Jump to content


Soldiers of Fortune Finals: Register Now!


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 15 February 2019 - 03:34 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 28,456
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Hear their warcry, the Soldiers of Fortune are back!

The full text of the news item

Toshikazu #2 Posted 15 February 2019 - 04:15 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5423 battles
  • 31
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-25-2016
Stupid that a clan that spent big majority of their time in the basic front is even allowed to auto-qualify this way.

eekeeboo #3 Posted 15 February 2019 - 04:56 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46232 battles
  • 2,250
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010
But is that a problem in representing their skill? 

Swoopie #4 Posted 15 February 2019 - 06:43 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 28678 battles
  • 2,555
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    01-15-2011

Who picked these maps :D

 

Edit: While it is interesting to see "new" maps in the tournament rotation, some maps are still so unbalanced that with two good teams the winner may be entirely decided by who gets the "better" side initially (Eg. Westfield).


Edited by Swoopie, 15 February 2019 - 06:44 PM.


thePhilX #5 Posted 15 February 2019 - 06:52 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WG Staff
  • 26618 battles
  • 355
  • [BLIEV] BLIEV
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostSwoopie, on 15 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

Who picked these maps :D

 

Edit: While it is interesting to see "new" maps in the tournament rotation, some maps are still so unbalanced that with two good teams the winner may be entirely decided by who gets the "better" side initially (Eg. Westfield).

 

Good that you ask :D

We invited captains from various teams including your executive officer Orrie [IDEAL] to join a discussion. Based on your feedback, we removed Murowanka and Ensk and added Serene Coast and Westfield.

Toshikazu #6 Posted 15 February 2019 - 06:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 5423 battles
  • 31
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    06-25-2016

View Posteekeeboo, on 15 February 2019 - 04:56 PM, said:

But is that a problem in representing their skill? 

 

Playing 80% of their matches vs some monkeys in basic front is now comparable to playing in advanced/elite front?



eekeeboo #7 Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:06 PM

    English Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 46232 battles
  • 2,250
  • Member since:
    07-25-2010

View Post_Lord_Martinus_, on 15 February 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

 

Playing 80% of their matches vs some monkeys in basic front is now comparable to playing in advanced/elite front?

 

​Tactics is a large part of this game just as much as personal skill 

Laatikkomafia #8 Posted 15 February 2019 - 07:39 PM

    Brigadier

  • Beta Tester
  • 23001 battles
  • 4,870
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    12-27-2010

View Posteekeeboo, on 15 February 2019 - 08:06 PM, said:

 

​Tactics is a large part of this game just as much as getting smacked by RNG and getting a horrible bottom spawn in Westfield

 

Although things could be worse.

 

At least there isn't Mines, Minsk, Glacier or Highway on the list.


Edited by Laatikkomafia, 15 February 2019 - 07:41 PM.


Simona2k #9 Posted 15 February 2019 - 08:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 2429 battles
  • 600
  • [GGLT] GGLT
  • Member since:
    10-01-2017
good luck

WindSplitter1 #10 Posted 15 February 2019 - 11:05 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18452 battles
  • 2,903
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

I'll be rooting for GE-PL and FAME.

 

Both are a polite, very nice and helpful bunch considering the members I've came accross with.

 

I'll keep the opposite of this to myself... for obvious reasons.

 

 

FAME might finish first again but I hope GE-PL does finish at least in the middle of the table. Nie zawiedź mnie!



GoHard_ANIALLATOR #11 Posted 16 February 2019 - 03:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 39560 battles
  • 829
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostSwoopie, on 15 February 2019 - 05:43 PM, said:

Who picked these maps :D

 

Edit: While it is interesting to see "new" maps in the tournament rotation, some maps are still so unbalanced that with two good teams the winner may be entirely decided by who gets the "better" side initially (Eg. Westfield).

 

Could you speak specifically about what you mean by the map pool sucking? 
In my opinion this is a very good map pool. Its getting harder and harder to actually get enough good maps sometimes because WG keeps destroying them with "updates" MingLee

Swoopie #12 Posted 16 February 2019 - 06:12 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 28678 battles
  • 2,555
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    01-15-2011

View PostGoHard_ANIALLATOR, on 16 February 2019 - 04:30 AM, said:

 

Could you speak specifically about what you mean by the map pool sucking? 
In my opinion this is a very good map pool. Its getting harder and harder to actually get enough good maps sometimes because WG keeps destroying them with "updates" MingLee

 

Westfield: Feels like the map is unbalanced towards the south side (Which is apparently the "defending" side by the rules, could be better if it was the other way around). If you play the north side, you'll need to hope that you win the big brawl from the "strategically worse" side (If both of the teams head to the same side with majority of tanks). Upper side ("Heavy" side) has way better options and spots for the south base to push in while if you both go to lower side (The medium corner), that also favors the south base. If teams end up going to different flanks then the map becomes interesting, but that's quite a big if (Especially AFAIK as there's no fog of war, atleast no mention of it in the rules).

