Jump to content


Supertest News : Pearl River (more detail)


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Actinid #1 Posted 10 October 2019 - 11:23 AM

    Community Manager

  • WG Staff
  • 19941 battles
  • 1,489
  • Member since:
    03-08-2013

More News About Pearl River on the Supertest

 

The general idea behind the redesign is to reduce the map's linearity for more gameplay variety. Based on this key concept, two versions are currently in the works.

 

Option 1:

 

Common_1.pngCommon_2.png

  • The central hill with houses has been reworked to be one of the main spots. Now you can take control over it and oversee a considerable part of the map.
  • The houses under the hill have either been removed or moved onto the hill to prevent heavy player separation in this direction.
  • The entire south-west has been opened up to allow quick attacks and flank manoeuvres as well as concealment. 
  • The mountains near the bases are now defensive spots.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Option 2:

 

Common_1.pngCommon_2.png

  • There are no more bushes on this map, now only trees can be used for concealment.
  • We added a passage to connect the flank for heavy tanks with the centre, as well as more safe passages along the edges of the map connecting to each base.
  • Now you can partially traverse the mountains near the bases and use these spots for defence.
  • All buildings in the village centre can be destroyed.
  • The terrain was flattened, allowing you to retreat more safely.
  • A previously impassable mountain is now accessible.

 

Spoiler

 

As always, the plans for the Pearl River map depend on the test results.



RagingRaptor #2 Posted 10 October 2019 - 01:08 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 44432 battles
  • 661
  • [OM] OM
  • Member since:
    03-10-2012
Both Versions look interesting. 
If I have to give honest Feedback I would love to test both variants ( obv there don't need to be fancy graphics). As from just pictures its hard to say if it will be fun or not. The first variant remind me a bit of Mines... and hightier Mines is just... bad, to say the least x)

xx984 #3 Posted 10 October 2019 - 01:39 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 65018 battles
  • 3,554
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View PostRagingRaptor, on 10 October 2019 - 12:08 PM, said:

Both Versions look interesting. 
If I have to give honest Feedback I would love to test both variants ( obv there don't need to be fancy graphics). As from just pictures its hard to say if it will be fun or not. The first variant remind me a bit of Mines... and hightier Mines is just... bad, to say the least x)

 

 I agree, (apart from high tier mines but thats beyond the point)

 

Would be nice for the whole playerbase to test these new/reworked maps, Even early in their development, Can't be that hard to put them on the common test for a week or so can it? 

 

Anyway, as always, Bring back Dragons ridge and Stalingrad!



sokolicc #4 Posted 10 October 2019 - 03:36 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32384 battles
  • 375
  • [OXIDE] OXIDE
  • Member since:
    04-14-2016

View Postxx984, on 10 October 2019 - 01:39 PM, said:

 

 I agree, (apart from high tier mines but thats beyond the point)

 

Would be nice for the whole playerbase to test these new/reworked maps, Even early in their development, Can't be that hard to put them on the common test for a week or so can it? 

 

Anyway, as always, Bring back Dragons ridge and Stalingrad!


Stallingrad was toxic, only corners and hulldown spots. You sure we need more of those? :D
I would rather like to see old Fisherman's bay and old Fjords comming back to game. I enjoyed WoT Classic 0.7.0 just because of those 2 beautifull maps.


Btw, i came in WoT after this map was removed but i woud love to test both maps, as Raging said, to see what's happening.
Obviously, more routes can be better because we don't need another corridor pass, but also lack of bushes can be... Bad for map. Idk, there should be some bushes here and there ;).


I guess in option no 2, that route marked with 1 will not be that usefull since it leads from one corridor to another.

I like openings in the mid  for option no 1 (sector 1). It seems that position will be too risky (it can be shot from many angles) but also can be rewarding.


To sum up, for now i think Option 1 with sector 1 will be interesting place to play and more appealing place, therefore, my vote goes for option 1.

Also, i don't like fact that map don't have bushes which will only promote bobject-style gameplay. :)

 

14:41 Added after 5 minute

View PostActinid, on 10 October 2019 - 11:23 AM, said:

More News About Pearl River on the Supertest

 

The general idea behind the redesign is to reduce the map's linearity for more gameplay variety. Based on this key concept, two versions are currently in the works.

 

Option 1:

 

Common_1.pngCommon_2.png

  • The central hill with houses has been reworked to be one of the main spots. Now you can take control over it and oversee a considerable part of the map.
  • The houses under the hill have either been removed or moved onto the hill to prevent heavy player separation in this direction.
  • The entire south-west has been opened up to allow quick attacks and flank manoeuvres as well as concealment. 
  • The mountains near the bases are now defensive spots.

 

 

 

  • The mountains near the bases are now defensive spots.

 

Well, this is what i'm afraid of - sniping positions that have safe defence perimeter and literaly no risks involved for taking tham. I am afraid of those positions, they ruined to some degree many maps like  Fisherman's bay, Pilsen etc...



bbmoose #5 Posted 11 October 2019 - 09:14 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 13117 battles
  • 266
  • Member since:
    11-25-2013
Please stop adding "TD camp here"-spots. Don't make maps for Steve the TD driver.

Leveitine #6 Posted 11 October 2019 - 12:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 117892 battles
  • 38
  • [_U-N_] _U-N_
  • Member since:
    05-17-2013
Fix spoting mechanic!!!!!!!!

Bordhaw #7 Posted 12 October 2019 - 11:21 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 15293 battles
  • 5,220
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

Option 1 because Option 2 makes it need for speed.

 

Or you know what - why not have both - Pearl River 1 (before the war), Pearl River 2 (after the war) 

 

There is a need for more maps....


Edited by Bordhaw, 12 October 2019 - 11:24 AM.


K1Lc4m #8 Posted 15 October 2019 - 08:36 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 17022 battles
  • 69
  • [-TDS] -TDS
  • Member since:
    07-16-2016

View PostBordhaw, on 12 October 2019 - 11:21 AM, said:

Option 1 because Option 2 makes it need for speed.

 

Or you know what - why not have both - Pearl River 1 (before the war), Pearl River 2 (after the war) 

 

There is a need for more maps....


I don't think more map is a need, or it's a need for active and old player. Some of my friend have try WoT and they don't like it that much even with all the knowledge i can give and some useful website. One of the problem was to learning to play on all those map, and yes that's a huge amount of map where you have to know td, heavy, light, med and arty standard spot. Other problem was, gold, rng, low tier experience and game balance in general.

 

So as a active and "old" player, i would love more maps, but i don't think it's a priority for the health of the game right now. If the game can be attractive to other player, and not only people who love tank, it would be nice.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users