IMO.

 

this

+ do NOT delete ANY maps !

we dont need LESS maps...we need MORE !

even more...BRING BACK OLD ONES



_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #11 Posted 29 January 2018 - 11:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31308 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015

View PostBucifel, on 29 January 2018 - 06:21 PM, said:

 

this

+ do NOT delete ANY maps !

we dont need LESS maps...we need MORE !

even more...BRING BACK OLD ONES

 

Yeah I agree and left things open for the poll as it was of interest how bad some feel certain maps are at higher tiers.
For me what I mean by delete is that they should be removed from lower tier rotation increased in size and reworked for higher tier battles in 1.1km x 1.1km, 1.2km x 1.2km format.
They could actually rework some of the old ones and also add those as higher tier maps, many where removed because they had problems, but given a bit more canvas I think maybe could garner fixes.
But it is extremely interesting that so many believe certain maps are so broken that they should be deleted.
If they can not be fixed then personally I would rather see them deleted or become assigned to a tier banding that they work with.

My personal opinion is that we do need more new maps and also that it is a complete oversight higher tiers don't have specific map designs.
Map access should be part of the progression tree and why that essentially stopped at T6 is bemusing? Like WTF WG!?
I would like Grand Battles not to be optional and at least 4 new / reworked maps are added with the 2 Grand Battle maps for battle tiers 9,10 & 11 so affecting T7 - T10.
That at higher tiers all maps are available but maybe you can opt out of the likes of Ensk, Mines & Himms and others.
Then again at higher tiers I would like to see RNG drop to -+20% or even -+15% and be more representative of an Esports big League.

I am just sorted of shocked that WoT 1.0 sounds like maps are getting a HD paint over and some are going to be deleted but nothing new.
Such an iconic release and momentous event and like WG WTF?  

 

Edited by DumbNumpty, 29 January 2018 - 11:29 PM.


Aikl #12 Posted 30 January 2018 - 01:55 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25554 battles
  • 4,349
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostDumbNumpty, on 29 January 2018 - 10:29 PM, said:

(...)

I am just sorted of shocked that WoT 1.0 sounds like maps are getting a HD paint over and some are going to be deleted but nothing new.
Such an iconic release and momentous event and like WG WTF?  

 

 

Most likely Wargaming think the current maps are OK. They've already kept us with the same old maps for one and a half year, after all.

I bet a lot of players are not too bothered about the maps. Many offer dang-near identical gameplay. Functionally there's little difference between Overlord, Airfield and Fisherman's Bay, for instance. TDs camp in a corner, heavies brawl on a corner and gets shot to bits if they cross the middle of the map. Works fine for those who prefer these more 'basic' gameplay options, which ultimately is likely a very large portion of the (high-spending) playerbase.

 

An alternate explanation could be that they've planned the transition extremely poorly, yet are under pressure to 'renew' WoT to the standards of 2018 to keep it attractive. That means a simple map rework without the need to actually test each map carefully is the best solution - especially if you consider the above.

From what I've heard about the old engine, it was quirky to work with. Easier workflow is supposed to be one of the main benefits of the new engine. Maybe WoT 1.0 will be followed by extensive map overhauls and reworks. I kind of doubt it, unless graphics are deemed enough of a feature to replace the increasingly dumbed-down gameplay.

 

For what it's worth, I find it perfectly acceptable that there are options for those who prefer what I coin 'dumbed-down gameplay' - but it's not acceptable that you're forced into the same crappy meta on every map, with no counter to said dumbed-down plays. The latter includes all forms of ultra-passive gameplay, which is what many maps are based on. Camp a corner, the base or a bush and wait for the enemy to make a mistake - or the other flank to be overrun.
Alternate routes and flanking is largely dead, gone with maps that were removed due to being "imbalanced" - yet not deemed worthy of a rework. Hidden Village, Pearl River and Northwest were for sure not perfect, but they were different. There might not be strength in diversity, but I'll take map diversity over quantity devoid of quality.



_T_1_T_4_N_0_ #13 Posted 30 January 2018 - 06:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31308 battles
  • 1,114
  • [SQCI] SQCI
  • Member since:
    02-17-2015

View PostAikl, on 30 January 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

 

Most likely Wargaming think the current maps are OK. They've already kept us with the same old maps for one and a half year, after all.

I bet a lot of players are not too bothered about the maps. Many offer dang-near identical gameplay. Functionally there's little difference between Overlord, Airfield and Fisherman's Bay, for instance. TDs camp in a corner, heavies brawl on a corner and gets shot to bits if they cross the middle of the map. Works fine for those who prefer these more 'basic' gameplay options, which ultimately is likely a very large portion of the (high-spending) playerbase.

 

An alternate explanation could be that they've planned the transition extremely poorly, yet are under pressure to 'renew' WoT to the standards of 2018 to keep it attractive. That means a simple map rework without the need to actually test each map carefully is the best solution - especially if you consider the above.

From what I've heard about the old engine, it was quirky to work with. Easier workflow is supposed to be one of the main benefits of the new engine. Maybe WoT 1.0 will be followed by extensive map overhauls and reworks. I kind of doubt it, unless graphics are deemed enough of a feature to replace the increasingly dumbed-down gameplay.

 

For what it's worth, I find it perfectly acceptable that there are options for those who prefer what I coin 'dumbed-down gameplay' - but it's not acceptable that you're forced into the same crappy meta on every map, with no counter to said dumbed-down plays. The latter includes all forms of ultra-passive gameplay, which is what many maps are based on. Camp a corner, the base or a bush and wait for the enemy to make a mistake - or the other flank to be overrun.
Alternate routes and flanking is largely dead, gone with maps that were removed due to being "imbalanced" - yet not deemed worthy of a rework. Hidden Village, Pearl River and Northwest were for sure not perfect, but they were different. There might not be strength in diversity, but I'll take map diversity over quantity devoid of quality.

Yeah I am not sure why they have taken such a monolithic 'dumbed-down gameplay' approach for many aspects of the game.
Its a linear progression system so surely as you progress you start 'dumb-down' and progress to higher tiers.
It could be both but they have selected one approach and narrowed appeal which just doesn't make sense.

Its not just maps at higher tiers, but RNG and various aspects should progress and it could encompass much more at higher tiers.
WoT 1.0 should of been an iconic release but apart from a 4K makeover for high end gamers the only offering is ease for WG!
Cheers WG thanks for the roadmap you have so eloquently demonstrated and in terms of marketing is a disaster for what should be an iconic release.
Use that linear progression system to offer more before you lose the player base that could utilize it.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users