Jump to content


Supertest News 18/10 - Two Shades of Kharkov

supertest

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

Kandly #1 Posted 18 October 2018 - 02:06 PM

    Player

  • Player
  • 1020 battles
  • 808
  • Member since:
    08-23-2016

Hi tankers!

 

Today we’re starting the Supertest of two modified Kharkov map prototypes. Both have their playable parts enlarged, and this should make the map more enjoyable to play on vehicles of every class and tier.

 

a.jpg b.png

 

The Supertest versions differ in both city and open parts.

 

One version has less passages and shoot-throughs in the city area. These changes are to facilitate navigation and make the zone for heavily armored brawlers more pronounced. The open part was enlarged here. It has more cover and shoot-throughs.

a1.pnga2.pnga3.pnga4.pnga5.png

 

The second prototype is closer to the original in the city. The amount of passages is almost the same save for the central square. The open part of the map has a varied landscape: flat parts good for sniping, and hills suitable for active spotting and gun-depression-based play.

b1.pngb2.pngb3.pngb4.pngb5.pngb6.pngb7.pngb8.png

 

The prototypes’ eventual fate will be decided by test results and your feedback. Follow the news and best of luck in every battle!



kubawt112 #2 Posted 18 October 2018 - 02:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 888
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
No designated TD positions? :(

fighting_falcon93 #3 Posted 19 October 2018 - 01:09 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

When designing maps WG, you need to stop creating these massive blocks of cover or unplayable area. These are the main reason that the maps we have today are full of corridors. Use plenty of small cover rather than a few chunks of massive cover. This will provide a lot more flanking opurtunities and dynamic gameplay, focusing on the strategical aspect of the game rather than promoting frontal head-on brawls.

 

The first version uses a lot of these big blocks of cover, I've highlighted the "bad" areas:

 

 

Instead of using one massive block composed from multiple small buildings, try to set up cover from the small buildings individually, as this will allow players to drive between the small buildings and flank targets that they can't penetrate from the front.

 

The second version looks much, much better:

 

 

In my opinion, the first version should get scrapped and the second version should be brought into the game :great:



Inappropriate_noob #4 Posted 19 October 2018 - 09:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19029 battles
  • 5,816
  • [KV1] KV1
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

Second version looks ok but oh man, so many flat area's, needs more dips and rises, plus more bush's.

 

On the old map there was a building which you demolish by ramming...........

Only to find there was an immovable object in there, some tractor or something, was totally hilarious when my former clan leader went there, and was stopped dead in his tracks and destroyed, he went nuts, I could not stop laughing, seems like a very Russian joke:D


Edited by NoobySkooby, 11 November 2018 - 01:13 AM.


Paul_Kouadio #5 Posted 20 October 2018 - 01:31 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 8624 battles
  • 174
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-03-2017

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 19 October 2018 - 01:09 AM, said:

When designing maps WG, you need to stop creating these massive blocks of cover or unplayable area. These are the main reason that the maps we have today are full of corridors. Use plenty of small cover rather than a few chunks of massive cover. This will provide a lot more flanking opurtunities and dynamic gameplay, focusing on the strategical aspect of the game rather than promoting frontal head-on brawls.

 

The first version uses a lot of these big blocks of cover, I've highlighted the "bad" areas:

 

 

Instead of using one massive block composed from multiple small buildings, try to set up cover from the small buildings individually, as this will allow players to drive between the small buildings and flank targets that they can't penetrate from the front.

 

The second version looks much, much better:

 

 

In my opinion, the first version should get scrapped and the second version should be brought into the game :great:

 

Doesn't having massive cover help? Like when you have buildings and large hills, they prevent arty from hitting you if you're in cover... Right? :hiding:

fighting_falcon93 #6 Posted 20 October 2018 - 03:43 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostPaul_Kouadio, on 20 October 2018 - 02:31 AM, said:

Doesn't having massive cover help? Like when you have buildings and large hills, they prevent arty from hitting you if you're in cover... Right? :hiding:

 

With small buildings I meant from a ground area perspective, not from a height perspective. So the actual area they occupy on the ground should be small, in order to make as much of the playable map area open, eliminate corridors and to allow players to flank each other. But regarding artillery. I don't like this class either, but if WG insists of keeping this class in the game, I honestly don't think that it's a good idea to put in tall buildings everywhere just for the sake of offering protection. This causes 2 problems: 1) People start to camp because they know they're safe behind this building, and 2) Artillery gets prevented from actually doing anything useful. You see what I'm trying to point out here? I'd also like to remove artillery, but if WG insists on keeping it in the game, it makes little sense to prevent artillery from actually participating in the battle. Take Paris for example. Tall buildings everywhere which makes artillery practically useless on that map.



