Jump to content


Arad – A Non-Corridor City Map Proposal (With Pictures And Minimap)!

new map proposal city game play gameplay tactic tactics mode

  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

wsatnutter #21 Posted 04 January 2019 - 09:07 AM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 25930 battles
  • 8,941
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010

View Postgrizly1973, on 04 January 2019 - 07:48 AM, said:

 

I'd love to start rendering it right now, but sadly, I'm not the WG map team. I'd love them to see it and share their opinion, even if they won't implement it (that would make me feel like I wasted a lot of time on this though). I honestly think that some things could be learnt from this, even though they are professionals. Like hey, if a 16 yr old can propose this and have it generally well received (until now at least) I'm sure the well-trained and experienced WG team could do waaaay better. Empire's Border, however, is a heap of trash and I have no idea how they thought it was a good idea. That thing needs a serious rework.
07:51 Added after 2 minutes

 

I haven't realised it until now, but it does indeed feel similar. It has a bridge, it has many spaced buildings, it has lots of rails (although not crossing the center of the map)... Given that Port was a generally liked map, I think this is also a reasonable proposal. I would like more players to make map proposals, even if they're only hand-made sketches instead of pages & pages of pics and text. We could all learn from each other. You have a lot more to learn from a bad map proposal than from a good one, just saying.

 

indeed I loved port great map keep up the good work

gpalsson #22 Posted 04 January 2019 - 10:28 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 23941 battles
  • 8,741
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2013
I mean...yeah it's nice work but do we really need more city maps? I personally dislike them very much. The game is not about realism but only a complete fuckwit of a retarded tank commander would normally send tanks to fight in a city, and they are usually so flat that one of the nicest thing about WoT is totally gone, namely the elevation changes that lets you use the angles to penetrate otherwise impossible plates, along with vision games that are almost always completely gone in city maps. IMO city maps dumbs the game down to the level where it is usually just the team with best armored heavies that slug most gold at each other in a brawl that wins.

grizly1973 #23 Posted 04 January 2019 - 10:39 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 21779 battles
  • 153
  • [BA_RO] BA_RO
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View Postgpalsson, on 04 January 2019 - 11:28 AM, said:

I mean...yeah it's nice work but do we really need more city maps? I personally dislike them very much. The game is not about realism but only a complete fuckwit of a retarded tank commander would normally send tanks to fight in a city, and they are usually so flat that one of the nicest thing about WoT is totally gone, namely the elevation changes that lets you use the angles to penetrate otherwise impossible plates, along with vision games that are almost always completely gone in city maps. IMO city maps dumbs the game down to the level where it is usually just the team with best armored heavies that slug most gold at each other in a brawl that wins.

 

This map is made so that heavies will have a hard time without support. Regarding elevation changes, there's the bridge that's approximately 10 meters high and allows for shots on a very beefy area. There's also the riverbed on the western flank. Vision-wise, take a look at the light opportunities, last spoiler. There's paths for light tanks and armored cars alike. I thought them all out. Regarding the decisive factor, medium tanks will be the one. Heavies do good only in corridors. The only places like that are the interiors of the 2 factories. Even if heavies storm them and capture them, they still have to progress (or fall back), and everything outside these factories is medium tank territory. I appreciate constructive criticism! Thanks! :honoring:

malachi6 #24 Posted 04 January 2019 - 12:04 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 50920 battles
  • 3,876
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011

I love this kind of passion,  It is constructive and purposeful.  We get so many threads that are non of these.  It's so nice to see someone trying to add something.

 

Thanks for sharing.


Edited by malachi6, 04 January 2019 - 12:05 PM.


grizly1973 #25 Posted 04 January 2019 - 12:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 21779 battles
  • 153
  • [BA_RO] BA_RO
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View Postmalachi6, on 04 January 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

I love this kind of passion,  It is constructive and purposeful.  We get so many threads that are non of these.  It's so nice to see someone trying to add something.

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Thank you!

