Jump to content


Map exclusion might actually be a bad idea

Gameplay Deterioration Over Time

  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

jabster #21 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12649 battles
  • 25,346
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostSignal11th, on 10 April 2019 - 10:53 AM, said:

 

Pretty much this, there seems to be the false assumption that the majority of players in WOT actually visit the forums visit the website etc when plainly they don't, you will probably get 10% of the player base using this feature at most. I can't wait no more Ensk no more Ghost Town...

 

To be fair, although the OP doesn’t always make the point explicitly I believe they are just exploring what they think might happen so they’re aren’t making assumptions but instead talking about possibilities also know as speculating.

 

I think there are so many unknowns that it’s rather hard to see how this will work out in reality. Personally I'm going to blacklist Abbey as I just don’t like that map regardless of which tier or class I'm playing.



Bora_BOOM #22 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:45 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 26871 battles
  • 3,543
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

Imagine a 3-player platoon in which all the players excluded different 2 maps.  :amazed:

What happens then?

Smells like rigging chance if they can exclude 6 maps that way...


Edited by Bora_BOOM, 10 April 2019 - 12:47 PM.


Rati_Festa #23 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:50 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47976 battles
  • 2,197
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 10 April 2019 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

Can you really see lots of players tailoring their 1 or 2 map blacklist choices to the tanks they are going to play and then changing it every 4 hours and then remembering to play the right tanks to match their choices? 

 

 

I can actually, just because the majority are bad at game doesn't mean they are outright stupid. I can see lots of heavy players taking out open maps, even lower skill players will have maps they despise ( probably the ones they get farmed early in without returning fire).

 

WG have made all these changes to the account the most marketable parts of it are the piggy bank and the map exclusion, they are thinking promotional as they even joke about changing the name of reserve to piggy bank to make it more memorable. This will be pushed aggresively me thinks ( This smells of a marketing push ).



Dexatroph #24 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:51 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 47500 battles
  • 3,350
  • Member since:
    02-09-2013

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 10:48 AM, said:

Please note I sincerely hope I'm wrong with this and it won't happen, but at the moment I don't see it improving more then it would make worse at the same time.

 

 

You arenot wrong, but it will be introduced as players asked for that feature a long time. While people asked for that they just had their own game in mind, without considering the overall impact as everyone will use it.  But I hope WG just checked the numbers and the impact would not be that bad at the end.



OIias_of_Sunhillow #25 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:05 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 25797 battles
  • 3,154
  • Member since:
    07-20-2011

Should a large enough portion of the player base start excluding the same maps, will that encourage WG to either remove that particular map, or maps, or rework them ?

The reason I ask, is that it's the same 2-3 maps that are mentioned as problematic.



Maschinenkanone #26 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:11 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 42741 battles
  • 336
  • [MBEV] MBEV
  • Member since:
    05-17-2012

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 09:48 AM, said:

Thinking about the new map exclusion system, and the *extra* map exclusion premium accounts will be able to do got me to conclude the following:

 

I don't like map exclusions at all, while it's annoying for you to spawn on a city map in a light and on an open map in a heavy, for other players it's a blessing. The system evens everything out in the end.

 

Just imagine all the lights excluding city maps and heavies excluding open maps. You'd get Prokh filled with lights so goodbye to spotting damage and city maps filled with only heavy armor which means it ends in a boring camp-fest for everyone.

 

At first map exclusion might seem like a good idea but it will not benefit general gameplay as a whole at all, it will actually make it worse. Sure, for your as a player it will make the maps you play more enjoyable but at the same time it will probably negatively impact your gameplay experience at the same time as your preferred targets probably won't spawn on your maps anymore, or at least spawn less.

 

===

 

Please note I sincerely hope I'm wrong with this and it won't happen, but at the moment I don't see it improving more then it would make worse at the same time.

 

Cobra 6

 

I fully agree. And there are even more probs:

  • MM will suffer, waiting time will increase
  • Allrounder tanks will lose, Specialist tanks will profit


Chuwt #27 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:14 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 34914 battles
  • 105
  • Member since:
    06-14-2012

I think this is part of what seems to be a dumbing down of the game: to me, one of the core skills of games such as this one is doing the best with what you have in the situation you find yourself.
Already I see it is not unknown for players to start a game by saying " crapmap" or "crapmm" and "bye", many more obviously suicide by fire without saying anything, and it is only to be presumed than even more just do not really try.  The sort of attitude that means you can only play if you are in the most OP and top tier tank on your most suitable map is good for nobody, it is certainly not good for that player, his teammates and not for the overall game. Pandering to it by giving people even a very limited amount of map veto is not therefore, going to be a good thing.

The other major problem (as has been said before) is that it reduces the chances of the problem maps being fixed, as they will say you can just block them.

At the moment, it is clearly limited, but who is to say it will not increase, especially if it seems popular with the more blinkered players...any level, however, will have an effect on gameplay, and it is unlikely to be for the good: those who want to ban maps will just come to see the ones they cannot ban as a new "worst ever", and those who do not will see play further distorted, and almost certainly not in their favour.

Be careful what you wish for...

 



Homer_J #28 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31443 battles
  • 34,419
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 10:48 AM, said:

 

Please note I sincerely hope I'm wrong with this and it won't happen, but at the moment I don't see it improving more then it would make worse at the same time.

I don't think you are, I can see the idea having many unintended consequences and the fact that they are introducing a pay to remove a second map feature will make it nigh on impossible to remove.

 

The idea should be "live tested" with just the free option.  Then see how it breaks things before allowing the paid option.

 

View PostOIias_of_Sunhillow, on 10 April 2019 - 01:05 PM, said:

Should a large enough portion of the player base start excluding the same maps, will that encourage WG to either remove that particular map, or maps, or rework them ?

The reason I ask, is that it's the same 2-3 maps that are mentioned as problematic.

 

Dragons Ridge and Komarin were always complained about but ever since they were removed there has been a constant stream of demands to have them reinstated.  Just yet more evidence that the community doesn't have the faintest clue what it wants or what is good for the game.  Heck, I've even seen people ask for Hidden Village back!

tajj7 #29 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27411 battles
  • 15,118
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostRati_Festa, on 10 April 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

 

I can actually, just because the majority are bad at game doesn't mean they are outright stupid. 

 

They do a lot of stupid things......

 

I just can't see between the people that won't even notice the feature, the fact its only two maps out of like 30-40 and the rest that will forget to change it once they have done it once, realistically having much impact on the game. 



xx984 #30 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 61191 battles
  • 2,989
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
Not really, it takes 4 hours to be able to change what maps are excluded, People rarely, atleast from who i talk to play the same class for the whole day. 

Cobra6 #31 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 16505 battles
  • 17,006
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010

View PostTungstenHitman, on 10 April 2019 - 10:20 AM, said:

At the moment, there's actually a lot of maps in WoT but the problem is we just aren't getting them. Ever session I play, it's the same maps over and over for the entire session and even spawning the same side too in most all cases. For example, yesterday, in 10 battles I got Minsk 3 times, Mines 2 times and Tundra 2 times and Arctic Region 2 times. The pattern continued for the rest of the session and it's been like this for a while now. It's pathetic and I don't think anyone would be bothered by any of the "bad maps" if we had an MM that properly rotated maps. That way, we would only ever see the map we don't like much the odd time instead of seeing 2 or 3 times in 10 battles. We just shouldn't be seeing the same maps so frequently nor spawning the same side ever consecutively. Spawn one side, spawn the other side next time, so hard? I don't think so. And just adjust MM to cycle through all the maps, is it so hard? Problem solved in many ways. 

 

Server 1 and Server 2 have different maps in rotation as both draw from their own "mini map pool", so if you get terrible maps on Server 1, just switch to Server 2 and see if the map pool on that one is better.

That is quite a workable solution at the moment.

 

I remember in the past it being stated that these "mini map pools" are there because of memory constraints so each server gets a smaller selection of maps for a specific time and after that time has passed, this map selection is switched.

Both servers run different selections so switching server will get you different maps in most situations.

 

Cobra 6



Rati_Festa #32 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 47976 battles
  • 2,197
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    02-10-2012

View Postxx984, on 10 April 2019 - 01:45 PM, said:

Not really, it takes 4 hours to be able to change what maps are excluded, People rarely, atleast from who i talk to play the same class for the whole day. 

 

Won't it funnel people to change playing behaviour though? If you have the "open" maps switched off you just play heavies or assault tds? People will make changes according to what functionality they are given.
12:57 Added after 3 minutes

View Posttajj7, on 10 April 2019 - 01:42 PM, said:

 

They do a lot of stupid things......

 

I just can't see between the people that won't even notice the feature, the fact its only two maps out of like 30-40 and the rest that will forget to change it once they have done it once, realistically having much impact on the game. 

 

Lets hope they release figures. I assume someone will be able to dig out maps played globally? Is that info available.

 

If we can see historic data for maps and overlay the new data with "banned maps" we should be able to get a rough idea of the hated maps as they shouldn't appear as frequently as better maps.



