Jump to content


1.0 maps too exposed.


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

MyArmorIsGolden #1 Posted 17 May 2018 - 06:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6736 battles
  • 221
  • Member since:
    09-06-2015
Playing heavy tanks are so frustrating imo.

Flavortown #2 Posted 17 May 2018 - 10:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16141 battles
  • 800
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    02-15-2015
There is literally nothing but corridors in 90% of the maps in rotation.

Thijs_Razor #3 Posted 17 May 2018 - 11:55 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 15543 battles
  • 20
  • [T-G-R] T-G-R
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011
Erlenberg comes to mind when I read the title. I've come to dislike that map ever since 1.0 because of the removal of the hills resulting in open plains and an obvious spot for TD's at the back on each side. I had some cool games on that map prior to 1.0. Now the map is kind of meh IMO.

Spurtung #4 Posted 18 May 2018 - 03:03 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

"Maps are corridors"

"Maps are too open"

 

"Hulldown tank is too OP"

"High caliber HE shell denies my hulldown positioning"

 

 

 

There's no way to win at developing this. Ever.



Jigabachi #5 Posted 18 May 2018 - 03:14 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,482
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 18 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:

"Maps are corridors"

"Maps are too open"

 

"Hulldown tank is too OP"

"High caliber HE shell denies my hulldown positioning"

 

 

 

There's no way to win at developing this. Ever.

They just have to listen to the right people. A tiny minority complaining about the opposite of what most people complain about can be ignored.



Spurtung #6 Posted 18 May 2018 - 03:22 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 18 May 2018 - 04:14 AM, said:

They just have to listen to the right people. A tiny minority complaining about the opposite of what most people complain about can be ignored.

 

Define "right people".

Some people didn't want RNG, so AW tried to cater to them and imploded itself. Was that the "right people"?



Jigabachi #7 Posted 18 May 2018 - 04:45 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,482
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSpurtung, on 18 May 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

Define "right people".

People who understand the game and how balancing works. OP obviously isn't one of them.



Spurtung #8 Posted 18 May 2018 - 04:49 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 61581 battles
  • 5,900
  • [GW-UP] GW-UP
  • Member since:
    07-05-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 18 May 2018 - 05:45 AM, said:

People who understand the game and how balancing works. OP obviously isn't one of them.

 

I agree. On both accounts.

DrMechano #9 Posted 18 May 2018 - 04:51 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23678 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    05-29-2012
There are problems with the maps but them being too open isn't one. I would say that certain maps heavily favor one side or the other, Fjords for example. I will say that due to the bush cover, heavy tanks struggle to get into the Town on Fisherman's bay without suffering very heavy damage.

evcro #10 Posted 18 May 2018 - 06:20 AM

    Private

  • Beta Tester
  • 3811 battles
  • 45
  • Member since:
    11-21-2010

yes

theres few maps good for slow heavy tanks, the rest are a pita

i suppose you talk about the slow heavies not IS7 type heavies :D



slitth #11 Posted 18 May 2018 - 06:32 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11931 battles
  • 927
  • Member since:
    06-23-2011

I think that maps are too small when compared with the reach of the tanks.

You can really slip in between engagement zone because the are to close to one another.

And if there is room it's most likely to be block by a mountain or lake or be a death zone.



Homer_J #12 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostThijs_Razor, on 17 May 2018 - 11:55 PM, said:

Erlenberg ..... I had some cool games on that map prior to 1.0. 

What?

 

Before 1.0 it was all run to the hill and wait until enough of the other team get bored or the timer runs out.

 

If anything they added cover to that map which can be used for an advance.  The cover they removed was only useful for camping.

 

Unless you mean way way before 1.0 when the cap zones were near the central bridge.  Then it was a much better map even though you only had the 3 crossing points and the smallest dead tanks could block bridges.



Snake_Keeper #13 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:18 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8568 battles
  • 697
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016

To me, the map design has a following problem: When there is a open area, there is too many possibilities for enemy to fire on you, and too few possibilities for you to hide. When there is a closed area, there is an open area right afterwards that is overlooked by multiple snipe positions that are usually above you.

 

Funnily enough Frontline got the map design right in a lot of places. A & D show rather well how a well crafted open area with enough cover is playable. C on the other hand showcases the usual WoT problems, too many positions firing upon you making it impossible for you to be in control of from where you are fired upon. A player should have the possibility to choose what direction to engage, and when, but not so that they can just hide any weakspots to engage with impunity cause they have a hulldown/frontally invulnerable tank. Possibilities for flanking but not so that you run out of fingers to count where all the shells are coming from.



lnfernaI #14 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:28 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 28121 battles
  • 3,279
  • [ALLGE] ALLGE
  • Member since:
    09-15-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 18 May 2018 - 08:12 AM, said:

What?

