What would an improved Map be like? (Among other features)

[Cunicularius 4,543]

Many of us are not fans of the current meta.

There has been some discussion already as to what sort of changes could be made to improve gameplay and balance.

 

One idea that I am very much a fan of is reworking of the maps.

I want larger maps with much more variety than there is now.

I would much less mind areas like Tundra if there were areas similar to Prokhorovka surrounding it, where camo, vision and mobility could be used to influence operations within the area through Area control, where battles are one not only through vision control but maneuver warfare on a slightly larger scale than there is now.

 

There are concerns over persistent issues like (1) camping, (2) a dim playerbase, and (3) less mobile vehicles which may have difficulty being useful in such an environment, but these sorts of things will either always be present and/or be remedied with some attention.

 

1. Camping is the MO for some tanks, should you be advancing aggressively on the enemy with a Church GC or a Sturer Emil? Isn't Arty cancer camping incarnate? Besides, to camp and be effective, one must still consider the situation and act in an intelligent manner. In other words, a proper ambush must be planned. In a larger setting, these can be set up in a number of places, they must also be set up in such a way that if the enemy never appears, the forces can relocate to where they do appear and still support the war effort.
2. Tutorials... could be MUCH better. Why couldn't there be ingame mini-guides for each vehicle? Ex: "With poor accuracy, gun depression, and penetration, but fair mobility and camouflage and alpha, the T-34-3 should be operated as a Flanker rather than a Sniper or Front Liner." And how difficult would it be to condense a good deal of the basic mechanics into the tutorials? Before I even began playing WoT, I knew more about the vision mechanics than 95% of the players just from reading the wiki and watching Jingle's "How not to Suck". That video in particular could very easily be made into a tutorial mission, where the player is required to observe an enemy, find a suitable place to engage him from stealth, and do so successfully without being spotted and attracting return fire. The same sort of thing could be done for, say, "How to engage a lone Heavy with a Medium/light (How to circle)" or something along those lines. In WoWP, more information was provided to the player about when to engage and how than a player in WoT receives, it went over things like Altitude advantage, how to engage a faster plane, a more maneuverable plane, etc, why could this not be done for WoT?
3. Now, there will always be retards and there will always be slow tanks. Often times, people get left behind as it is, others run off and die by themselves. Why not introduce a recommended path system and a squad system? "With this tank, you should go this way, we've taken the liberty of grouping tanks that would perform well in this area into a squad, stick together and take advantage of your attributes!" Don't want to go that way? Don't like your squad? Take a page from Battlefield, you can reassign yourself to another squad. 'But Cuni! People will get abandoned and be left on their own anyway!' Not necessarily, there will always be idiots, but don't you think more people would catch on if they were exposed to features like this? If nothing else, when the pubbies coagulate, they coagulate into groups that tend to go a certain way conducive to the success of the mission. A pub in a Chinese medium with poor gun depression will be less likely to go somewhere very inhospitable to such vehicles, such as an area where fire can only be effectively exchanged by vehicles with gun depression. Another route could be taken, one where the enemy's position could possibly even be engaged from more suitable terrain. This system could even help average players begin to understand the operation of a map.

Of course, it is difficult to predict what would be the best implementation of these ideas, and how positively they'd affect the game, but there are many other games to which we can look and point to and say, "See there? It can work."

 

These changes, ofc, would very much change the operation of the game...

But a map 1.5x, 2x the size of Kharkov with a good amount of variation could contain environments and features reminiscent of every other map in the game. Every tank could find a place to be useful. Things like signal range, view range will become important again. There could still be choke points, there would still be passages and cover. A CQB squad could advance into a passage and rock it, as the Vision Squad is destroyed, at which point either the enemy will advance on the base or attempt to engage the heavies, the heavies also deciding what to do. Also affected would be Artillery, they will now have to consider their positioning deeply as they must reposition to remain relevant but consider safety as they do so.

 

'Won't there be more draws? More camping? Won't this be more broken?' Doesn't have to be. Why have draws? Why can't we have "Narrow Victories, Narrow Defeats, Overwhelming Victories, etc" where 'Narrow' is more or less a draw where a team has operated more efficiently but failed to eliminated the majority of the enemy or capped out.Say that a battle takes place, and one team is left with 2/3rds of its participants, the other with 1/3rd. This could be considered a 'Victory', the winning team receives a nominal amount of xp and credits. However, say a team obliterates the other or performs far better in some respect, an 'Overwhelming Victory' occurs and there is a significant bonus to the spoils they receive, considering it may occur with less frequency, tis will provide incentive to move the game rather than camp.

