Jump to content


The number of removed maps is almost approaching the number of maps left in the game


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

Simeon85 #1 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:39 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Pre 1.0 I believe there were 40 maps in total in the rotation (ignoring the GB maps), granted some were copies like Fiery Salient and Winterburg. (though I doubt many people complained about getting Fiery Salient along with Prohk)

 

Post patch 1.0 we have lost Fiery Salient, Highway, Mittengard (might have gone earlier), Pilsen, Stalingrad, Swamp, Widepark, Kharkov, Sacred Valley, Windstorm, Winter Himmelsdorf, Winterberg.

 

Those add to the older removed maps - Dragon Ridge, Hidden Village, Komarin, North West, Pearl River, Port, Province, Ruinberg on fire (off all the maps WG could have made 3 versions of they chose this one), Severogrosk and South Coast.

 

I think you could also add 'Ghost Town' to this as IIRC this was used for the T-22 mode (which can't remember the name for) and is maybe still used for CWs but has never been available to randoms cos you know having a balanced map in randoms is a bad thing. :rolleyes:

 

And gained one new map - Glacier.

 

So we are down to 29 maps in total I believe and over the course of the game's existence 23 maps have been removed. Granted many of those maps are bad, but then so is Paris, Mountain Pass, Abbey, Mines for high tiers, Ensk for high tiers, the new Erlenberg etc.

 

Personally I feel since 1.0 that you get the feeling you are playing the same maps over and over. 

 

WG really needs to get those 3-4 new maps they have been working on out, along with the 2-3 re-works they are doing, we need a patch with like 6-7 new and re-worked maps and soon.



Frostilicus #2 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:42 AM

    Major

  • Clan Diplomat
  • 22458 battles
  • 2,856
  • [-ZNO-] -ZNO-
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011
I really dislike Paris, apart from Komarin I would happily take any of the old maps back if Paris was binned :)

Simeon85 #3 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:48 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostFrostilicus, on 10 April 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

I really dislike Paris, apart from Komarin I would happily take any of the old maps back if Paris was binned :)

 

I'd certainly take Pearl River over Paris, I think at the time I wasn't that fond of Pearl River but I never really disliked it that much and after the re-work where they opened up more routes I thought it was ok, but it looks like an amazing map in comparison with some of the newer maps like Paris and Pilsen.

 

Hell even South Coast with the giant TD camping ledge for one team or Komarin (which again I thought was ok after the re-work) is preferable to Paris. 

 

Does anyone like Paris, apart from 'Steve' the IS7/Type 5 driver? 



Jumping_TurtIe #4 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:49 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6246 battles
  • 954
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-26-2015
Cant really say I miss any of the removed maps.

Browarszky #5 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:54 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 16096 battles
  • 3,734
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013
What's more critical is that the current rotation is too limited in scope and variety.

djuro900 #6 Posted 10 April 2018 - 10:54 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16814 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011
Well to be fair most of those maps were removed for a reason...

Browarszky #7 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:04 AM

    Colonel

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

View Postdjuro900, on 10 April 2018 - 09:54 AM, said:

Well to be fair most of those maps were removed for a reason...

 

So why do we still have the likes of Paris.. did they run out of reasons? Also, curiously I never really disliked seeing many of the maps that are now removed, whereas several of the ones we now  set my teeth on edge whenever they pop up.

 

Of course, that might also be due to the extremely irritating new music we now 'enjoy', ranging from mildly annoying to veritable cascades of infernal noise.


Edited by Browarszky, 10 April 2018 - 11:05 AM.


djuro900 #8 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:07 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 16814 battles
  • 272
  • Member since:
    06-22-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 10 April 2018 - 10:04 AM, said:

 

So why do we still have the likes of Paris.. did they run out of reasons? Also, curiously I never really disliked seeing many of the maps that are now removed, whereas several of the ones we now  set my teeth on edge whenever they pop up.

