Jump to content


Poorly Designed Map Variants

Balance

  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Prenzlau #21 Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 13629 battles
  • 1,058
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

View Postlegoboy0401, on 08 May 2019 - 11:12 AM, said:

 

When all else fails, make a bait post inviting trolls that slanders another forumer, and gleefully watch the upvotes role in.

 

 

You, <fill in the blank>, are a disgusting human being.

 

    Whoa....whoa...whoa.... hold on there. That is some really mean talk. 

 

Last night you were also saying some really mean things, provoking and insulting. 

 

Lets be honest, whether it is your work place in the real world, any night club, or in this forum or in battle, you simply are going to hear things you don't like and people will be critical, even insulting. Way of the world. You need to put on your big boy pants and realize that you have to be mature enough to handle anything that people might say. 

 

I do not want to sound like a big jerk, but people really should not be so fragile, especially when people say things that do not cross any lines of decency and are just kidding around. Last night in a battle before it started I saw that the other team (on paper) might be in some trouble. I saw you down tiered on the other team and all I said was "Legoboy?...... Seriously", but that was really meant more towards the matchmaker because I knew the battle was unbalanced before it started. I think you took that the wrong way, unfortunately.

 

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 08 May 2019 - 07:55 PM.

 

 

 

 


losttwo #22 Posted 08 May 2019 - 06:44 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8288 battles
  • 14,523
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostPrenzlau, on 08 May 2019 - 08:24 AM, said:

    When all else fails, blame it on the maps.

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau

 

To be fair i could probably win more matches if WG would change the maps to my liking.

White_Widow18 #23 Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:14 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12692 battles
  • 2,577
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
Define, independent of map, "poorly designed" What qualities make a map of poor design quality in your opinion? Concisely and clearly.

Coming in and attacking specific maps is always going to cause an emotional response due to individual preference. You -can- easily debate the merits of map design by just divorcing the qualities that make them good or bad from the specific maps. Is your complaint long travel times? Based on tier, what -is- an appropriate travel time in your opinion? Is your complaint node layout balances, what specifically makes a bad node layout vs. what makes a good node layout? Get where I'm going with this? Specific criticism of design concepts/flaws as opposed to maps keeps people from -always- having a knee-jerk oppositional reaction to anything you might suggest in this vein. Of course, there will always be those who disagree, there will always be the elitists, and there will always be the trolls. That is.... fortunately or unfortunately... MMO culture.

That said... This is always going to be a hot button topic and I wish you luck with it. 

SkyWolf__WM #24 Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:53 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 12046 battles
  • 4,995
  • [GW__S] GW__S
  • Member since:
    07-13-2012
Ace_bot... TLDR. Why don't you try playing the game before "attempting" to comment coherently?  :)
***************Fail to Suck****************

I shall use my aircraft and my skill to slightly inconvenience mine enemies.


CorvusCorvax #25 Posted 08 May 2019 - 09:57 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 4850 battles
  • 5,210
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSkyWolf__WM, on 08 May 2019 - 09:53 PM, said:

before "attempting" to comment coherently? 

 

What, are you new here?

qu33kKC #26 Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:14 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9069 battles
  • 735
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-14-2017

White_Widow, I would nominate the former version of the 3-base Archipelago and the 4-base Road to Rome as poorly designed.  Both maps give one spawn an obvious advantage over the other.  Thankfully, the Archipelago map has had the (now) North-Western spawn point moved, which helps out, but the Southern spawn still gives an early 2-to-1 cap advantage.  I seem to spawn West on Road to Rome most of the time, and it's a real struggle to take and hold the center airfield, when all the East spawn humans are piling in as well, knowing that the two garrisons will be flipped by the bots.

 

just my reasoned opinion on the question posed.  :hiding:



White_Widow18 #27 Posted 08 May 2019 - 10:32 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12692 battles
  • 2,577
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View Postqu33kKC, on 08 May 2019 - 04:14 PM, said:

White_Widow, I would nominate the former version of the 3-base Archipelago and the 4-base Road to Rome as poorly designed.  Both maps give one spawn an obvious advantage over the other.  Thankfully, the Archipelago map has had the (now) North-Western spawn point moved, which helps out, but the Southern spawn still gives an early 2-to-1 cap advantage.  I seem to spawn West on Road to Rome most of the time, and it's a real struggle to take and hold the center airfield, when all the East spawn humans are piling in as well, knowing that the two garrisons will be flipped by the bots.

 

just my reasoned opinion on the question posed.  :hiding:

 

So you're looking at travel time to a given node from a specific spawn.

I believe the 3-node you're talking about is the one with a CC at the top and garrison/airfield combination at the bottom, yes? I -think- the theory was the CC should roughly balance out the ease of attacking the other two nodes? Where would you change the spawn locations there or do you think there's another way to fix the map? Maybe increase speed of the CC bomber flights on that specific map? Or? All of its spitballing obviously and WG will likely ignore all of us, but maybe not. They -have- fixed a few things we've brought up here lately.