 

(Btw, this'd certainly solve the light tank problem, wouldn't it? They'll be much more than gimped mediums, with the proper rewards system they could regularly begin to operate in their role and be the eyes for the team.)

 

That's all I have for now, its not fullproof, but I like my ideas, they're mostly things I've seen in other games that I have appreciated and enjoyed, and think could be worthwhile features in WoT.

 

It would certainly make things more interesting, and if done right it could improve the game immensely.

 

Nothing ventured, nothing gained

[Shifty_101st 1,144]

Interesting thoughts.  I agree with your points 1, and 2....but I disagree with 3.  If a player really wants to improve and affect the outcome of the fight, they will make the effort IMO without the help of a squad, and an actually GOOD tutorial would teach players those things about their tanks such as oh, I'm in a t-34-3.  I have poor hull armor, and poor gun depression and accuracy with my little derp cannon that could.  I DO however have great mobility and camo.  Maybe I should be a flanker that stays away from hills the majority of the time.  The squad idea is nice, but honestly if a player is forced into learning something, IMO he/she won't take it all in and mostly reject it.  Just my thoughts on that matter.

 

As for maps...................

The only new maps I will support are open ones with fuckin large ass rocks that won't let arty fuckin shoot over, even with splash.  And city maps, fluid city maps that provide suspense and the ability to dig in when outnumbered and possibly come back.  City maps as well that have buildings taller than the hill on himmelsdorf that again, prevent the arty from influencing the game to much

[Jade8 6]

I think that implementing a "recommended path" would make many pub matches far more predictable, and as a result more boring. The average pubbie will probably see that the game is telling them to go somewhere, and decide to just do what the game tells them to do, because why think about what you are going to do when the game already does it for you, and in a way that makes it seem like what the game tells you is the "best way," the "recommended" way? 

 

A near perfect example of the above would be the Stanley Parable; if you have never played it, at least look it up. Many players will just follow the directions of the narrator exactly and will never find out that there is so much more to the game. 

 

Yes, I think that more map guidance is a good thing, but if you are to introduce a "recommended path" system into the game, you might as well turn most of the average randoms into AI controlled bots following the path, as most will rarely, or even never stray from the path given to them by the game, because once again, why think about what you are going to do when you playz4funzies?

Interesting thoughts.  I agree with your points 1, and 2....but I disagree with 3.  If a player really wants to improve and affect the outcome of the fight, they will make the effort IMO without the help of a squad, and an actually GOOD tutorial would teach players those things about their tanks such as oh, I'm in a t-34-3.  I have poor hull armor, and poor gun depression and accuracy with my little derp cannon that could.  I DO however have great mobility and camo.  Maybe I should be a flanker that stays away from hills the majority of the time.  The squad idea is nice, but honestly if a player is forced into learning something, IMO he/she won't take it all in and mostly reject it.  Just my thoughts on that matter.

 

As for maps...................

The only new maps I will support are open ones with fuckin large ass rocks that won't let arty fuckin shoot over, even with splash.  And city maps, fluid city maps that provide suspense and the ability to dig in when outnumbered and possibly come back.  City maps as well that have buildings taller than the hill on himmelsdorf that again, prevent the arty from influencing the game to much

 

Do that, and just disable those maps for artillery players. They'd just be wasted slots, and they'd complain for days. They already complain about Himmelsdorf, why make them face a map completely impenetrable to artillery fire? In that case, the only option would be suicide/td mode. I know I don't suicide, so td mode it is for me... but in an SU-14-2? I might as well kill myself.

[Cunicularius 4,543]

Interesting thoughts.  I agree with your points 1, and 2....but I disagree with 3.  If a player really wants to improve and affect the outcome of the fight, they will make the effort IMO without the help of a squad, and an actually GOOD tutorial would teach players those things about their tanks such as oh, I'm in a t-34-3.  I have poor hull armor, and poor gun depression and accuracy with my little derp cannon that could.  I DO however have great mobility and camo.  Maybe I should be a flanker that stays away from hills the majority of the time.  The squad idea is nice, but honestly if a player is forced into learning something, IMO he/she won't take it all in and mostly reject it.  Just my thoughts on that matter.