 

Having read at least the gameplay part, do you think this is workable? Does it need massive changes? Or is it simply trash to be thrown out the window? It's my first map proposal and I have more to come in the following months, so I'd really like as much feedback as I can possibly get!



kubawt112 #26 Posted 04 January 2019 - 02:07 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 446
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

First and foremost - I must warn you that the forum tends to be surprisingly buggy when dealing with large posts. Remember to back up what you write (ideally type out the forum-code instead of using the toolbar), and don't rely on the editing function too much.

 

I think you've done a darn good and proper job.Haven't quite got the time to give a proper verdict - but it's beyond doubt that you've made a very nice proposal with good reasoning. The game definitely needs some variation in maps, and bringing some non-camping elements in is a good thing in particular. It's extremely frustrating to have the majority of the game spent exploiting the enemy's mistake rather than coordinating a push.

 

  • Keep in mind that this looks like a very radical proposal, compared to what we have in the game. That might not be in WG's interest, nor the players. Many are perhaps used to more simple designs. Think having one place to go and do their work. I get that you don't want that, but it might be a good idea still to keep some traces of it.
  • Some of the 2014-2015 maps are worth a look, Pearl River in particular. Look at how you could flank the brawling area, i.e. it gave options for multiple players. Going for such an approach might be preferable. It would be fine if people could camp if the effectiveness was low. In most current maps, there are large swathes of open areas that make attacking/flanking very risky and defending very, very easy.
  • Flanking is nice, but giving fifteen players too many paths potentially leads to them not meeting the enemy. There's only so much suspense in a cap point counter. Other games can make do because they have cap zones in the field between the spawns. I imagine you would have to concede some areas to decorations beyond the map border and modify the pathing slightly.
  • If you're taking this further, try a process where you sketch up a map and give some possible design variations. First round with different crops, second with some areas blocked off and/or buildings razed.

 

Anyways, keep up the good work! :)



sabresteel #27 Posted 04 January 2019 - 02:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16556 battles
  • 1,321
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    10-29-2011

Wow... awesome amount of effort gone in here.

 

Like the theme.

 

Sorry that like gpalsson i personally prefer open maps with decent elevation Prok and Mali being my two favourite. However I can see you have thought out all tank classes.

 

If I could give you 10 likes I would :)



Tom_Deekanarry #28 Posted 04 January 2019 - 02:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9755 battles
  • 471
  • Member since:
    06-28-2012
For chrissake NO, I am sick to death of city maps, it's a totally crap environment for tank battles, bigger maps with tiny hamlets and roiling hills and low rises are what we need!

OIias_of_Sunhillow #29 Posted 04 January 2019 - 02:55 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 25460 battles
  • 3,063
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

View PostTom_Deekanarry, on 04 January 2019 - 01:47 PM, said:

For chrissake NO, I am sick to death of city maps, it's a totally crap environment for tank battles, bigger maps with tiny hamlets and roiling hills and low rises are what we need!

 

Translation for OP.

 

As much as I admire the effort and dedication, to this well thought out, and delivered idea, I feel I prefer wide-open maps, with pretty villages and TeleTubbyland countryside.



eekeeboo #30 Posted 04 January 2019 - 03:00 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

It's great to see good work and well thought out ideas, the first thing I saw when I saw the map was Port (I see a few others saw the same as well). 

 

I'm not saying that this will be adopted, involved or in any way put up and taken further. I just wanted to take the time to thank you personally for the time, effort and work you put in to this and I very much appreciate it. 



OIias_of_Sunhillow #31 Posted 04 January 2019 - 03:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 25460 battles
  • 3,063
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 January 2019 - 02:00 PM, said:

It's great to see good work and well thought out ideas, the first thing I saw when I saw the map was Port (I see a few others saw the same as well). 

 

I'm not saying that this will be adopted, involved or in any way put up and taken further. I just wanted to take the time to thank you personally for the time, effort and work you put in to this and I very much appreciate it. 

 

Should a player come up with a workable, and then used map, would a reward be forthcoming ?

And how about a thread dedicated to map design ?



eekeeboo #32 Posted 04 January 2019 - 03:21 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View PostOIias_of_Sunhillow, on 04 January 2019 - 02:03 PM, said:

 

Should a player come up with a workable, and then used map, would a reward be forthcoming ?