4-node Road to Rome is a map that I enjoy the asymmetry of and I always just make sure to grab the CC no matter which spawn point I'm in, but I can understand where it would frustrate some/many and do think with the upping of bombers with high speed to two in a match that perhaps they should.. I dunno.. harden the garrisons in some way on that map.

Ace_BOTlistic_Cosmo #28 Posted 08 May 2019 - 11:01 PM

    Major

  • Member
  • 1438 battles
  • 5,132
  • [3NIC] 3NIC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014

 

View PostSkyWolf__WM, on 08 May 2019 - 04:53 PM, said:

Ace_bot... TLDR. Why don't you try playing the game before "attempting" to comment coherently?  :)

 

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 08 May 2019 - 04:57 PM, said:

 

What, are you new here?

:unsure:

Huh... did I say something?

...

Let me get back to you on that 

 

 

 

 


if the pilot's good, see, I mean, if he's really..sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low [he spreads his arms like wings and laughs],

you oughtta see it sometime, it's a sight. A big plane like a '52. VRROOM! There's jet exhaust, fryin' chickens in the barnyard.


losttwo #29 Posted 09 May 2019 - 12:19 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 8288 battles
  • 14,523
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View Postqu33kKC, on 08 May 2019 - 05:14 PM, said:

White_Widow, I would nominate the former version of the 3-base Archipelago and the 4-base Road to Rome as poorly designed.  Both maps give one spawn an obvious advantage over the other.  Thankfully, the Archipelago map has had the (now) North-Western spawn point moved, which helps out, but the Southern spawn still gives an early 2-to-1 cap advantage.  I seem to spawn West on Road to Rome most of the time, and it's a real struggle to take and hold the center airfield, when all the East spawn humans are piling in as well, knowing that the two garrisons will be flipped by the bots.

 

just my reasoned opinion on the question posed.  :hiding:

 

View PostWhite_Widow18, on 08 May 2019 - 05:32 PM, said:

 

So you're looking at travel time to a given node from a specific spawn.

I believe the 3-node you're talking about is the one with a CC at the top and garrison/airfield combination at the bottom, yes? I -think- the theory was the CC should roughly balance out the ease of attacking the other two nodes? Where would you change the spawn locations there or do you think there's another way to fix the map? Maybe increase speed of the CC bomber flights on that specific map? Or? All of its spitballing obviously and WG will likely ignore all of us, but maybe not. They -have- fixed a few things we've brought up here lately.

4-node Road to Rome is a map that I enjoy the asymmetry of and I always just make sure to grab the CC no matter which spawn point I'm in, but I can understand where it would frustrate some/many and do think with the upping of bombers with high speed to two in a match that perhaps they should.. I dunno.. harden the garrisons in some way on that map.

 

ROFLMAO, Now I wish I had not deleted my previous post that SkyWolf chastised me about.

It was about the 3 node ( capture points ) from map 69_Ocean_1 ( replay title )

 

That map is kind of tricky. I think WG designed it for tacticians.

It is a low scoring map since most of the fighting takes place in the center.

The key is to :

  If you spawn in the south with the airfield and garrison then grab the airfield and fly to the Command Center and cap it.

  If you spawn in the North you have your choice of Garrison and Command Center. Your bots will automatically cap the Command Center.

But if you are not there you need to get there for the incoming wave of red.

If you take the command center first then you have to stay for the incoming wave of enemy.

The bombers will take the garrison then airfield either way ( depending on what you hold already. )

Personally I have not seen the wave of bombers head to the airfield first on that map.

 

Not saying it is fool proof. The major thing to remember is to stay out of the center and in a capture point.



White_Widow18 #30 Posted 09 May 2019 - 12:45 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 12692 battles
  • 2,577
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View Postlosttwo, on 08 May 2019 - 06:19 PM, said:

 

 

ROFLMAO, Now I wish I had not deleted my previous post that SkyWolf chastised me about.

It was about the 3 node ( capture points ) from map 69_Ocean_1 ( replay title )

 

That map is kind of tricky. I think WG designed it for tacticians.

It is a low scoring map since most of the fighting takes place in the center.

The key is to :

  If you spawn in the south with the airfield and garrison then grab the airfield and fly to the Command Center and cap it.

  If you spawn in the North you have your choice of Garrison and Command Center. Your bots will automatically cap the Command Center.

But if you are not there you need to get there for the incoming wave of red.

If you take the command center first then you have to stay for the incoming wave of enemy.

The bombers will take the garrison then airfield either way ( depending on what you hold already. )

Personally I have not seen the wave of bombers head to the airfield first on that map.

 

Not saying it is fool proof. The major thing to remember is to stay out of the center and in a capture point.


I don't -dislike- any of the maps really except ones with an air base dead center and that's just because of the way AIs and humans seem to ignore everything else when that's the case.

I personally enjoy the 3-node map that we're talking about, but I also recognize the complaints of others against it.