 

Of course, that might also be due to the extremely irritating new music we now 'enjoy', ranging from mildly annoying to veritable cascades of infernal noise.

 

Dont get me wrong i hate paris as much as you do and i want it removed but my point was that most removed maps had inbalances and bad designs,well ofcourse thats my personal opinion.



Simeon85 #9 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:11 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View Postdjuro900, on 10 April 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

Well to be fair most of those maps were removed for a reason...

 

Not saying they weren't though I think people could argue that some of the removed maps were better than some of the ones we still have in the game.

 

My point more though was the numbers, these removed maps just haven't been replaced and the variety is lacking. 



DaddysLittlePrincess #10 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:12 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24674 battles
  • 217
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012
It's funny, because half of maps remaining in game also deserve to be removed.

doriansky1 #11 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:13 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29056 battles
  • 229
  • [SKIL1] SKIL1
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View Postdjuro900, on 10 April 2018 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

Dont get me wrong i hate paris as much as you do and i want it removed but my point was that most removed maps had inbalances and bad designs,well ofcourse thats my personal opinion.

 

What was the imbalance on Pilsen ? Same question for Stalingrad and Harkov. Not a fan of any of these 3, but i prefer to play 200 games on these instead of one Mines Encounter. Actually, make it 2000 games instead of any mode on Mines.

Browarszky #12 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:19 AM

    Colonel

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

View Postdjuro900, on 10 April 2018 - 10:07 AM, said:

 

Dont get me wrong i hate paris as much as you do and i want it removed but my point was that most removed maps had inbalances and bad designs,well ofcourse thats my personal opinion.

 

Well, I wasn't so much questioning your opinion, more WG's reasons for removing some of those maps. The word 'imbalance' is often mentioned, but I never had problems with those maps that I can remember. IIRC North West was changed at some point, and after the changes I felt the map was significantly worse. Also, I had really interesting battles on the Komarin. I don't really mind 'imbalance', even if there was some. What I do mind is having to engage in boring, repetitive game play where pretty much every battle on every map goes the same way. It's feels more like sleep walking than gaming, IMO.

Dava_117 #13 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:22 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19460 battles
  • 3,298
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

Apart from the old Erlenberg, I liked in some way all the maps in game. I would convert all of them to be added.

But looks like we will have a useless polish map (that in the video looked like a murovanka copy), while all the japanese and chinese map have been removed, Stalingrad has been removed, Southcoast and Northwest have been removed. :facepalm:



Balc0ra #14 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:24 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 66275 battles
  • 16,269
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Most of those were removed because no one.. no one liked them. Like Stanlingrad. So I don't expect that to return.Iirc there was no plans for Swamp to return either.  Highway, Kharkov and Pilsen might return in a reworked form. As Kharkov's HD version have been on Super test a few times already in different forms. Inc with half the town gone.

 

But it's simply down to that the rest did not get an HD version in time. It takes 90 days pr map to make it in the new Engine. So it's not a fast fix. But that said... there are atm more or less 8+ new maps in development or being tested. The old Province "yes the low tier map" is the first one to come I suspect as the HD video of it is already out.

 

View PostSimeon85, on 10 April 2018 - 10:48 AM, said:marin (which again I thought was ok after the re-work) is preferable to Paris. 

 

Does anyone like Paris, apart from 'Steve' the IS7/Type 5 driver? 

 

Paris is far from the worst map in rotation atm. It's "meh" at best. Issue is that most meds and lights play it to passive, even if field or middle is a 6 vs 2, and 13 other guns are on the HT corner. They still camp it. I hated Pearl River for the same reason. One team camped the med line. One pushed it. Even if the defenders had more guns, they still just sat there. Waiting for the HT line to fail.

 

View PosteXterm, on 10 April 2018 - 10:47 AM, said:

My "Bring back" list - Komarin, Port, Swamp

 

Port is the only map that got removed for game mechanic reasons vs that players all only fought a 15 vs 15 on one grid of the map like Dragon Ridge in terms of the old maps. But Console did rework it rather well, and it works there. And I do indeed wish for WG to look at it and "port" it back.

