Profile of Tric

I'll respond in PM further, and the reason is as you said clearly an concisely it wasn't about ego and do genuinely have valid points/agree on some. Your original post seemed like an off-handed remark at best.

The reason for PM is back to topic.

Appreciate the time to bring a constructive argument without emotions from either side.

Mind a lot of the response is targeted at what, is very much so, the same points i always see for the last two years.

"this map is shit"
"nobody is right but me"

so you get the same kinda generic responses without any really concise point outside of past arguments that I've had. Just a FYI. I'll reply late tonight.

As I recall it had a lot of obstacles which would interfere with scatter in tank engagements. I had one perticular match in which the obstacles getting in the way caused me to go from pushing my opponets base with outnumbering forces to losing the entire game. There were other factors in there like pen/armor and main gun crits, but what allowed those to occur was the fact I couldn't connect a single shell because the shell always missed and collided with debris.

This is because any object that is actually above the mythical .5 meters WILL eat shots until destroyed. You see it with basically all green cover, from a destroyed car, to a stone wall. The only real way to combat this is to make them visual instead of entity inside the destroyed ruins or by outright removing the objects that give cover unless in key areas for infantry engagements. Use crater splats for everything else to still have some yellow cover.

...

No but it is our job to make sure that all strategies are viable in a capacity. The more we just make giant open maps, you run into a multitude or problems. The more you make it flank heavy, means there are more LoS blockers which means CQC units are better. The flanks are also able to be destroyed, houses, or groves, which are another whole list of problems.

It is not our problem, that the game doesn't have native garrison clears for all factions, it is not our problem that not all factions have snares, it is not our problem that snipers exist (and not for all factions), it is not our problem indirect fire is not readily available for all factions, it is not our problem when counters to units do not function correctly. These are balance problems.

This map has LESS problems then langreskya, and why is it more favored then? Old vcoh map and the fact its been around for ages, so all the issues people play around, and just except them as is.

Once again you talk about your feelings, about what you want, yet ignore all the things wrong with faymonville, langres, kholodny, crossroads, ect;

All of these maps had/have issues that were already discussed. Your complaints mean nothing as you know nothing about what the editor is/isn't capable of. It is just a fact, you couldn't even begin to tell me the issues on any of the 4 maps I mentioned because you just except their design flaws as what they are and move on.

Hell you didn't even mention arnhem, and again, all the things you complain about, are balance issues. Not map issues. The buildings wouldn't be an issue in the maps you describe if all factions actually had clears for them native to their builds and not entirely stuck into commander choice. If anyone complains about pathing on westwall thats your fault, you overextended, you got caught out, thats you, not the map. (can it be better? sure. but saying its trash and should be removed ASAP, well this map has far less issues than langres, so maybe that should go too then?) You know that the things VERY CLEARLY block pathing, yet you complain when you go to far and die? :thinking: Maybe you should take your tactical positioning point and think on it, cause it seems you tactically mis-positioned and got punished.

And the other point "maps are disliked cause they force 1 playstyle" is again balance. When you play a garrison heavy map with UKF your choices are severely limited. How is that maps fault again? You want all maps to be the same because of variety, yet all I see is mobile defense every single game because nothing punishes over extension of vehicles, currently westwall does that. Can you still play mobile defense? Sure, is it arguably a different playstyle because of map design? yes. Isn't that the entire point of your post? You are exactly the person that I vaguely call out. "I want different things!!!11!! But not too different cause then I'll lose and its all the maps fault111!!1!"

Things that are the maps fault? Timings on points to be far for all players, harass-able high priority targets (cutoffs, vps, munitions/fuels), LoS mimicking, cover to be the same at all engagement zones and mirrored for fairness on the opposing side, height manipulation not blocking shot projection and room for all units to path everywhere on the map with visual clarity.

The only thing that westwall does not do well is the visual clarity and shot projection, can I path through those trees? Can I fire a pak shot past these dragons teeth? However everything else is fair, and is the same for both players. If it doesn't feel that way, maybe it is a balance issue.

Honestly, I really don't know why I waste my time on people like you. You would rather blame the map than the balance, it isn't our problem, and these maps were voted in by the community (infact when this one was in automatch, it was top 6 for almost 4 months IIRC), this one specifically judged by top 10 players before implementation. Were already tested and updated once and everyone was like "looks good" including players far above and beyond your skill level. The problem with maps in rotation is until all factions have access to the same standard tools, every time a balance patch hits this will happen (and this has been the case for the last 2 years at least). The only maps that are immune to this are the ones from the beginning of the games introduction.

What it really boils down to is that you think that the maps are the issues, when its over and over again balance. I bet you were one of the people that blamed map design when you got demo'd cause you know, thats a maps fault, or when mines were capable of one shotting squads... cause once again, the maps fault, or when stuarts religiously one shot squads... or when kubels surpressed, or isgs supressed... or the fact snipers may be strong on a map.

I think that we mostly agree on the matter. The difference in our point of view is that in your opinion the tunnel vision of playerbase is the reason for problems within map pool, while I believe it is the biased map pool that made people used the simplicity of a single build meta.

I hope that at least here, it is possible to reason with some community members and show them that broader map pool will let them enjoy rich meta for longer time than 1-2 weeks after ballance patch. It won't be simple as some people made tunnel vision their religion, but it is worth the try.



Stalingrad is one of the maps you forgot about in your list in the other thread Romeo put it in most of his tourneys. Or do we only talk community made maps?

The playerbase is the same on that removed all the variance of maps from the pool to begin with, the similarity of maps is also do to the dumbing down of the resource system. There are less tools to vary a map with, so that is in a large part just a problem with the core dymanics within the game.

Problem maps like Rustungwerke Essen needed removed due to projectile blocking and things like that, things that don't do anything other than hinder game play or invalidate units.

Maps like Market Ruins and Bombarded Refinery were disliked due to the fact that they promoted different strategies and made some normally non-viable units actually useable, however Bombarded Refinery had the problem with the corner fuels being easily campable (ez fix). This was despite being literal mirrors in terms of everything from cover, to resources.

Caen had the cutoffs changed after it was added to automatch and it promptly went into the dumpster in terms of pick rate.

Halbe had the wrong version in automatch for centuries (in fact I don't think the right version was ever uploaded)

Bryansk forest had a lack of green cover (yet so does siddolios map potok in the current SMC and it is by far the favorite), but that was the large problem with it, despite the north being a lot of red cover (and arguebly the middle being a bit clausterphobic), again, ez fixes.

I don't think stalingrad is fixable without redoing most of the map to adjust it. Therefore it was lose its "soul" as I call it. Might as well just make another map that is similar. Same kinda goes for Semois/Angoville as well, which is why so many people want it removed/dislike it.

I dunno, it just seems like the community has played on the same maps for so long, they just ignore the huge issues with them, because they play around them now at this point. Which was the reason there was so much discussion around the GCS maps, cause they all have issues, some much larger than others (looking at you langreskya/faymonville).

However these maps are more of an issue of a thousand paper cuts accumulating to things wrong, rather than huge singular issues (like lost glider).

Either way I could talk about this forever, but people don't care, so many players go off feel and not actual math. Largely due (again) to playing all the top maps for the last 5 years.

Combat inside houses. as soon as you enter a house, the roof gets transparent and you can move troops inside too

awesome idea, but probably harder than fuck to implement for multi story houses.