Jump to content


HD is beautifull, but the amount of maps to cry about


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

SittingIronDuck #1 Posted 02 April 2018 - 02:02 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17127 battles
  • 14
  • [DRILL] DRILL
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

Now I do understand reworking maps is a lot of work. But playing tier 7 to 10 in all those really small maps really sucks. played tier 7 to 9 and got mines, wienersdorf ect.

WG did remove a lot of maps and now we have those really little city maps all the time with no room at all.

 

For tier 2 that is nice, but anything with some skill is simply irritating to play. Way to go!



Shaade_Silentpaw #2 Posted 02 April 2018 - 02:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 22020 battles
  • 355
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

The main problem with Mines and Himmelsdorf is not so much size, as the imbalance when it comes to how easy it is for one team to take the most important part of the map (the hill)

 

On mines - the northern team has a shorter run to the hill, and on Himmelsdorf - the southern team needs less gun depression to attack the hill. (I might have my north/south mixed up, but you get the point)

 

Now, Ensk - that's a map that is just plain too small for high tiers.

 



SittingIronDuck #3 Posted 02 April 2018 - 02:21 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17127 battles
  • 14
  • [DRILL] DRILL
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

well from my perspective i find it hard to understand what happend now. even crapmaps are better than no maps at all. imbalance there will always be, but for some reason I do like the visuals of the maps THAT ARE LEFT!!

 



Gunerstile #4 Posted 02 April 2018 - 02:32 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15005 battles
  • 163
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012
Bring back the old Northwest map, old port map (cant remember the name, small but quite interesting), all of the old Asian based maps. Bring back Stalingrad and/or Harkhov (one is quite enough since both have same idea and gameplay, personally i pref. Stalingrad) and remove Ensk from t VII and up, problem solved!

Balc0ra #5 Posted 02 April 2018 - 05:12 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64429 battles
  • 15,448
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostSittingIronDuck, on 02 April 2018 - 02:02 PM, said:

Now I do understand reworking maps is a lot of work. But playing tier 7 to 10 in all those really small maps really sucks. played tier 7 to 9 and got mines, wienersdorf ect.

WG did remove a lot of maps and now we have those really little city maps all the time with no room at all.

 

For tier 2 that is nice, but anything with some skill is simply irritating to play. Way to go!

 

HD maps takes 90 days from start to finish pr map give or take according to WG, and when you have 40+? well. So some of the removed maps in 1.0 was simply not given an HD map in time, and will return later. Others like Stalingrad won't make a return.

 

Then again there are currently 10 new maps undergoing testing. Inc tier 1 to 3 maps. As a new variant of Province is currently being tested. And a new variant of Kharkov that was removed just now. Tho the last variant of that they tested was scrapped.

 

View PostGunerstile, on 02 April 2018 - 02:32 PM, said:

Bring back the old Northwest map, old port map (cant remember the name, small but quite interesting), all of the old Asian based maps. Bring back Stalingrad and/or Harkhov (one is quite enough since both have same idea and gameplay, personally i pref. Stalingrad) and remove Ensk from t VII and up, problem solved!

 

Port is the only map that has been removed due to new game mechanics vs players only using 10% of the map. Staligrad was the most hated map of all time more or less. And why it was removed. As WG did not want to waste so much time making it into HD if no one liked it. Kharkov might return. As it was not given an HD map in time. Northwest was a waste of time to. As everyone drove along the red line, and 100% ignored 90% of the map. So why waste time on it?


Edited by Balc0ra, 02 April 2018 - 05:14 PM.


Dava_117 #6 Posted 02 April 2018 - 06:24 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18568 battles
  • 2,751
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 02 April 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

Staligrad was the most hated map of all time more or less. And why it was removed. As WG did not want to waste so much time making it into HD if no one liked it. Kharkov might return. As it was not given an HD map in time. Northwest was a waste of time to. As everyone drove along the red line, and 100% ignored 90% of the map. So why waste time on it?

 

Stalingrad was the best city map in game and history inspired. Full of covers, streets to flank, open areas for midrange fight. Far better than Kharkov, with 3 main location and poor flanking opportunity.

Northwest was a really good map too. They only needed to lower the railway to make center more attractive, IMO. But in any case the map itself could have just been reworked instead of being removed. Same for the asian maps, Hidden Village in primis.


Edited by Dava_117, 02 April 2018 - 06:24 PM.


AvalancheZ257 #7 Posted 02 April 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3897 battles
  • 227
  • [3WCST] 3WCST
  • Member since:
    05-26-2017

View PostShaade_Silentpaw, on 02 April 2018 - 02:11 PM, said:

The main problem with Mines and Himmelsdorf is not so much size, as the imbalance when it comes to how easy it is for one team to take the most important part of the map (the hill)

 

On mines - the northern team has a shorter run to the hill, and on Himmelsdorf - the southern team needs less gun depression to attack the hill. (I might have my north/south mixed up, but you get the point)

 

Now, Ensk - that's a map that is just plain too small for high tiers.

 

 

From my experience the hill on Mines is OP because there is a place tanks on the hill from the north team can shoot down onto the enemy heavies pushing into the city with impunity, while the tanks from the south team cannot do the same since north teams TD's would melt them immediately. Changing the obstacles on the hill could help with this. 

 

Rushing the hill has never really been a problem, although the south side does tend to expose more of their tank while running up the "neck" part of the hill than the north. 



SittingIronDuck #8 Posted 03 April 2018 - 09:46 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 17127 battles
  • 14
  • [DRILL] DRILL
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

View PostBalc0ra, on 02 April 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

 

HD maps takes 90 days from start to finish pr map give or take according to WG, and when you have 40+? well. So some of the removed maps in 1.0 was simply not given an HD map in time, and will return later. Others like Stalingrad won't make a return.

 

Then again there are currently 10 new maps undergoing testing. Inc tier 1 to 3 maps. As a new variant of Province is currently being tested. And a new variant of Kharkov that was removed just now. Tho the last variant of that they tested was scrapped.

 

 

I understand it takes time to make things and test it. But on the other hand I don't see that should be my problem. They are not reducing the amount you need to pay to play the game in and equal way. So pay the same, but get half?

In any other businessmodel that would be a big no no. And the HD models are not the problem, but using the new engine (cheer for that btw) and having to little developers to get the maps done.

Anyway, whatever the reason. I don't like the maps being gone because it gives less variation. Also it might be an option to choose the map you want to play instead of randoms? that way you can practice better (yeah yeah, this will also have downsides)

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users