 

View PostJumping_TurtIe, on 10 April 2018 - 10:49 AM, said:

Cant really say I miss any of the removed maps.

 

Well as one said...

 

View Postdjuro900, on 10 April 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

Well to be fair most of those maps were removed for a reason...

 

And I'll take Stalingrad over any of the old removed maps any day. As I don't think all going full lemming tard on one lane 9 out 10 games was much fun. Or one team never leaving base like South Coast. At least Stalingrad had some variety on where the lemmings went.

 



Simeon85 #15 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:44 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostBalc0ra, on 10 April 2018 - 11:24 AM, said:

Most of those were removed because no one.. no one liked them. Like Stanlingrad. So I don't expect that to return.Iirc there was no plans for Swamp to return either.  Highway, Kharkov and Pilsen might return in a reworked form. As Kharkov's HD version have been on Super test a few times already in different forms. Inc with half the town gone.

 

But it's simply down to that the rest did not get an HD version in time. It takes 90 days pr map to make it in the new Engine. So it's not a fast fix. But that said... there are atm more or less 8+ new maps in development or being tested. The old Province "yes the low tier map" is the first one to come I suspect as the HD video of it is already out.

 

 

Paris is far from the worst map in rotation atm. It's "meh" at best. Issue is that most meds and lights play it to passive, even if field or middle is a 6 vs 2, and 13 other guns are on the HT corner. They still camp it. I hated Pearl River for the same reason. One team camped the med line. One pushed it. Even if the defenders had more guns, they still just sat there. Waiting for the HT line to fail.

 

 

Port is the only map that got removed for game mechanic reasons vs that players all only fought a 15 vs 15 on one grid of the map like Dragon Ridge in terms of the old maps. But Console did rework it rather well, and it works there. And I do indeed wish for WG to look at it and "port" it back.

 

 

Well as one said...

 

 

And I'll take Stalingrad over any of the old removed maps any day. As I don't think all going full lemming tard on one lane 9 out 10 games was much fun. Or one team never leaving base like South Coast. At least Stalingrad had some variety on where the lemmings went.

 

 

The making maps issue is lazyness and cheapness on WG's part IMO, from the big 2016 - 2017 premium tank sales, which was the majority of their new content for those years, they were probably making 2-3 million Euros per tier 8 premium tank just from the EU server alone, the likes of Skorpion, Patriot, Defender etc. had minimal production costs, they are just one pixel tank but they have probably made 20 million Euros from those tanks alone, let alone all the others.

 

That is more than enough money that could have been invested in either hiring more employees to work on the HD maps or sub-contracting the work to another company. This would have allowed the WG map team to focus on new maps and we could have had 8-10 new maps by now in that time, plus re-works of some of the older ones if they had done that.

 

As for Paris, the middle is a complete death zone for most of the game, you'll get shot from all directions if you get spotted there. Field is pretty much the same, anyone who pushes there is basically throwing their tank away in most games. It only takes like a couple of TDs and 1-2 lights and they will lock down the field because the first tank spotted there will die before they make any meaningful progress. How many players do think are going to be happy throwing their whole tank away to get a slight chance of opening up a flank? Not many which is why people don't bother unless it's very clear that there is basically nothing there and they have a big over load. 

 

Overall that makes the map terribly designed, the only viable fighting area that in reality has any impact on the game is the heavy fighting corner which is unsuitable for 60-70% of tanks in the game.  Pearl River had a lot more options and routes through the map, it was still a corridor map in the main but after the re-work it had multiple options of corridors which at least meant that the engagements were between smaller amounts of tanks, they were 2v2s, 3v3s, meaning it was much easier to opent he game up and flank the other corridors. 



leggasiini #16 Posted 10 April 2018 - 11:55 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 14187 battles
  • 6,194
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

And it's pretty funny that out of those 29 maps, you still have maps that are terrible enough to the point they should be reworked or even flat out removed. They did remove a few maps that were horrible (though none of them were as bad as Paris or the new Fjords), such as Windstorm, Stalingrad and Mittengard (only for lowtiers but it was still horrible because the map was all about just brainless rushing that didn't taught newbies anything about positioning), but they did keep some awful maps in the game, while some of the maps that were alright became awful as well.