 

Before 1.0 it was all run to the hill and wait until enough of the other team get bored or the timer runs out.

 

If anything they added cover to that map which can be used for an advance.  The cover they removed was only useful for camping.

 

Unless you mean way way before 1.0 when the cap zones were near the central bridge.  Then it was a much better map even though you only had the 3 crossing points and the smallest dead tanks could block bridges.

 

Erlenberg was never good,it always promoted camping redline in either map side. But entirely removing the hills has proven to be more of a problem,than a benefit.

Somnorila #15 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:42 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 55673 battles
  • 2,019
  • [4-YOU] 4-YOU
  • Member since:
    10-13-2012

View PostSpurtung, on 18 May 2018 - 03:03 AM, said:

"Maps are corridors"

"Maps are too open"

 

"Hulldown tank is too OP"

"High caliber HE shell denies my hulldown positioning"

 

 

 

There's no way to win at developing this. Ever.

 

There is an option. Stop catering to all players and make a complete and logical game. With balanced maps and team rosters for equal chances to win for teams. And properly designed tanks, shells, mobility, firepower, view range and so on to distinctly set tank roles apart. No more powercreeping, equal tank capabilities for same role regardless of tank nation or launch time. Basically players should be allowed to farm one role of any nation to be able to compete in team battles and such with equal chances or ease of play.

DracheimFlug #16 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:56 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostJigabachi, on 18 May 2018 - 03:14 AM, said:

They just have to listen to the right people. A tiny minority complaining about the opposite of what most people complain about can be ignored.

 

View PostSpurtung, on 18 May 2018 - 03:22 AM, said:

 

Define "right people".

Some people didn't want RNG, so AW tried to cater to them and imploded itself. Was that the "right people"?

 

Eh, right people, wrong people, right people, left people..... 

 

View PostJigabachi, on 18 May 2018 - 04:45 AM, said:

People who understand the game and how balancing works. OP obviously isn't one of them.

 

Those would be the middle people..... 



DracheimFlug #17 Posted 18 May 2018 - 07:58 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostSomnorila, on 18 May 2018 - 07:42 AM, said:

 

There is an option. Stop catering to all players and make a complete and logical game. With balanced maps and team rosters for equal chances to win for teams. And properly designed tanks, shells, mobility, firepower, view range and so on to distinctly set tank roles apart. No more powercreeping, equal tank capabilities for same role regardless of tank nation or launch time. Basically players should be allowed to farm one role of any nation to be able to compete in team battles and such with equal chances or ease of play.

 

So you are advocating then that everyone has the same tank, just possibly with different skins..... ?

 

The tanks are actually balanced, give or take approx 5%. Expectations of perfection are unrealistic.



Baldrickk #18 Posted 18 May 2018 - 08:12 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29505 battles
  • 13,722
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013
The problem is that open maps haven't been made more open, they've been made flat.

Erlenberg as the example above has a completely flat NW and SE.
Some moron thought that hard camp locations that are impossible to push without taking fire from tanks you can't spot should go in the NE and SW corners...

That flat land is as impassable in battle as the lake on Lakeville.
Anyone on it is completely exposed to any and all enemy fire.

Is the town area better? I don't really know, I haven't been there in a heavy yet.
From a drive through it, it seems VERY linear - it's just another frontal engagement.

I don't see why people like this map so much now.

And to those who said the previous iteration was just camping - you were not playing it very well then, were you?
I almost never took a "camping" position unless playing in a paper TD, and even then I preferred to push when possible.

Baldrickk #19 Posted 18 May 2018 - 08:14 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 29505 battles
  • 13,722
  • [-TAH-] -TAH-
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostDracheimFlug, on 18 May 2018 - 07:58 AM, said:

 

So you are advocating then that everyone has the same tank, just possibly with different skins..... ?

 

The tanks are actually balanced, give or take approx 5%. Expectations of perfection are unrealistic.

No, you can have balance without beung the same.

Some tanks are blatantly over or underpowered right now, as targets to reach, or freeXP sinks.



SnowRelic #20 Posted 18 May 2018 - 09:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22820 battles
  • 589
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

View PostDrMechano, on 18 May 2018 - 04:51 AM, said:

There are problems with the maps but them being too open isn't one. I would say that certain maps heavily favor one side or the other, Fjords for example. I will say that due to the bush cover, heavy tanks struggle to get into the Town on Fisherman's bay without suffering very heavy damage.

 

No, the issue there is that some people think it's smart to drive the shortest path to their destination and don't even give a second thought as to whom they're giving their broadsides to. And that deserves a paddlin'.

 

Maps are still far too closed and still have too little soft cover near the center and other parts where people would make moves if they could.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users