Jump to content


What WOT needs is maps, maps, MAPS


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

flyintiger #1 Posted 11 May 2019 - 12:46 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 19828 battles
  • 47
  • [_GITS] _GITS
  • Member since:
    01-01-2013

I think the side that has been lacking for last couple of years has been the map development. There is a good amount of vehicles, graphics are good etc., gameplay and balance are decent. But the map & game modes are not good enough. We have been running around with the same two dozen maps for several years now, with only couple of new ones and some minor updates.

 

What I think are the problems with maps:

 

1) Not enough map & game mode development. There should be more new maps introduced, and more tweaks to old ones. There should be new game modes. Instead, a lot of effort is put into graphics, new tanks, introducing new mechanics, tweaking this and that a bit. Put more resources into maps and gameplay instead!  

 

2) Focusing on making "perfect" maps. This is not a good approach. I like the visual quality of the maps etc. and it's obvious there has been a lot of work done to make them look good. But this is all taking away from developing new maps and tweaking the gameplay old ones - every map update is a huge, long project for WG, so we get only a couple of tweaks in each new update. There should be less emphasis on graphics etc., and more about making fun maps to play. Also, changes should be made quickly and to try things out, and not polish each tiny bit of map change for two years.

 

You can sort of see that WG has this "plan what each player does 100%". So they will plan "heavys will first drive 2 minutes, then come to this point and fight, first around this rock and then around this.. etc etc. until they get to enemy base". This makes it boring, I think, because every map has always the single point that will become the center of fighting, and only one way to play it. There should be more options how to play each map.   

 

3) Too small maps. Some of the smallest maps are very crowded with 15 vs 15 (cough Ensk cough), especially with high tiers. Simply expanding the smallest maps a bit would make it more fun.  

 

4) Too much focus on corridors. What we have on each map is 2-3 corridors where all the action is, while other places are typically open or impassable. Grinding the same corridor again and again gets old fast. There are not many "free play areas" that allow taking multiple routes through them. City maps are the worst - the building blocks take huge chunks of unplayable space, while rest is.. *dun dun duun* yes, corridors. Why not any relatively open play areas, where there would be random obstacles to run around instead of corridors?  

 

5) Too much "open field" or "no-play" areas. Too many areas are non-playable, or so open that you cannot play there without getting instantly killed, or such places where there is nothing to give cover. Take Siegfried line for example - there's city and fields with bunkers, and the field is meant for "mediums and lights to fight around". But no-one goes there and it immediately comes a camping match. All the action is in the city. Fail.

 

Even if there is no HUGE open field where everyone dies instantly, there usually are a lot of empty corners where nothing happens. For example, Highway has not only open field in the middle, but also it has the next to the bases areas that are always unplayed. There should be at least few hills and obstacles you could run around in these areas. Why these have no-play spots not been fixed in years says how much WG loves "corridors, corridors, corridors".   

 

TL;DR: New OP tanks and more premium bonuses doesn't make the game fun to play, if that is what WG is thinking. What you need is more fun and new gameplay, in form of maps and game modes. This will keep players interested. Maps should be made to be fun, not super polished and not planning each step the players will make. 



unhappy_bunny #2 Posted 11 May 2019 - 01:08 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 19371 battles
  • 3,283
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

Personally I think the problem is maps take time to develop and test. I think there is a lot of work involved in getting them anywhere near right. 

As to the base corners on Highway, who is going to play in those areas? At the start the enemy can't, and the defenders have nothing to do there. It is only at the end of the battle that either side can play in those areas, so I think your comments are without relevance. 

Ensk, mines and maybe Provence and some others, could be enlarged. 

Siegfried Line, is another matter. Most of the problems there are down to the players. It is they who chose where they go with whatever tank they picked. You cannot force players to goto certain points, nor can you force them to try something different. So, I agree, many battles become the same.



the_nebuchadnezzar #3 Posted 11 May 2019 - 04:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52095 battles
  • 1,541
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    08-19-2013

View Postunhappy_bunny, on 11 May 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Personally I think the problem is maps take time to develop and test. I think there is a lot of work involved in getting them anywhere near right. 

As to the base corners on Highway, who is going to play in those areas? At the start the enemy can't, and the defenders have nothing to do there. It is only at the end of the battle that either side can play in those areas, so I think your comments are without relevance. 

Ensk, mines and maybe Provence and some others, could be enlarged. 

Siegfried Line, is another matter. Most of the problems there are down to the players. It is they who chose where they go with whatever tank they picked. You cannot force players to goto certain points, nor can you force them to try something different. So, I agree, many battles become the same.

 

Easy: use the old maps you already have. Add them one by one every 4-5  months and you will have the players base busy fo next 3 years.

Homer_J #4 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:14 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31398 battles
  • 34,176
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010
If the game needs more maps then why were so many people so excited at the idea of being able to exclude maps?

The_Naa #5 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 768
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017
the thing the game need are less maps that i dont like and more maps that i do like.