I wish we had more assymmetric but workable maps -personally-, but I'm actually curious as to people's criticisms about map design. I think picking apart a specific map induces a lot of personal preference, but I think if we perhaps concentrate on the core of any given complaint (which seems to be useless travel time) then maybe we can get a solid enough point to point the developers to fixing things (if needed) not where anyone specific thinks it should be fixed necessarily.. but.. as a compromise theory.

Pipe dream, I know.


Personally I think things that would help all maps: Cut detection distances in half - Don't make it so simple to -find- your enemies, I appreciate this is supposed to be an arcade-style game.. but it would, imho, behoove them to make detection an actual element of the game that people can use from both sides that would also encourage people to make their travel between nodes part of their strategy beyond "what's the shortest possible distance", instead they will have to consider what is the -best- possible route (distance only being one factor). Double the points tallies for all maps, making travel times node to node a lesser issue IMHO. And I don't care about realism or the matches needing to be "short".. I despise short matches and realism is for a flight simulator software package, not a video game IMHO. 



hoom #31 Posted 09 May 2019 - 01:08 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11254 battles
  • 2,311
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Northern Bridgehead: Polaris I really don't like

Its supposed to be a symmetrical layout but the East Command Centre zone is really horrid -> unbalances it.

 

The North Command Centre has all the big point structures close together on one side, with a big open area to the South -> pretty easy to flip with a US Heavy Bomber or with simple passes by GA.

The East one has the big point structures spread across the area and its surrounded on all sides by raised terrain so a GA has to take multiple passes with much earlier, more drastic turns to avoid terrain.

 

Screenshot in question I'd spent ages failing to flip this point in my Il-40 (along with a lot of my team Bots) before dying while enemy team quickly flipped theirs and flipped the Plant shortly after the screenshot while I'm re-spawning.


Edited by hoom, 09 May 2019 - 01:10 AM.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Bobby_Tables #32 Posted 09 May 2019 - 02:07 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 9593 battles
  • 1,883
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View Posthoom, on 08 May 2019 - 07:08 PM, said:

Northern Bridgehead: Polaris I really don't like

 

Its supposed to be a symmetrical layout but the East Command Centre zone is really horrid -> unbalances it.

 

The North Command Centre has all the big point structures close together on one side, with a big open area to the South -> pretty easy to flip with a US Heavy Bomber or with simple passes by GA.

The East one has the big point structures spread across the area and its surrounded on all sides by raised terrain so a GA has to take multiple passes with much earlier, more drastic turns to avoid terrain.

 

Screenshot in question I'd spent ages failing to flip this point in my Il-40 (along with a lot of my team Bots) before dying while enemy team quickly flipped theirs and flipped the Plant shortly after the screenshot while I'm re-spawning.

 

I think I know someone who would agree with you if he were still here and playing:

 

 

Where, oh where, are the Porkins of yesteryear?


Edited by Bobby_Tables, 09 May 2019 - 02:27 AM.


LMG #33 Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:26 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 2,049
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Posthoom, on 08 May 2019 - 08:08 PM, said:

Northern Bridgehead: Polaris I really don't like

 

Its supposed to be a symmetrical layout but the East Command Centre zone is really horrid -> unbalances it.

 

The North Command Centre has all the big point structures close together on one side, with a big open area to the South -> pretty easy to flip with a US Heavy Bomber or with simple passes by GA.

The East one has the big point structures spread across the area and its surrounded on all sides by raised terrain so a GA has to take multiple passes with much earlier, more drastic turns to avoid terrain.

 

Screenshot in question I'd spent ages failing to flip this point in my Il-40 (along with a lot of my team Bots) before dying while enemy team quickly flipped theirs and flipped the Plant shortly after the screenshot while I'm re-spawning.

 

We call that area the "Death Bowl". As a GAA you basically have to either circle very tightly around the center or "skateboard" up and down the cliffs on the sides. It also has 5 of the 6 low altitude AA guns positioned so that they'll focus down anything within. The last low altitude AA gun is located on a solitary hill that overlooks the sector, but it's too high up to actually shoot at anything inside it :sceptic:


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

hoom #34 Posted 09 May 2019 - 03:26 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11254 battles
  • 2,311
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Perfect!
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

qu33kKC #35 Posted 09 May 2019 - 11:46 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9069 battles
  • 735
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    10-14-2017

White_Widow18, the changes to the Archipelago spawn location makes the map much more reasonable, for the reasons you mention.  (nice analysis, and I agree with the suspected reasoning by WG.)

 

the Road to Rome map is a real challenge from West spawn, the humans and bots split between CC and Airfield, while on the other side, the humans head for the Airfield and let the bots cap the Garrisons.  (not that they always do!)  The usual result, in my experience, is the West spawn is down 3-1 right from the start, and unless there is some superhuman T&B over the airfield to retake it, it's a massive up-hill climb.







Also tagged with Balance

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users