And how about a thread dedicated to map design ?

 

I can't say as such because the likelihood of such a thing is remote based on how often a map will be reworked over the course of its development and of course the subsequent issue on pay, royalties and other such things. But that's not to say it's impossible, just I do not see it happening realistically (in all honesty) because of the complexity of the matter. But I will pass on the awesome work regardless. 

shikaka9 #33 Posted 04 January 2019 - 03:35 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 65296 battles
  • 305
  • [SWM] SWM
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
... And you forgot to show on the map where you live :trollface:

UrQuan #34 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:03 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20635 battles
  • 6,740
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011
Got to say, I would love to see a proper city map ingame like OP proposes. Most of the current city maps are pretty meh (even if they favour HT's) & boring to play. Would trade in Paris & Minsk in a heartbeat for OP's map. Or trade in Paris & Minsk for Kharkov & Windstorm.

wsatnutter #35 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:08 PM

    General

  • Beta Tester
  • 25930 battles
  • 8,941
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    08-25-2010

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 January 2019 - 02:21 PM, said:

 

I can't say as such because the likelihood of such a thing is remote based on how often a map will be reworked over the course of its development and of course the subsequent issue on pay, royalties and other such things. But that's not to say it's impossible, just I do not see it happening realistically (in all honesty) because of the complexity of the matter. But I will pass on the awesome work regardless.

 

ran out of likes have a +1 great communication on your part so far m8

eekeeboo #36 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:11 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46125 battles
  • 2,077
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View Postwsatnutter, on 04 January 2019 - 03:08 PM, said:

 

ran out of likes have a +1 great communication on your part so far m8

 

Thank-you, working on it and hope to continue to keep up the communication :) 

Jumping_Turtle #37 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:32 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 64859 battles
  • 6,011
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostUrQuan, on 04 January 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

Got to say, I would love to see a proper city map ingame like OP proposes. Most of the current city maps are pretty meh (even if they favour HT's) & boring to play. Would trade in Paris & Minsk in a heartbeat for OP's map. Or trade in Paris & Minsk for Kharkov & Windstorm.

 

I think I would rather see something like the map of Barcelona with a lot of building blocks so there is way more room to go around and/or flank. I have no idea  how and if that is law protected or you have to buy rights for that to use, but it would be more fun I guess. A lot of blocks with a few large streets between them. Something like this below. And since arty would be almost useless on the map, lets map one without arty on it.

 



seXikanac #38 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:36 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 12942 battles
  • 923
  • [-YU-] -YU-
  • Member since:
    09-27-2012
Check out https://wargaming.com/en/careers/

PabloGee #39 Posted 04 January 2019 - 04:52 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30703 battles
  • 163
  • [5TAR5] 5TAR5
  • Member since:
    01-15-2014
WG Hire him please 

grizly1973 #40 Posted 04 January 2019 - 05:58 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 21779 battles
  • 153
  • [BA_RO] BA_RO
  • Member since:
    02-25-2013

View Postkubawt112, on 04 January 2019 - 03:07 PM, said:

First and foremost - I must warn you that the forum tends to be surprisingly buggy when dealing with large posts. Remember to back up what you write (ideally type out the forum-code instead of using the toolbar), and don't rely on the editing function too much.

 

I think you've done a darn good and proper job.Haven't quite got the time to give a proper verdict - but it's beyond doubt that you've made a very nice proposal with good reasoning. The game definitely needs some variation in maps, and bringing some non-camping elements in is a good thing in particular. It's extremely frustrating to have the majority of the game spent exploiting the enemy's mistake rather than coordinating a push.