1ncompetenc3 #6 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:33 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013
Pretty much none of the recent additions/reworks are particularly good (or popular). WoT doesn't need more maps, it needs better maps, and in order for that to happen WG needs a completely new team for map design and rework what's already there (and axe what cannot be saved).

NekoPuffer_PPP #7 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:34 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32880 battles
  • 3,372
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 11 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

If the game needs more maps then why were so many people so excited at the idea of being able to exclude maps?

 

Because the game needs more good maps...

 

Studzianki, Paris and Minsk are among the most disliked maps, and they're all the more recent ones...the map design team needs a refresh.



Japualtah #8 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:34 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 31098 battles
  • 1,242
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

View PostHomer_J, on 11 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

If the game needs more maps then why were so many people so excited at the idea of being able to exclude maps?

 

You answered your own question there: because the maps are so bad that players feel the need to exclude them and desperately need new ones hopefully better.

 

Now, on maps, I'm under the impression the game is on life support.

It takes a few hours to design a map, a few days to test it and roughly 50 man/hours to make them pretty - and what we have now is indeed very pretty.

This based on my UE4 experience, WG use CORE which is a Russian proprietary engine.

It took the team months to come up with a bunch of very bad maps, how comes?

 

I think - hoping to be wrong though - that it's because there is hardly anyone working on WoT, and even fewer people enjoying working on it.

Have you seen their contracted postures when posting dev videos? Appaling...

 

Why does it take so long to re-balance ammo while they will finally follow a path suggested years ago?

Why don't they regularly release new maps?

Why can't they balance obviously broken tanks?

Why can't they come up with a decent MM?

Why haven't they re-worked the crew skills yet?

 

What this indicates is that the people in charge are happy with the state of the game.

A tank line once in a blue moon, a fake patch now and then - like the fake arty re-balance - and customers continue paying since there is no worthy competitor.

Why would they spend money on development or make bold moves that could compromise what has proven to be a balanced income system?

 

IMO we are stuck with what we have now, and I would love to be proven wrong.



Kicky92 #9 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:39 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15534 battles
  • 223
  • [EMRYS] EMRYS
  • Member since:
    04-21-2015

Give the WoT Community some tips and tools on how to design maps, yes I know there's a lot of nuances involved. 

Let the community make new maps, put them on the test server / sandbox server and let the community upvote the best ones, then implement them into the game if all is good. 



1ncompetenc3 #10 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:40 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostJapualtah, on 11 May 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

 

You answered your own question there: because the maps are so bad that players feel the need to exclude them and desperately need new ones hopefully better.

 

Now, on maps, I'm under the impression the game is on life support.

It takes a few hours to design a map, a few days to test it and roughly 50 man/hours to make them pretty - and what we have now is indeed very pretty.

This based on my UE4 experience, WG use CORE which is a Russian proprietary engine.

It took the team months to come up with a bunch of very bad maps, how comes?

 

I think - hoping to be wrong though - that it's because there is hardly anyone working on WoT, and even fewer people enjoying working on it.

Have you seen their contracted postures when posting dev videos? Appaling...

 

Why does it take so long to re-balance ammo while they will finally follow a path suggested years ago?

Why don't they regularly release new maps?

Why can't they balance obviously broken tanks?

Why can't they come up with a decent MM?

Why haven't they re-worked the crew skills yet?

 

What this indicates is that the people in charge are happy with the state of the game.

A tank line once in a blue moon, a fake patch now and then - like the fake arty re-balance - and customers continue paying since there is no worthy competitor.

Why would they spend money on development or make bold moves that could compromise what has proven to be a balanced income system?

 

IMO we are stuck with what we have now, and I would love to be proven wrong.

 

In a sense they are making bold moves. The seemingly increasing rate at which new premium tanks are introduced (including reskiniums, though WG at least puts a few minutes into making the vehicle model ever so slightly different), the flashy skins, the lack of frontal weak spots on new tanks, the superior gun handling and mobility of new vehicles and the introduction of wheeled vehicles make it look to me like WG has been inspired by the worst parts of AW's "development".

The_Naa #11 Posted 11 May 2019 - 05:53 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5757 battles
  • 768
  • [QSF-L] QSF-L
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 11 May 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

 

Studzianki, Paris and Minsk are among the most disliked maps, and they're all the more recent ones...the map design team needs a refresh.

Spoiler

 



NUKLEAR_SLUG #12 Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:00 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32400 battles
  • 3,389
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 11 May 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

 

In a sense they are making bold moves. The seemingly increasing rate at which new premium tanks are introduced (including reskiniums, though WG at least puts a few minutes into making the vehicle model ever so slightly different), the flashy skins, the lack of frontal weak spots on new tanks, the superior gun handling and mobility of new vehicles and the introduction of wheeled vehicles make it look to me like WG has been inspired by the worst parts of AW's "development".

 

Remember the Mauerbrecher? That was given a frontal weakspot, because players were complaining about prems with no frontal weakspots. Players then complained it was crap. Because it had a frontal weakspot.