 

Fjords is a complete sh*tfest after reworks - going from an average map to by far the worst map in the game. It's like everything awful combined together - it's unbalanced as hell, it's really campy, most "key" positions are unsafe, a flank that is kinda a "noobtrap" (south, though it does have some relevancy unlike Overlord's beach) and overall is just really unfun map to play. Fjords is so terrible now that they should flat out remove it out of rotation ASAP and rework it. I didn't mind the old one, just remove the stupid peninsula, which would make the map slightly more balanced and also make the HT flank more balanced and useful.

 

Paris, which was absolutely terrible as well, stayed in the game and remained unchanged, being still absolutely terrible. You are fuked if you're not playing a heavy or assault TD, but even with those you literally have only 1 corridor to go and there are crossfires which are hard to avoid, as well as elevation on the heavy flank, which makes the map frustrating for all tank classes pretty much. It's still not as horrible as Fjords is, as the map is at least fairly balanced, doesn't end up being a campfest and it's absolutely terrible for arty as well, but it's still just as bad as it was. Paris should be just removed entirely as well; I can't see it becoming actually a good map without reworking it so much that it's effectively making an entirely new map.

 

Erlenberg is also terrible after reworks; however, it already was one of the worst maps in the game before changes, so it doesn't really change all that much that it's still terrible - just different kind of terrible. It has even more deadzones than before and is still campy; the camping lanes have just changed locations. The middle is actually not useless now, though, so at least it improved in some way. Still, the map needs to be reworked again.

 

Mines, especially it's encounter game mode, is horribly unbalanced and should definitely get reworked. I have no damn idea how WG thought it's balanced, as the south spawn has super awful winratio compared to the north. Not just that, it's also far too small for tier 8-10 gameplay. Ensk is also too small for higher tiers, but I don't have that many issues with the map itself. Maybe make the field area bigger, so LTs and TDs become more viable on that map.

 

Live Oaks is another map that was obviously awfully unbalanced, yet they didn't really touch it. At least it has a derpy soundtrack in the beginning, which perfectly describes the unbalance on the map. Live Oaks would be a quite fine otherwise, though, if only it wasn't so biased towards the south spawn.

 

Tundra and Abbey have horrible rock/obstacle hitboxes in the hill and middle, respectively, but those kind of stuff shouldn't be too hard to fix (then again, we are talking about WG).


Edited by leggasiini, 10 April 2018 - 12:19 PM.


Simeon85 #17 Posted 10 April 2018 - 12:14 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 3,015
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View Postleggasiini, on 10 April 2018 - 11:55 AM, said:

And it's pretty funny that out of those 29 maps, you still have maps that are terrible enough to the point they should be reworked or even flat out removed. They did remove a few maps that were horrible (though none of them were as bad as Paris or the new Fjords), such as Windstorm, Stalingrad and Mittengard (only for lowtiers but it was still horrible because the map was all about just brainless rushing that didn't taught newbies anything about positioning), but they did keep some awful maps in the game, while some of the maps that were alright became awful as well.

 

Fjords is a complete sh*tfest after reworks - going from an average map to by far the worst map in the game. It's like everything awful combined together - it's unbalanced as hell, it's really campy, most "key" positions are unsafe, a flank that is kinda a "noobtrap" (south, though it does have some relevancy unlike Overlord's beach) and overall is just really unfun map to play. Fjords is so terrible now that they should flat out remove it out of rotation ASAP and rework it. I didn't mind the old one, just remove the stupid peninsula, which would make the map slightly more balanced and also make the HT flank more balanced and useful.

 

Paris, which was absolutely terrible as well, stayed in the game and remained unchanged, being still absolutely terrible. You are fuked if you're not playing a heavy or assault TD, but even with those you literally have only 1 corridor to go and there are crossfires which are hard to avoid, as well as elevation on the heavy flank, which makes the map frustrating for all tank classes pretty much. It's still not as horrible as Fjords is, as the map is at least fairly balanced, doesn't end up being a campfest and it's absolutely terrible for arty as well, but it's still just as bad as it was. Paris should be just removed entirely as well; I can't see it becoming actually a good map without reworking it so much that it's effectively making an entirely new map.

 

Erlenberg is also terrible after reworks; however, it already was one of the worst maps in the game before changes, anyway. It has even more deadzones than before and is still campy; the camping lanes have just changed locations. The middle is actually not useless now, though, so at least it improved in some way. Still, the map needs to be reworked again.

 

Mines, especially it's encounter game mode, is horribly unbalanced and should definitely get reworked. I have no damn idea how WG thought it's balanced, as the south spawn has super awful winratio compared to the north. Not just that, it's also far too small for tier 8-10 gameplay. Ensk is also too small for higher tiers, but I don't have that many issues with the map itself. Maybe make the field area bigger, so LTs and TDs become more viable on that map.

 

Live Oaks is another map that was obviously awfully unbalanced, yet they didn't really touch it. At least it has a derpy soundtrack in the beginning, which perfectly describes the unbalance on the map. Live Oaks would be a quite fine otherwise, though, if only it wasn't so biased towards the south spawn.

 

Tundra and Abbey have horrible rock/obstacle hitboxes in the hill and middle, respectively, but those kind of stuff shouldn't be too hard to fix (then again, we are talking about WG).

 

Fjords is so bad now it's hilarious, not sure it was the greatest map in the past (camping peninsula, imbalance in the middle) but the new one is just a mess. 

 

For a start the map is now basically 30% smaller than it was because the whole middle is a completely unusable death zone for both sides, then the whole games now seems to resolve who can rush the middle rock the quickest and hold it, but survival on that middle rock is hugely precarious and you depend on pretty much every flank to survive otherwise you get screwed so if you have campers and passive players you will lose it and the game.

 

Conversely take it and especially for the east spawn team, if you get that and north then the other team is basically pushed out from 80% of the map, they can go south to the heavy corner or retreat into base. 

 

And yep it;s really odd that WG has removed maps previously because of imbalances for one side but leaves maps like Mines encounter and Live Oaks in the game. If the South team on live oaks pushes the water side hard they are almost guaranteed to win the game as the north team will not be able to hold that flank and winning the city gains you nothing in terms of map control. If you are north team and more than 30% of your team goes city you have probably lost. 


Edited by Simeon85, 10 April 2018 - 12:15 PM.


Ricky_Rolls #18 Posted 10 April 2018 - 12:14 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 66954 battles
  • 1,330
  • Member since:
    11-10-2010
They could easily remove Fjords and Erlenberg,it wouldn't be a loss.

Long_Range_Sniper #19 Posted 10 April 2018 - 12:15 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 32603 battles
  • 8,848
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostSimeon85, on 10 April 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

The making maps issue is lazyness and cheapness on WG's part IMO,

 

This looks to me a total failure from WG to mobilise the desire of the playebase to help in game development. There could be many options to get maps tested by a more creative use of the test server, training rooms in the actual client, or other types of player involvement. 

 

I've seen many maps floated on Armored Patrol, but they seem to disappear into a Wargaming black hole. Map variety is crucial to retaining player interest, and at the moment WG are running close to the line.



Hamsterkicker #20 Posted 10 April 2018 - 12:19 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34007 battles
  • 571
  • [TEAMB] TEAMB
  • Member since:
    08-08-2011

View PostBrowarszky, on 10 April 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

What's more critical is that the current rotation is too limited in scope and variety.

 

This is what I feel as well...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users