 

Prokhorovka: I didn't get to play it much during the campaign, but always when playing it, it felt like the north side had a slight advantage. Nothing serious IMO though, this is a good one (Compared to other options).

 

Himmelsdorf: Don't really need to explain it, been in the map pool forever and is fine as it is.

 

Sand River: No comments, felt like an interesting map during the campaign. Both sides have their advantages, didn't notice anything super unbalanced in the games I played.

 

Live Oaks: Another one I didn't get to play much during the campaign (But played loads of it just before campaign in advances), at least it used to heavily favor the south side. Also it seems like the south base is the defending base so there's that again.

 

Cliff: Same group with Himmels

 

Serene Coast: This one is the one that surprised me the most. I have next to no experience on this, so cant comment much about it for competitive use other than that personally I don't really like the map layout. Feels like too much of the map is wasted as mountain/watery parts but that's for another topic. Will have to see it in action.

 

Overall yeah all of them are decent maps (Especially considering what we have to work on with). Probably would've liked Ensk (Even though it has been played since the beginning of times and the whole "Who trades better with Type5/E3/E4" fiesta can get boring) over Live Oaks/Westfield just for the sake of having close to equally balanced sides on a map. I went through the whole map list briefly and yeah you're right, the majority of the rest of the maps suck. The only other map I would've considered worthwhile playing is Malinovka (In addition to what are in the pool already). 

 

One partial solution to (Atleast Westfield) would be to make Fog of War available for the tournament games. Atleast the opponent cant guess what you're gonna do straight away from your lineup. Also maybe worth considering swapping the defending/attacking bases for Westfield/Live Oaks, since at the moment it feels if you have two equal teams, the winner of those rounds will be decided by whoever is on the defending side and they'll just end up 1:1 (Kind of like the old Ruinberg Attack/Defense in ESL. Yeah surprises did happen where the attacker managed to take an advantage but more often than not, the round was decided in the defenders favor before it began).

 

 


Edited by Swoopie, 16 February 2019 - 06:18 AM.


GoHard_ANIALLATOR #13 Posted 16 February 2019 - 08:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 39560 battles
  • 829
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostSwoopie, on 16 February 2019 - 05:12 AM, said:

 

Westfield: Feels like the map is unbalanced towards the south side (Which is apparently the "defending" side by the rules, could be better if it was the other way around). If you play the north side, you'll need to hope that you win the big brawl from the "strategically worse" side (If both of the teams head to the same side with majority of tanks). Upper side ("Heavy" side) has way better options and spots for the south base to push in while if you both go to lower side (The medium corner), that also favors the south base. If teams end up going to different flanks then the map becomes interesting, but that's quite a big if (Especially AFAIK as there's no fog of war, atleast no mention of it in the rules).

 

Prokhorovka: I didn't get to play it much during the campaign, but always when playing it, it felt like the north side had a slight advantage. Nothing serious IMO though, this is a good one (Compared to other options).

 

Himmelsdorf: Don't really need to explain it, been in the map pool forever and is fine as it is.

 

Sand River: No comments, felt like an interesting map during the campaign. Both sides have their advantages, didn't notice anything super unbalanced in the games I played.

 

Live Oaks: Another one I didn't get to play much during the campaign (But played loads of it just before campaign in advances), at least it used to heavily favor the south side. Also it seems like the south base is the defending base so there's that again.

 

Cliff: Same group with Himmels

 

Serene Coast: This one is the one that surprised me the most. I have next to no experience on this, so cant comment much about it for competitive use other than that personally I don't really like the map layout. Feels like too much of the map is wasted as mountain/watery parts but that's for another topic. Will have to see it in action.

 

Overall yeah all of them are decent maps (Especially considering what we have to work on with). Probably would've liked Ensk (Even though it has been played since the beginning of times and the whole "Who trades better with Type5/E3/E4" fiesta can get boring) over Live Oaks/Westfield just for the sake of having close to equally balanced sides on a map. I went through the whole map list briefly and yeah you're right, the majority of the rest of the maps suck. The only other map I would've considered worthwhile playing is Malinovka (In addition to what are in the pool already). 

 

One partial solution to (Atleast Westfield) would be to make Fog of War available for the tournament games. Atleast the opponent cant guess what you're gonna do straight away from your lineup. Also maybe worth considering swapping the defending/attacking bases for Westfield/Live Oaks, since at the moment it feels if you have two equal teams, the winner of those rounds will be decided by whoever is on the defending side and they'll just end up 1:1 (Kind of like the old Ruinberg Attack/Defense in ESL. Yeah surprises did happen where the attacker managed to take an advantage but more often than not, the round was decided in the defenders favor before it began).

 

 

First off thanks for taking the time to write out your opinions, most people just say stuff is bad etc but never properly explain it.

I'll go through the map in a similar way you did and respond to your points.

Westfield: Personally I have not experienced this bias towards the south base to the effect you have described it. I think it allows for a varied type of battle. What I mean by this is that you sometimes can have short games won on the bottom right corner and over the vally, and a slower match won by rotations and positions if the teams go opposite sides. I see equal opportunities for both teams to win with those rotations if it is a slower match, and with the quicker match it will be down to who has the better coordination between the players and the rapid call. Its rare you get a map that can be both quick and slow (without camping occurring) so I think this is actually a very good choice for the map pool. We'll have to see how it plays out. Fog of war is not possible in training rooms and I actually hope it remains as such. I don't think many players  understand the detrimental effect fog of war has with the highest level of competition in this game. There is a reason nobody ever asked for it in WGL.

Prok: I dont think north has an advantage here at all, I think both sides have many options to win and it comes down to the skill of the teams.

Himmels: obviously this one is 100% fine

Sand river: There was a small debate about this one actually. Defenders kept opting for camps but in my opinion the defending side does not actually obtain any advantage camping. I think attacking teams can easily break camps once they learn to properly do so and then the real potential of the map will be unlocked. For example fame never lost as the attacker here and easily broke the camps in previous tournaments. The other teams should rewatch those vods and learn how they did it.

Live oaks: Played this a lot personally, it is not unbalanced in favour of either side. We saw it played in previous tournaments to great success.

Cliff: Obviously fine

Serene coast: Played this a bit myself, I think the meta is still developing itself on this map but I saw no apparent unbalancing favoring either side.

Ensk was removed from the pool due to the standard of game play on the map, sure the map is roughly balanced from either side but the actual player and viewer experience of this map was sub par. Teams were not enjoying it and it was not fun from the viewer perspective either imo. If the map pool was a few maps larger it would almost certainly be one of the next maps added back in though.

I think I addressed at least the main points you conveyed here. Also your clan exe was asked for feedback regarding the pool but didn't provide any so by complacency you can blame him ;)



Obsessive_Compulsive #14 Posted 16 February 2019 - 08:22 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 28622 battles
  • 8,443
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

View PostthePhilX, on 15 February 2019 - 06:52 PM, said:

 

Good that you ask :D

We invited captains from various teams including your executive officer Orrie [IDEAL] to join a discussion. Based on your feedback, we removed Murowanka and Ensk and added Serene Coast and Westfield.

 

That is the funniest retort I have ever read.

Domstadtkerl #15 Posted 17 February 2019 - 06:54 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24912 battles
  • 1,460
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    07-29-2014
Will the Showmatch vs Russians be played online or offline in moscow again?

GoHard_ANIALLATOR #16 Posted 17 February 2019 - 07:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 39560 battles
  • 829
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    08-04-2011

View PostDomstadtkerl, on 17 February 2019 - 05:54 PM, said:

Will the Showmatch vs Russians be played online or offline in moscow again?

 

 

Online



Berbo #17 Posted 19 February 2019 - 01:03 PM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 32976 battles
  • 5,130
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostSwoopie, on 16 February 2019 - 06:12 AM, said:

One partial solution to (Atleast Westfield) would be to make Fog of War available for the tournament games. Atleast the opponent cant guess what you're gonna do straight away from your lineup. Also maybe worth considering swapping the defending/attacking bases for Westfield/Live Oaks, since at the moment it feels if you have two equal teams, the winner of those rounds will be decided by whoever is on the defending side and they'll just end up 1:1 (Kind of like the old Ruinberg Attack/Defense in ESL. Yeah surprises did happen where the attacker managed to take an advantage but more often than not, the round was decided in the defenders favor before it began).

 

Fog of war isn't available in training rooms obviously as even if it was, picks would be shown in the team selection phase. In any case, we're hoping to get our tournament system updated very soon with some new features where we would first get rid of the training rooms (completely) and then the next phase would be fog of war. 

So to answer your question, FoW is something we want to add but currently it's simply not possible.

 

Cheers



Geno1isme #18 Posted 19 February 2019 - 01:29 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 45858 battles
  • 9,528
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostBerbo, on 19 February 2019 - 02:03 PM, said:

In any case, we're hoping to get our tournament system updated very soon with some new features where we would first get rid of the training rooms (completely)

 

You mean get rid of them for tournament stuff, or completely remove them from the client itself? If the latter, will there be a generic replacement?

Berbo #19 Posted 19 February 2019 - 01:32 PM

    eSports Manager Europe

  • WG Staff
  • 32976 battles
  • 5,130
  • [KAZNA] KAZNA
  • Member since:
    04-17-2011

View PostGeno1isme, on 19 February 2019 - 01:29 PM, said:

 

You mean get rid of them for tournament stuff, or completely remove them from the client itself? If the latter, will there be a generic replacement?

 

I mean not to use them for our tournaments. Sorry for the confusion.

WoT_RU_Doing #20 Posted 25 February 2019 - 10:15 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53084 battles
  • 2,595
  • [-GY-] -GY-
  • Member since:
    07-20-2013

Saw the banner for this on the forum today, and instantly wondered "why?"....

SOFFinals.jpg

Shouldn't that actually say "2. - 3.3. 17:00" ? Having people turn up in the right month probably makes for better viewing.

 

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users