 

The problem is the players don't even know what the players want, but they'll still complain that WG aren't giving it to them.



1ncompetenc3 #13 Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 11 May 2019 - 06:00 PM, said:

 

Remember the Mauerbrecher? That was given a frontal weakspot, because players were complaining about prems with no frontal weakspots. Players then complained it was crap. Because it had a frontal weakspot.

 

The problem is the players don't even know what the players want, but they'll still complain that WG aren't giving it to them.

 

I suspect that was an experiment to see how people would react to tanks that were actually somewhat balanced. Given the general lack of enthusiasm for the thing I'd say the experiment was a resounding success as it told WG people are not interested in balanced tanks (not the right conclusion, but I guarantee it's the one WG draws).

NUKLEAR_SLUG #14 Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:37 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 32400 battles
  • 3,389
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 11 May 2019 - 06:04 PM, said:

 

I suspect that was an experiment to see how people would react to tanks that were actually somewhat balanced. Given the general lack of enthusiasm for the thing I'd say the experiment was a resounding success as it told WG people are not interested in balanced tanks (not the right conclusion, but I guarantee it's the one WG draws).

 

I think you're probably right it was an experiment, but I disagree they'll draw the wrong conclusion from it. The players have demonstrated time and again when offered the chance to vote on a tank sale that they'll happily vote for the OP, unbalanced tank every time.

1ncompetenc3 #15 Posted 11 May 2019 - 06:51 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 11 May 2019 - 06:37 PM, said:

 

I think you're probably right it was an experiment, but I disagree they'll draw the wrong conclusion from it. The players have demonstrated time and again when offered the chance to vote on a tank sale that they'll happily vote for the OP, unbalanced tank every time.

 

What I meant by wrong conclusion is that I believe people would prefer balanced premium tanks in a balanced environment, the problem is that there are so many broken tanks in the game that a tank that is balanced against older tanks is actually underpowered when compared to many of the new ones hence the lukewarm (at best) reactions to such vehicles. Without that context though I agree that it would actually be the correct conclusion.


Edited by 1ncompetenc3, 11 May 2019 - 06:52 PM.


Homer_J #16 Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:29 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31398 battles
  • 34,176
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 11 May 2019 - 05:33 PM, said:

Pretty much none of the recent additions/reworks are particularly good (or popular).

 

View PostPervyPastryPuffer, on 11 May 2019 - 05:34 PM, said:

 

Because the game needs more good maps...

 

Studzianki, Paris and Minsk are among the most disliked maps, and they're all the more recent ones...the map design team needs a refresh.

 

Yet in all the polls the new maps don't even feature amongst the most blocked.

 

Instead it's one of the oldest maps, virtually unchanged since beta days, Ensk.  And bizarrely Airfield.  So this idea that new maps are bad is plainly nonesense.



1ncompetenc3 #17 Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 11 May 2019 - 08:29 PM, said:

 

 

Yet in all the polls the new maps don't even feature amongst the most blocked.

 

Instead it's one of the oldest maps, virtually unchanged since beta days, Ensk.  And bizarrely Airfield.  So this idea that new maps are bad is plainly nonesense.

 

An old map being the most universally blocked doesn't mean the new ones aren't bad. Besides, you should know better than to consider forum polls as being representative for the player base as a whole.

Homer_J #18 Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:50 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31398 battles
  • 34,176
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 11 May 2019 - 08:44 PM, said:

 

An old map being the most universally blocked doesn't mean the new ones aren't bad. Besides, you should know better than to consider forum polls as being representative for the player base as a whole.

 

Not just forum poll but wider ranging polls too.

 

It would be nice if WG could give some official figures perhaps after a month or so.



1ncompetenc3 #19 Posted 11 May 2019 - 08:59 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38064 battles
  • 11,994
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostHomer_J, on 11 May 2019 - 08:50 PM, said:

 

Not just forum poll but wider ranging polls too.

 

It would be nice if WG could give some official figures perhaps after a month or so.

 

I kind of doubt they'd release such numbers. Regardless of whether the most blocked map overall is old or new, it will always reflect poorly on them unless they're willing to immediately remove that map from rotation so that they can give a positive spin to the story. Such is the nature of a feature that allows the player to remove part of the game from their personal gaming experience.

Homer_J #20 Posted 11 May 2019 - 09:11 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 31398 battles
  • 34,176
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post1ncompetenc3, on 11 May 2019 - 08:59 PM, said:

 

I kind of doubt they'd release such numbers. Regardless of whether the most blocked map overall is old or new, it will always reflect poorly on them unless they're willing to immediately remove that map from rotation so that they can give a positive spin to the story. Such is the nature of a feature that allows the player to remove part of the game from their personal gaming experience.

 

And why not do that.

 

Even if it's these are the top two blocked maps, they will be sent away for rework.

 

Unless it's Ensk because it wouldn't be WoT without Ensk and Malinovkakakakakaka






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users