Balc0ra #33 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 70505 battles
  • 19,341
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Going by the info so far. It seems to timed based. As in you lock one map for 4 hours. And I suspect a fair share won't use it. Nor do I suspect everyone will pick the same one. Non premium HT player can pick one open map. While arty and lights pick the one urban map they dislike the least etc. And since you can rotate it. I suspect open maps will be light heavy and closed maps will be armor heavy etc as it's 1 for most, and 2 for the rest.



tajj7 #34 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:59 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 27411 battles
  • 15,118
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostRati_Festa, on 10 April 2019 - 12:53 PM, said:

 

Won't it funnel people to change playing behaviour though? If you have the "open" maps switched off you just play heavies or assault tds? People will make changes according to what functionality they are given.

 

Some might, most others won't, some might start with that intention but then forget. 

 

I mean you can already do that with encounter and assault, which generally have more open maps in the rotation, plus similar with grand battles for doing missions, but how many people really do this, and out of those that do, how many then forget to change it when they change class? 

 

If you start looking through all the permutations, the amount of people that will be using this to gain benefits to certain classes they play for 4 hours is IMO tiny. 



Jumping_Turtle #35 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:03 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 66700 battles
  • 6,536
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostBora_BOOM, on 10 April 2019 - 12:45 PM, said:

Imagine a 3-player platoon in which all the players excluded different 2 maps.  :amazed:

What happens then?

Smells like rigging chance if they can exclude 6 maps that way...

 

Doesnt work like that. Only the maps excluded by the platoon commander are valid.



Geno1isme #36 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:09 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 46693 battles
  • 10,105
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

View PostRati_Festa, on 10 April 2019 - 02:53 PM, said:

Won't it funnel people to change playing behaviour though? If you have the "open" maps switched off you just play heavies or assault tds? People will make changes according to what functionality they are given.

 

People can (for now) disable a maximum of two maps. And even though people constantly whine about all maps being corridors, there are actually a few more "open" maps than just Mali and Proko. You can still land on Sand River, Steppes, Live Oaks, Westfield, Highway, Glacier and other maps where you have to deal with snipers and arty.

StinkyStonky #37 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:14 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 32506 battles
  • 2,558
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostCobra6, on 10 April 2019 - 09:48 AM, said:

I don't like map exclusions at all ...

 

At first map exclusion might seem like a good idea but it will not benefit general gameplay as a whole at all,

 

... it will actually make it worse. 

 

You write a lot of sense.  I agree with it all except the last bit.  Personally I don't think it will have any effect.

There are about 40 maps (http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Maps ;) - Yes it's surprising that it's so many; and so being able to exclude 2 is still only 5%.

 

A you pointed out, most of the contentious maps are good for some classes at the expense of being bad for others.

 

What most people want is to be able to exclude certain classes for certain maps, but WG aren't offering that.  e.g. Never get Himmelsdorf, Ensk or Paris when playing ... Arty.

 

What this change will do is reduce toxicity.  Some people just hate ... Paris/Studzianki/Empires Border/Ghost Town/Glacier because they had a hard time when it first came out and now, if they ever get it, the immediate/irrational response id "Oh FFS, not this".

 

Which brings me to the feature that WG haven't told us about.

You won't be able to exclude "new" maps.  I don't know whether the "recent" maps (Paris/Studzianki/Empires Border/Ghost Town/Glacier) will be included, but expect ALL new maps to be excluded for at least 6 months.

 

FYI, I doubt that I will exclude ANY maps from the rotation.



Captain_Kremen0 #38 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:19 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 38564 battles
  • 2,105
  • [TFMB] TFMB
  • Member since:
    06-04-2011

View PostDexatroph, on 10 April 2019 - 11:51 AM, said:

 

You arenot wrong, but it will be introduced as players asked for that feature a long time. While people asked for that they just had their own game in mind, without considering the overall impact as everyone will use it.  But I hope WG just checked the numbers and the impact would not be that bad at the end.

Because giving Steve people what they want really really works.

[close sarcasm]

 

 



Bora_BOOM #39 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:19 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 26871 battles
  • 3,543
  • [DID0] DID0
  • Member since:
    08-23-2014

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 10 April 2019 - 01:03 PM, said:

 

Doesnt work like that. Only the maps excluded by the platoon commander are valid.

 

Yeah, I kind of knew that would work like something you said, but you know, stirring some imagination never hurts. :hiding:

m00h #40 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 87846 battles
  • 1,461
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    09-30-2011

You can't exclude all open or all city maps. What you can do is exclude 1 particular map you dislike the most.

And since it's like that i don't see a big problem with it. I don't mind seeing a bit less superheavys on proko or

a smaller number of lights in ensk or whatever. Anybody who excludes one of the open maps isn't a big loss

anyway, cause he has no clue what he is doing. :teethhappy:







Also tagged with Gameplay, Deterioration, Over, Time

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users