[Developer] Map Improvement Poll
11 Dec 2014, 08:16 AM
#61
2 
Posts: 2181
okw limited crush options? lolwat
11 Dec 2014, 09:44 AM
#62
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
8 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
2 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
8 Posts: 2470
i'm under the impression that it can't crush anything except some sand bags.
12 Dec 2014, 02:39 AM
#66
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.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
12 Dec 2014, 03:23 AM
#67
8 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
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.
all you filthy hotchkiss lovers need to l2p #TeamPanzerIII
> Kriegsbeute Doctrine|Partisan Rework|British Infantry Rework|Soviet Assault Squad <
18 Feb 2015, 04:44 AM
#69
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???
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
1 
Posts: 551
Faymoville approach must be fixed, southern player is too fenced in
18 Feb 2015, 10:00 AM
#71
15 
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
18 Feb 2015, 10:25 AM
#72
4 Posts: 505
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
Posts: 611
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
8 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
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.
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.
Find out about my redesign of all four factions, with more to come!
Feel free to contact me regarding your Attribute Editor-related questions.
Feel free to contact me regarding your Attribute Editor-related questions.
18 Feb 2015, 17:00 PM
#76
1 
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.
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
Posts: 365
this thread is beyond old.
20 Feb 2015, 01:46 AM
#78
Posts: 236
Well if semosky had its rivers removed i think the map would be perfect.
20 Feb 2015, 09:11 AM
#79
4 
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
4 
Posts: 951
Made me chuckle
Ha ha. Maybe Germans have a sort of spiritual, even genetic aversion to Stalingrad.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
43 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.35057.860+15
- 3.1110614.644+11
- 4.624225.735+2
- 5.920405.694+4
- 6.276108.719+27
- 7.306114.729+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1237
Board Info
518 users are online:
518 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49153
Welcome our newest member, Wilmor89
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, Wilmor89
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM