Login

russian armor

[Developer] Map Improvement Poll

11 Dec 2014, 08:16 AM
#61
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181

okw limited crush options? lolwat
11 Dec 2014, 09:44 AM
#62
avatar of rafiki

Posts: 108

Not really map imporvement that the game need in my opinion. They are quite good even if i don't like all. But map pool rotation !! It would give to the game more dynamism ! Play ever and ever on same map is quite boring
11 Dec 2014, 09:57 AM
#63
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

okw limited crush options? lolwat


they're my least played faction by quite a bit so i may be missing something but what crush options do they have before the IR halftrack or t2 other than the sWs?
11 Dec 2014, 12:57 PM
#64
avatar of Sarantini
Honorary Member Badge
Donator 22

Posts: 2181



they're my least played faction by quite a bit so i may be missing something but what crush options do they have before the IR halftrack or t2 other than the sWs?

kubel?
12 Dec 2014, 01:38 AM
#65
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i'm under the impression that it can't crush anything except some sand bags.
12 Dec 2014, 02:39 AM
#66
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

i'm under the impression that it can't crush anything except some sand bags.


The Kubel has light crush, so wood fences, sandbags, bushes, wood carts, etc.
12 Dec 2014, 03:23 AM
#67
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

i guess it's only OKH that has serious issues with that map then. OKW doesn't use support weapons much anyway and infantry can jump the fence, although it'll still fuck up retreat routes.
12 Dec 2014, 04:53 AM
#68
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

OKW has the least trouble with it since they will always have a crush unit at the start, the other factions it depends on what you decide to use. T2 Soviets have the most trouble with it because they won't get a crush unit until mid-game.
18 Feb 2015, 04:44 AM
#69
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

Question to any mapmakers ?

Is there a simple way to measure travel time between points on maps, ie travel time from base to cutoff or fuel point???
18 Feb 2015, 09:35 AM
#70
avatar of pussyking
Donator 11

Posts: 551

Faymoville approach must be fixed, southern player is too fenced in
18 Feb 2015, 10:00 AM
#71
avatar of tuvok
Benefactor 115

Posts: 786

Question to any mapmakers ?

Is there a simple way to measure travel time between points on maps, ie travel time from base to cutoff or fuel point???

the endgame build order stats also list points captured alongside timing
Hux
18 Feb 2015, 10:25 AM
#72
avatar of Hux
Patrion 14

Posts: 505

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Feb 2015, 10:00 AMtuvok

the endgame build order stats also list points captured alongside timing


From his post I gathered he meant is there any way to measure relative distance (time wise) between say a players base and a cap point (I could be wrong though)

The post-game stats only show at what time into the game a point was captured. there are variables that could affect this timing, such as if engineers decided to build T1 before going to cap a point for example.

But I guess it could be indicative if the player specifically went about capping the point from the start of the game without issuing any more commands in between and then recorded the timing.
18 Feb 2015, 10:45 AM
#73
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

jump backJump back to quoted post18 Feb 2015, 10:25 AMHux


From his post I gathered he meant is there any way to measure relative distance (time wise) between say a players base and a cap point (I could be wrong though)



No, you are correct.

It seems strange that key points such as fuel/muni/ cutoff can be different distances relative to starting position. If one player has to travel further to certain points then logic stands that the other player has an advantage.

Maps do not need to be mirror reflections but time to traveled should be similar.

For example if you get pushed off Semosky north, it takes longer to get back to cutoff than if you were on South side, hence map favours South.

Faymoville is another example where fuel point are not equal distance for each player.

From an Ost perspective, you are already delayed due to building t1, if you have to travel further than your opponent to certain key points you are playing at a disadvantage..

Now imagine your relic trying to balance this mess, you got no chance...
18 Feb 2015, 11:10 AM
#74
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

iirc there is a measure tool in the map editor so that you can ensure the distances are the same. nothing you can do outside that other than time it.
18 Feb 2015, 14:01 PM
#75
avatar of FaustCostBulletin

Posts: 521

I'm with the other 25 people who said Hurtgen Forest. Such a bore to play and not fair at all.

Semoisky isn't a good 2v2 map; it should be 1v1 only. In 2v2 it's a clustergarden.

Also please add Ardennes Assault maps to the automatcher, I don't find most maps to be enjoyable at all (the too campy ones like Crossing) so more variety would be nice. I have AA but I can't play the maps on automatch, what's the point? Who wants to wait for a custom game to fill up with fairly matched players?

And in general, more maps need more cutoffs that are not impossible to attack and available for both sides. On Moscow Outskirts for example, North has an immense disadvantage with the perfectly attackable cutoff that is also in a cluster with the VP while the south one is relatively remote and easier to defend. Less foilage and direct line of sight from any MG the defender may place.

More cutoffs would be an indirect buff to early game oriented doctrines and also Encirclement Doctrine which is in a bad spot right now.
18 Feb 2015, 17:00 PM
#76
avatar of Budwise
Admin Red  Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2

Hurtgen Forest and Stalingrad need to just be removed from automatch. They're possibly salvageable but it would take more like an axe than a razor to fix.

Trois Ponts needs the bridges more or less removed to make it less of a camp fest.

Vaux could use some resource rearrangement imo to make it more interesting.
18 Feb 2015, 22:03 PM
#77
avatar of ASneakyFox

Posts: 365

this thread is beyond old.
20 Feb 2015, 01:46 AM
#78
avatar of __deleted__

Posts: 236

Well if semosky had its rivers removed i think the map would be perfect.
20 Feb 2015, 09:11 AM
#79
avatar of Lümmel
Patrion 14

Posts: 542 | Subs: 1

As okw on langres north you don't have sufficient base protection. M3s can drive right into your base from the front without being shot at.
20 Feb 2015, 10:10 AM
#80
avatar of BeltFedWombat
Patrion 14

Posts: 951



Made me chuckle :D


Ha ha. Maybe Germans have a sort of spiritual, even genetic aversion to Stalingrad.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

929 users are online: 929 guests
1 post in the last 24h
9 posts in the last week
27 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50007
Welcome our newest member, Helzer96
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM