I have, that’s just the only screenshot I have on hand
gonna test it, but that make the change useless, still is easier to get there from the west spawn
Oh ye there’s no doubt that the west spawn has it way easier to get over, tried the east side with a T-72 and barely made it and I think it was just luck while on the west side it would have done it easily. So even if it’s possible on both side, one side clearly only works for a number of vehicles whereas on the other side most vehicles that try will get over.
I’ve just been driving straight across without the jump as the first time I did it it screwed me up but I will try it again considering you made it.
Regardless, this change is completely stupid and serves essentially no point with this lousy implementation.
12 Likes
I do not neccesarily agree with the “problem” described below, but I understand this is what Gaijin is trying to solve with this map change. I will base my arguments around this problem.
Problem with (Domination) Eastern Europe:
North side of the river is not used as a battleground, but as “dead space” used almost exclusively for flanking. Since there is little fighting here, flankers meet next to no resistance and quickly reach enemy spawn, camping ensues.
Current solution:
By destroying the bridges you cut off the “problematic” area completely, which solves the problem right? Maybe… but this is not an elegant solution to map design. For one, you lose a significant portion of the map, forcing players to either meet the enemy head-on, or instead flank to the south. As a result the southern area will likely be overcrowded. The map is now much less dynamic.
Alternate solution:
Move the B-zone to the north side of the river. This encourages both teams to split up and spread the battle zone along the entire width of the map. Using the north side of the river as an easy flanking route to the enemy spawn is no longer possible due to the increased activity around the B-point. We have now solved the flanking/spawn camp issue without compromising the playable map area.
Also, the bridges here are a central part of the identity of this map. The possibility of having enemies on both sides of the river brings a special dynamic to the gameplay, so it would be a shame to lose them.
Edit: Whoah didn’t expect so much interest! Here’s a poll.
Edit 2: Added “as it was previously” option, had to make a new poll
Which do you prefer?
- Current Solution
- Alternate Solution
- As it was previously
0
voters
59 Likes
Yeah, even if you cross from the east, you lose more time make almost worthless the time, when you get to the hill already the enemy team will have like 5 of them, if they made the change, no one should get there, not even amphibous, until that, the way it is rn is the most balanced, they could work the cap point to make more versatile
1 Like
The alternate “solution” isn’t a solution, it’s simply a different map.
I’d be fine seeing it in addition though; it seems fun.
15 Likes
I can understand that POV, because while the physical layout of the map hasn’t changed, the “flow” has. It would be played differently.
Whether that is a pro or a con is subjective
3 Likes
The only parts of the “flow” which have changed are the parts which aren’t really intended in the first place. The “all caps in a line, on the same side of the river” layout very much intends the battle to play out on that side of the river. It’s the sort of map design intent that’s obvious just from a top-down map view like these, really.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
23 Likes
I don’t agree with you on this point, WT is not a card game, but a tank game! It is quite logical that there are flanks, it is the game, the reality, it is normal, it is up to the 2 parties to act accordingly! It is totally unfair to criminalize certain players who use their brain to the detriment of those who advance straight like “bots” without thinking, take a point fair 1 kill and die, and repeat that 4 deaths and leave, without any game play!
Might as well make a square of 1.5km² of grass, a mill in the middle! it will come to the same, no logical pleasure of this type of game, only frontal brute force … its stupid.
We might as well do that, we’ll save time.
62 Likes
instant perma map ban if this awful unneeded and unwanted change goes through
31 Likes
Almost every change they have made is absolutely horrible to replay-ability, play styles of many light/longer range vehicles. It’s ‘flatten tool’, ‘rock tool’, ‘red zone brush’ and more recently ‘remove all trees so the maps truly evolve to looking like a ps2 game on my 4k/120 OLED’. It makes dumb, boring play where I just leave after one death with a full lineup. And I hope more people keep doing this.
With the staggering profit this game makes you’d think they could do more than add one or two maps a year across all the same 15 year old modes?
All I see is minimum effort, star citizen model of adding outsourced vehicles mostly top teir to spaghetti engine. Sound spreadsheet.xls, top teir minute trivia changes.xls, ignoring ww2/majority of playerbase.
Most of the resources are clearly not put into this game and the what, few hours a month? of map ‘development’ (using above tools to ruin them) just proves it.
29 Likes
Ah yes, gaijoob once again decides to castrate another map, not really surprised tbh
18 Likes
The “alternative solution” in my opinion would be a fantastic solution, it would give the map (now too old) a “new life”.
16 Likes