Jump to content


Mapbalance, a different perspective

Map encounter assault

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Aleo #1 Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:19 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 30890 battles
  • 133
  • [-LOA-] -LOA-
  • Member since:
    12-12-2010

Everyone has opinions on the current maps, and most aren’t exactly constructive. However; we are all mostly agreed upon that WGs map-meta is frustrating boring and repeated in nauseam.

In my opinion we don’t need and should not have symmetrical maps, with designated spots for the different classes of AFVs. But how to prevent one side of the battle to just quit because the other side has all the advantages?

 

Since this is an arcade game, not a tank simulator, the main goal of the game as I se it is to gain experience and credits. The more damage you do, the more xp you get. And if you are on the winning side you gain even more.

 

We can use this simple fact to “balance” the maps!

 

By looking at other types of games and including a challenge rating factor in the xp and credit calculation, the maps don’t need to be symmetrical, nor balanced.

 

Lets just use Prokhorovka as an example (This does not in any way, directly or indirectly, indicate any personal attitude or statistics that that map is either balanced or unbalanced, it’s just a freaking hypothetical example) Let’s say that the north is more likely to win a standard battle than the south. So, people tend to camp in the south, and hope for a slow, defensive win. Introduce challenge rating (CR) to the different battle result.

  1. North: Standard win CR 1 (xp/creds x 1), cap south base CR 1,15 (xp/creds x 1,15)
  2. South: Standard win CR 1.2, cap north base CR 1,15

 

Now you have an incentive to be more active. If the north team just camp defensive and win they will get no extra. If they try to cap the south base they will get more.

In the other battle modes this would be even more vital. Defend a bad position? CR 2. Capping a win on Mines encounter? No bonus, but killing the other team will give you CR 1,2. This is especially vital since most players don’t play encounter or assault / defend.

 

Attacking an enemy in a superior position and winning ought to give you a HUGE bonus. Defending a superior position should neither give you a malus nor a bonus.

Creating a battle map should be as easy as taking a satellite photo, assign starting positions and objectives and give each side a CR on achieving that objective.


Edited by Aleo, 15 April 2019 - 11:20 AM.


Geno1isme #2 Posted 15 April 2019 - 12:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 45858 battles
  • 9,528
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013
That's something for PvE, not for PvP.

XxKuzkina_MatxX #3 Posted 15 April 2019 - 02:20 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 53200 battles
  • 3,316
  • [SPIKE] SPIKE
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostAleo, on 15 April 2019 - 12:19 PM, said:

In my opinion we don’t need and should not have symmetrical maps

 

"We" and "should" are a double no if you want some of that constructive feedback. YOU are not a representative of the WOT player base and nothing at all should be done if WG say so!

 

View PostAleo, on 15 April 2019 - 12:19 PM, said:

By looking at other types of games and including a challenge rating factor in the xp and credit calculation, the maps don’t need to be symmetrical, nor balanced.

[some other things]

 

To what end? you don't think the existing maps are pretty enough?

 

Why would any developer go to such great lengths and risk irritating an already fragile player base so you can have "variety" whatever that means???



Anymn #4 Posted 15 April 2019 - 03:06 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 19627 battles
  • 367
  • [RHPA] RHPA
  • Member since:
    07-06-2011

View PostGeno1isme, on 15 April 2019 - 12:23 PM, said:

That's something for PvE, not for PvP.

 

Thank you for the constructive post. Because we all know that people that respond with a single line are the oracles of wisdom, we don't even need to know how you've come to this conclusion. 

 

That being said, @OP:

  • I like asymmetrical maps. I love how the old maps played and I definitely hate the repetitiveness and horrible map design from mid 2015 and onward. All corridors, no longer any sniping/supporting possible. 
  • I'm not sure if I like the idea of variable xp modifiers. It allows Wargaming to have yet another shady component they can stealth nerf.
  • Furthermore, I doubt whether the imbalances were really the reason Wargaming switched with there map design. Most maps fell within a 45%-55% win rate probability. Besides highways, I never perceived it as a problem. It must be clearly something different that corrupted the minds within Wargaming.  Maybe they desperately wanted to fulfill the needs of the e-sports lobby or wanted that every 4 years old kid without any signs of intelligence would be able to do well on every map. Or most likely, they wanted to encourage gold ammo usage as much as possible created the maps a safe playground for heavy tanks, with no flanking opportunities. We will never know......

 

If it's for me, we take the maps present in 0.8.5 or something and delete all current maps. And preferably hire map creators that did play the game from the beginning in 2011-2012.

 



vasilinhorulezz #5 Posted 15 April 2019 - 06:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 23236 battles
  • 1,398
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014

People want rewards just for playing the game.







Also tagged with Map, encounter, assault

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users