Gkirmathal #7 Posted 21 October 2018 - 11:53 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 8692 battles
  • 1,927
  • [2VTD] 2VTD
  • Member since:
    01-14-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 19 October 2018 - 12:09 AM, said:

In my opinion, the first version should get scrapped and the second version should be brought into the game :great:

 

Seconded.

 

Though when looking to the terrain in the preview screens I see WG again has created overlooking flat open empty killing fields without terrain undulations that act as line of sight breakers.

When version 2 would go live, we again will see this effect on gameplay: TD's(campers) camping on the edges of these "overlook" fields. Effectively making all tactical play on these area's impossible, due to their open and flatness and forcing players to the hard cover corridors.

 

This is way of map design is not effective and leads to stale and boring gameplay over time = also bad for player retention.



Captain_Tickle #8 Posted 21 October 2018 - 02:57 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32323 battles
  • 205
  • Member since:
    11-21-2016
You've created two HD maps that have similarities, why not just put them both in as "Kharkov early war" and "Kharkov late war"  or something along those lines.  You've already done a lot of work producing them in HD so put them both in and let people vote in a few month's time which one they prefer (if you only want to keep one).

Inappropriate_noob #9 Posted 22 October 2018 - 01:41 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19029 battles
  • 5,816
  • [KV1] KV1
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View PostCaptain_Tickle, on 21 October 2018 - 02:57 PM, said:

You've created two HD maps that have similarities, why not just put them both in as "Kharkov early war" and "Kharkov late war"  or something along those lines.  You've already done a lot of work producing them in HD so put them both in and let people vote in a few month's time which one they prefer (if you only want to keep one).

 

Now that is an awesome idea, where as before we could vote for premium tanks, we can vote for map we want back,this would make things interesting at least, but please WG, stop making flat maps, take Erlenburg for example, so much you could have done with that, whilst not the worst map in game, there is still more you could do with it, add trenches like in Studianski, more bush's, more undulations, etc.



XEPOJ_CAKAH #10 Posted 22 October 2018 - 06:51 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 12028 battles
  • 21
  • Member since:
    08-02-2011
Just a new version of Siegfried Line...Kharkov is dead...:facepalm: 

xx984 #11 Posted 26 October 2018 - 07:11 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68884 battles
  • 4,153
  • [T1LT] T1LT
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

how about this

 

Honestly, kharkov was 100% fine the way it was. no need to ruin it



fighting_falcon93 #12 Posted 26 October 2018 - 10:09 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postxx984, on 26 October 2018 - 08:11 PM, said:

kharkov was 100% fine

 

Fine?

 

- LTs could not focus on spotting, they where forced to brawl.

- TDs could not focus on sniping, they where forced to brawl.

- SPGs could not lob their shells over most of those buildings.

 

If we should have more classes than HTs in this game, maybe it would be a good idea to allow all classes to play to their strengths and the way they where intended, instead of forcing all of them to play like HTs? :)



xx984 #13 Posted 28 October 2018 - 12:16 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68884 battles
  • 4,153
  • [T1LT] T1LT
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 26 October 2018 - 09:09 PM, said:

 

Fine?

 

- LTs could not focus on spotting, they where forced to brawl.

- TDs could not focus on sniping, they where forced to brawl.

- SPGs could not lob their shells over most of those buildings.

 

If we should have more classes than HTs in this game, maybe it would be a good idea to allow all classes to play to their strengths and the way they where intended, instead of forcing all of them to play like HTs? :)

 

LT's were fine playing as support meds in the field

Most TDs are fine brawling with the exception of the swedes, which can play in the circle bit

And arty ruin most maps, so it'd be nice for more maps where they can't do jack



Tijsbeek993 #14 Posted 28 October 2018 - 06:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10505 battles
  • 357
  • [JOM] JOM
  • Member since:
    07-23-2017
Lights? lights are heaving 170 pen.. "support"?
You mean killing a Jg Pz E100 that has overal 180+mm armor!
Or having all those FV4005's that are onshotting you?
And a grille 15 at the heavy line.. "normal"
Not every tank has armor.. That makes HE too op..
At a heavy arty does 100 damage.. at a light 1000..
At a heavy FV4005 does 300 damage.. at a light 1400..
Just I hate HE because it's OP with low armor targets.. but normal against heavys..
 

xx984 #15 Posted 28 October 2018 - 09:31 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68884 battles
  • 4,153
  • [T1LT] T1LT
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostTijsbeek993, on 28 October 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

Lights? lights are heaving 170 pen.. "support"?
You mean killing a Jg Pz E100 that has overal 180+mm armor!
Or having all those FV4005's that are onshotting you?
And a grille 15 at the heavy line.. "normal"
Not every tank has armor.. That makes HE too op..
At a heavy arty does 100 damage.. at a light 1000..
At a heavy FV4005 does 300 damage.. at a light 1400..
Just I hate HE because it's OP with low armor targets.. but normal against heavys..
 

 

Well if you are shooting a jgpz e100 frontally in a light you're doing it wrong. Light have no problem playing as support meds and i play every light i own either up close in close combat, or supporting mediums. 

 

Grille can play with heavies easily. Instead of armour you have the fear factor of the gun, and if you are with allied heavies even when you fire you will not get pushed most of the time.

 

FV4005's can one shot any lower tier heavy, or higher tier light/med/td. Not just a thing that happens to light tanks. I've penned a maus frontally in my fv for 2k. OMG MAUS MUST BE BAD AT BRAWLING HURRRRR

 

 



fighting_falcon93 #16 Posted 29 October 2018 - 04:06 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 32560 battles
  • 4,393
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postxx984, on 28 October 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

LT's were fine playing as support meds in the field

 

In my opinion, the task of LTs is to spot targets, not to play like underpowered MTs. On the old Kharkov map, the field had no ranges that required spotting by LTs, all MTs could spot for themselves. I think that we don't agree on this one because we have different views on the roles of LTs.

 

View Postxx984, on 28 October 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

Most TDs are fine brawling with the exception of the swedes, which can play in the circle bit

 

Most TDs shouldn't be brawling, they should snipe, which the map offers no possibilities for. Then of course we have a few exceptions that works better like peek-a-boo boomsticks, but that's far from a rule for TDs. What usually happens if you brawl in a TD is that you get permatracked and destroyed. Of course, you're allowed to play your TDs however you wish but in my honest opinion, it's neither good game design nor map design to force all tanks to play in the same way. LTs spot, MTs flank, HTs brawl and TDs snipe. That creates a frontline depth rather than just having everyone in the same spot doing the same thing.

 

And no, the Swedish TDs could not play in the "circle", there was no bushes there, so they'd get spotted and destroyed.

 

View Postxx984, on 28 October 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

And arty ruin most maps, so it'd be nice for more maps where they can't do jack

 

I agree, and personally I'd want artillery removed. But don't you think it's a bit contradicting to keep the class in the game, but then make it useless on so many maps?


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 29 October 2018 - 04:08 AM.


xx984 #17 Posted 29 October 2018 - 07:10 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68884 battles
  • 4,153
  • [T1LT] T1LT
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 29 October 2018 - 03:06 AM, said:

 

In my opinion, the task of LTs is to spot targets, not to play like underpowered MTs. On the old Kharkov map, the field had no ranges that required spotting by LTs, all MTs could spot for themselves. I think that we don't agree on this one because we have different views on the roles of LTs.

 

 

Most TDs shouldn't be brawling, they should snipe, which the map offers no possibilities for. Then of course we have a few exceptions that works better like peek-a-boo boomsticks, but that's far from a rule for TDs. What usually happens if you brawl in a TD is that you get permatracked and destroyed. Of course, you're allowed to play your TDs however you wish but in my honest opinion, it's neither good game design nor map design to force all tanks to play in the same way. LTs spot, MTs flank, HTs brawl and TDs snipe. That creates a frontline depth rather than just having everyone in the same spot doing the same thing.

 

And no, the Swedish TDs could not play in the "circle", there was no bushes there, so they'd get spotted and destroyed.

 

 

I agree, and personally I'd want artillery removed. But don't you think it's a bit contradicting to keep the class in the game, but then make it useless on so many maps?

 

We should agree to disagree on most of these points, There is no use in going back and forth. wont get anywhere :P

 

 

Last point regarding arty however, Arty make most maps unbearable for alot of tanks, My best example i can think of is any high tier german TD/Heavy on a semi-open map. So i'd quite like to taste the tiers of arty players again on this map, just like i do on himmels for example :P WG already said they wont be removed but i can settle for this ^ :hiding:



Inappropriate_noob #18 Posted 11 November 2018 - 01:15 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19029 battles
  • 5,816
  • [KV1] KV1
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

View Postxx984, on 28 October 2018 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

LT's were fine playing as support meds in the field

Most TDs are fine brawling with the exception of the swedes, which can play in the circle bit

And arty ruin most maps, so it'd be nice for more maps where they can't do jack

 

Yes I think it was, Stalingrad needs to come back, and so does Swamp, re worked of course.





Also tagged with supertest

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users