 

  • Keep in mind that this looks like a very radical proposal, compared to what we have in the game. That might not be in WG's interest, nor the players. Many are perhaps used to more simple designs. Think having one place to go and do their work. I get that you don't want that, but it might be a good idea still to keep some traces of it.
  • Some of the 2014-2015 maps are worth a look, Pearl River in particular. Look at how you could flank the brawling area, i.e. it gave options for multiple players. Going for such an approach might be preferable. It would be fine if people could camp if the effectiveness was low. In most current maps, there are large swathes of open areas that make attacking/flanking very risky and defending very, very easy.
  • Flanking is nice, but giving fifteen players too many paths potentially leads to them not meeting the enemy. There's only so much suspense in a cap point counter. Other games can make do because they have cap zones in the field between the spawns. I imagine you would have to concede some areas to decorations beyond the map border and modify the pathing slightly.
  • If you're taking this further, try a process where you sketch up a map and give some possible design variations. First round with different crops, second with some areas blocked off and/or buildings razed.

 

Anyways, keep up the good work! :)

 

Thank you for your kind comments. I've copied all the text in a Word Document (it simplay crashed the first time I tried to to the large amount of text and pictures :facepalm:).

 

Now, I'd like to discuss your points and help get a better understanding ov the situation.

1. Good point, indeed. There's a very well-defined heavy area and a very well-defined medium area on this map. The difference is that if tanks support each other, they could prosper in the areas not designated for them too. This is indeed possible in the current map meta, but it happen less than once in 100 battles. Regarding the "radicalism" of the map, and the interest of WG and the players, let me give you my point: as you may know, the players are currently discontent with the most recent maps (Minsk and Empire's Border). This wasn't really a problem for WG, because in the end it's money that drives this whole game, not player satisfaction. The players asking for more diverse maps weren't really that relevant for WG, from the economical point of view. HOWEVER, considering the current state of the game, WG should note that the only way they can get their money from the game at this point is through player satisfaction. Many players have quit or still play, but don't put money into the game anymore. That should make WG realise that the voice of the players has to be listened if they want to remain in business for another 10-maybe even 30 years (or even more, you never know). Concluding this point, WG should become interested in general factors that increase player satisfaction, such as maps, for example. Such as this map, if you consider that it's very well received (until now, at least).

2. Yes, my map does that very efficiently.

3. The map offers players only 2 main paths if you look closely. The center of the map is incorporated and accessible only through the estern flank. It's diversity in what you can do once you get in positions that makes this map so good (Eh I mean well-received, we can't know how good it is if we don't actually play on it)! So yes, there are many paths, but there's no way players will not contact their enemy (keep in mind that all these 15 tanks are only divided in 2 parts, not 3 like on most maps).

4. I believe it's WG's job to take it further. I have offered them a very solid base to start developing a map and have also indirectly offered them feedback on such "radical" map proposals through mine. I'm not going to develop this further. I could add details (the tidbits section could double if I'd cover everything, every detail, every building) but I won't do any balancing changes on this map pilot.

 

Thank you! I will keep up the work thanks to the feedback I got from this! :izmena::honoring:

16:59 Added after 1 minute

View PostTom_Deekanarry, on 04 January 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

For chrissake NO, I am sick to death of city maps, it's a totally crap environment for tank battles, bigger maps with tiny hamlets and roiling hills and low rises are what we need!

 

Oh... :amazed:

 

Oh well. xD :teethhappy::trollface:

 

Thanks for the feedback! The next map proposal will be way more open and will include hilly terrain! ;)

17:04 Added after 6 minutes

View Posteekeeboo, on 04 January 2019 - 04:21 PM, said:

 

I can't say as such because the likelihood of such a thing is remote based on how often a map will be reworked over the course of its development and of course the subsequent issue on pay, royalties and other such things. But that's not to say it's impossible, just I do not see it happening realistically (in all honesty) because of the complexity of the matter. But I will pass on the awesome work regardless. 

 

I would happily give my whole idea to WG for free and would even help the art team detail the whole thing for free. I see the interest of the community as higher than my financial one. Sadly, WG doesen't really do that. :hiding:

 

Seriously though, if this thing would get any further *cough* Perhaps it would be the best way WG could show they care for their playerbase *cough* I would help make it as good to look at and to play on as possible. For free.


Edited by grizly1973, 04 January 2019 - 06:00 PM.






Also tagged with new, map, proposal, city, game, play, gameplay, tactic, tactics, mode

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users