 

As for maps...................

The only new maps I will support are open ones with fuckin large ass rocks that won't let arty fuckin shoot over, even with splash.  And city maps, fluid city maps that provide suspense and the ability to dig in when outnumbered and possibly come back.  City maps as well that have buildings taller than the hill on himmelsdorf that again, prevent the arty from influencing the game to much

 

 

I think that implementing a "recommended path" would make many pub matches far more predictable, and as a result more boring. The average pubbie will probably see that the game is telling them to go somewhere, and decide to just do what the game tells them to do, because why think about what you are going to do when the game already does it for you, and in a way that makes it seem like what the game tells you is the "best way," the "recommended" way? 

 

A near perfect example of the above would be the Stanley Parable; if you have never played it, at least look it up. Many players will just follow the directions of the narrator exactly and will never find out that there is so much more to the game. 

 

Yes, I think that more map guidance is a good thing, but if you are to introduce a "recommended path" system into the game, you might as well turn most of the average randoms into AI controlled bots following the path, as most will rarely, or even never stray from the path given to them by the game, because once again, why think about what you are going to do when you playz4funzies?

I'm just trying to preemptively counter arguments with that, honestly...

 

And if most players act like cheap AI anyway, I'd rather have them be on rails where they are actually relevant, rather tan simply suirushing.

The same goes for squads, the survivability of he average pub will increase if there are measures and incentives in place for him to operate with allied unit rather than go off and die alone.

 

As it is now, it is difficult to distinguish between a bot and a poor player considering how they play, we might as well try to influence them for the better.

[Jade8 6]

That would remove the "unique plays" that black and red wn8 and wr players pull on you. That, in my opinion, is something very entertaining to watch.

 

Also, if they are on rails, it is far easier to predict the flow of battle. With all the enemies on what are effectively predetermined paths with slight variations here and there, I'd forsee people making "Optimized pubbing plans" which maximize the influence you have on the game or the amount of damage you do, so on so forth, because those plans will work most of the time because of the predictability of the teams based on their tank selections and the recommended paths for those tanks.

[Kittenpaw 29]

More maps like Prokorovka. 

 

It offers:

 

Ridge lines = cover from shots and arty (angle mechanics/physics of a shell's trajectory) - Mediums and Scouts and Flankers like this, hull down too

Bushes = Camo - Scouts, mediums and TDs like this

Open areas = TDs and Arty like this

Rocks = Hard cover, heavies and Peek a Booms like this

Semi-Destructo-village = semi-hard cover - for heavies, flanking and an area to fight over

Roads = durr, a road.... - morons appear to have a thing for roads and lines

Large hill/over sight area = vision and suppression - scouts/TDs/hulldown, something to fight over

Train track = more hard cover and a map divider - breaks up game play into sectors and requires decision making etc

OPEN base area = get the fuck out of base - Idiots learn quickly they have to at least move from cap a bit, cannot hit shit from base, and capping out is VERY rare

 

Basically, Prok is the ultimate map in the game. It allows for all tank types to play, something every single map should strive to accomplish, yet very few do accomplish. 

[Cunicularius 4,543]

That would remove the "unique plays" that black and red wn8 and wr players pull on you. That, in my opinion, is something very entertaining to watch.

 

Also, if they are on rails, it is far easier to predict the flow of battle. With all the enemies on what are effectively predetermined paths with slight variations here and there, I'd forsee people making "Optimized pubbing plans" which maximize the influence you have on the game or the amount of damage you do, so on so forth, because those plans will work most of the time because of the predictability of the teams based on their tank selections and the recommended paths for those tanks.

Could be like a hint system, you can turn it off.

And I highly doubt they will follow the hints with impunity anyway.

Its not like there is always one rail either... maybe it is a flawed idea but some sort of map based hint system or better tutorials could certainly help the implementation of these sorts of maps.

 

Basically, Prok is the ultimate map in the game. It allows for all tank types to play, something every single map should strive to accomplish, yet very few do accomplish. 

Imagine another map like it with even more room to maneuver and urban areas, etc.

To exercise vision control you would not have to go to mid everytime.

To brawl, you'd have multiple routes to choose.

TDs would never be without places to provide FS. 

And Arty spend less of its time clicking, and more of its time relocating.

[Kittenpaw 29]

I imagine larger maps would cause performance issues. They would also require larger teams = more lag and performance issues. I don't think map size is the true issue here. Besides, you are thinking like a tier 10 or fast tank driver. The maps need to work for all tiers and tanks. Low tier view ranges are shit, same with speeds. 

 

Granted a map like Mines fails horribly at tier X, in my opinion, just too small (yet works well tier 5 and below). I do believe the 800 x 800 or 1,000 x 1,000 is ideal for all tiers with 600 x 600 or smaller being locked to tier 6 and lower.

 

Again, just design the map so all tanks have a role. Stop and think: wtf is a scout going to do here? does arty have any role? where can mediums play? 

 

I think far too many maps have too many hard breaks and huge shit in the way, such as buildings and mountains. Think Abbey, that massive church/city thing fucks up the map so hard for scouts/mediums/arty. Its just a map with 4 hallways, pick the hallway!

[Cunicularius 4,543]

I imagine larger maps would cause performance issues. They would also require larger teams = more lag and performance issues. I don't think map size is the true issue here. Besides, you are thinking like a tier 10 or fast tank driver. The maps need to work for all tiers and tanks. Low tier view ranges are shit, same with speeds. 

 

Granted a map like Mines fails horribly at tier X, in my opinion, just too small (yet works well tier 5 and below). I do believe the 800 x 800 or 1,000 x 1,000 is ideal for all tiers with 600 x 600 or smaller being locked to tier 6 and lower.

 

Again, just design the map so all tanks have a role. Stop and think: wtf is a scout going to do here? does arty have any role? where can mediums play? 

 

I think far too many maps have too many hard breaks and huge shit in the way, such as buildings and mountains. Think Abbey, that massive church/city thing fucks up the map so hard for scouts/mediums/arty. Its just a map with 4 hallways, pick the hallway!

The maps don't need to be huge, and if increasing the map size by 1.5x creates performance issues... >:\ #VeryDissapoint

 

And I never said lower tiers.

 

EDIT: Then again, I didn't say upper tiers either.

[theUub 0]

I imagine larger maps would cause performance issues. They would also require larger teams = more lag and performance issues. I don't think map size is the true issue here. Besides, you are thinking like a tier 10 or fast tank driver. The maps need to work for all tiers and tanks. Low tier view ranges are shit, same with speeds. 

 

Granted a map like Mines fails horribly at tier X, in my opinion, just too small (yet works well tier 5 and below). I do believe the 800 x 800 or 1,000 x 1,000 is ideal for all tiers with 600 x 600 or smaller being locked to tier 6 and lower.

 

Again, just design the map so all tanks have a role. Stop and think: wtf is a scout going to do here? does arty have any role? where can mediums play? 

 

I think far too many maps have too many hard breaks and huge shit in the way, such as buildings and mountains. Think Abbey, that massive church/city thing fucks up the map so hard for scouts/mediums/arty. Its just a map with 4 hallways, pick the hallway!

 

Terribad @ tanks reporting here. Lag and performance issues aside, I'm actually for introducing some larger maps, say in the 1200m-1500m range. I think that it would bring another dynamic to the vision control game given the higher tiers extended view ranges and (hopefully) stacked crew skills. With extended range, and (maybe) a few less obstacles on the main playing area of the map, the meta may actually change for a few matches from a peek-a-boom flanking city brawl to something that favors tanks with higher penetration, accuracy, and rate of fire, but who have weaker armor. You know, just for a change of pace. Another benefit is that scout tanks would begin to see an actual role in the battles again.

On the tier related question, if the devs can fix the game so that tier 8 is the highest tier that sees Komarin, than they should have the ability to make a map that sees top tier matches of 8-10, (you could still get this map as a tier 6 or 7, but not as top tier).

[KFAJ 40]

Maybe instead of making the maps larger in size, we could make them more 3D. I could see a cool map maybe where heavies brawl it out underground in a complex cavern system while the mediums and lights play vision games up above on the surface. I think that making maps too large would really badly affect slow tanks that are unable to flex well, unless you introduced a game mode similar to Conquest in Battlefield with multiple flags throughout the map, and taking control of those points contributed towards a win.

[Hurk 21]

wait for the spotting range to be changed to a circle before discussing maps... it makes a huge difference. 

[Cunicularius 4,543]

wait for the [render] range to be changed to a circle before discussing maps... it makes a huge difference. 

You know what... fuck, that is a very good point... fucking WG...