Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'maps'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 17 results

  1. THE PROBLEM In game, the islands in each map look the same. It's visually boring. SOLUTION Make the islands appear different from each other, both in the battle screen and on the mini-map. Tropical differences: Temperate differences: Polar differences: Thank you. Zoot21
  2. Did you guys encounter something like that? I played LOTS of ranked lately and quite some even on this map, but... I didn't encountered that particular one. Any experiences? Edit: raw link https://youtu.be/g4y4aefJqFo?t=657
  3. I propose that Ocean map be only map used in co-op after 11pm local times for players.
  4. Too bad we can't have stats for our winrates on individual maps. Some maps I love like Dos Hermanos, Estuary, North, Sea of Fortune, and others I hate. IMHO, Islands of Ice is the ugliest map and one I do poorly on most of the time. I also do exceptionally poorly on Atlantic.
  5. The environment conditions the gameplay. The current design of the maps is focused in the traditional concept of key positions and objectives, it takes into consideration firing lines, hard cover, flanking fire and mutual support of positions. The derived tactics are similar to "ground" warfare: control of favorable terrain and "fortified" positions, flanking fire, infiltration tactics, etc. The key aspect being to take and hold an advantageous location to both project your firepower on the enemy and block his advance. In the game this commonly is represented by island cover or stretches of sea with a degree of protection from flanking fire. This features are most of the time stretched along the center of the map, defining the battlefront between both sides, akin to a trench system or fortified positions. Once one of the sides pushes the other out of the "fortified area" the match is almost always decided. The design of the map determines how to play the game on that particular map. Then lets introduce the concept of air power. Air power by its nature operates under different principles than the surface combatants, in essence it completely ignores any terrain consideration. What happens when you introduce in a carefully balanced environment an element that ignores and bypass the rules under which that environment operates?. Being your design focus to take control and hold fixed positions on the map, now you have an element in the game that directly operates against your design, by directly punishing any player trying to control and hold a strategic fixed position. This is not a balance issue, this is a core concept incompatibility. The way air power operates comes into direct contravention of a game mode that requires the player to "sit" in a cap for a period of time, or to "take cover" from incoming fire in a fixed position. Foxholes are turned into mouse traps. The biggest source of dissatisfaction comes from this incongruence in game mechanics where one aspect of the design points you to play the game in a certain way and then another aspect of the design punishes you for doing it. Dude, where's my ship? Another standard design feature of the game is the randomized spawn positions. This on principle is a nice way to introduce more variance into the gameplay, the game experience can be very different due to your starting position forcing you to adopt different measures or deploy in different ways. But what happens when you introduce air power and its ability to deliver damage within the first minute of the match, when your deployment is yet incomplete and your position on the map is fixed and known? Given the randomized way in which spawns work, it isn't uncommon to have very unbalanced lineups of ships, in this particular case, you can have a flank with very low AA values and not have enough time to redeploy and correct the unbalance before air power delivers punishing damage with very limited opposition. Again we face a game design aspect working in direct contravention of another game design aspect. In this case, the ability to deliver damage within the first minutes of the match works against player's ability to reposition and correct a randomized spawn unbalance trap. If the mountain will not come to the Prophet, then the Prophet must go to the mountain We understand Air Power is a reality into the game, we understand that by definition it operates under a different set of rules than Surface Power. Since adapting Air Power to the environment of Surface Warfare proves elusive, why then don't adapt the environment to the realities of Air Power?. The design of maps (when including Air Power) must drop the current focus on fixed positions and game modes that require the player to be in a determined place, map design should refocus on fluid movement and concentration of forces instead of zone control and balanced dispersion of forces. The game objective can no longer be a "fixed place" since terrain is irrelevant to air movement. Under the rules of Air Power, freedom of manouvre is the key factor and can't be restricted or attached to terrain and victory conditions, so victory conditions should only be related to the elimination of the enemy forces. As a side effect, we would be playing ships in a way more related to actual "aero-naval" warfare. In practical terms this could be translated to having specially designed "Open Water" maps for matches including CVs and removing them from Domination game mode. Also new game modes focused on elimination of the enemy (including VIP and points variants) could be created for these new maps. Yes it is a lot of work, but maybe it proves easier than solving the current issues.
  6. eagle_lance

    Clan battles season 10

    Does anyone know what the maps are going to be for the upcoming clan battle season?
  7. DominicusD

    RFI - Maps & Performance

    Apologies if already asked but do the choice of ports have any affect on performance? eg. Ocean where there is not a whole lot pagination v. Dunkirk where there is a lot. TIA
  8. Dogget

    Maps

    When you find yourself on familiar Map "A", you are Green and opposed by the Red team. My question is, what Map are THEY on? Are you the Red team against them? Looking at the Red team when I'm playing, I don't recognize the terrain on their side. Is it another familiar map just reversed? Those questions and the ones they imply, remain unanswered in my feeble mind.
  9. Crucis

    Clan Brawl maps

    In 8.8, there's a couple of Clan Brawl nights coming up. And there are 5 possible maps with very different cap placements. However, if you look at the Update 0.8.8 article on the main page, two of these maps, Hotspot and Warrior's Path, look nothing like their normal versions. Are these Clan Brawl only variations or upcoming changes to these maps? Please, oh please, let them be new versions! In lieu of more new maps, some seriously changed existing maps (to the point of feeling like new maps) help to create some much needed map variety! @Femennenly I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but it'd be nice to get some info on this from WG.
  10. LiskaBystrouska

    Easter Egg Hunting

    When you get sunk early, you pretty much have three choices: hit ESC and pick another ship, right-click and watch your teammates continue the fight, or shift-right-click and take a look around. Surprising what you might find when you choose the third option. Here's a few that I've seen.
  11. This season's maps are Hotspot, Sea of Fortune, Mountain Range, Neighbors, Trident, and Greece. Of these, only Hotspot had an actual image, because it was using a new cap layout, while the others "use the domination mode" (it is unspecified which layout is used for maps with multiple layouts. This is unacceptably ambiguous: the wiki has no cap layouts at all (Greece doesn't even have an image), and while I'm sure most of us remember the cap layouts, Hotspot, for an example, has had several different layouts recently in competitive modes. Greece has two layouts: one from ranked and the other from randoms. The only place you can actually check the layouts is a training room, and those aren't always correct for competitive anyway. You haven't been shy with filling us in on everything else, why are you skimping out on the maps? It's inconvenient to players at best, when they should just be under an expandable section like the missions are.
  12. I sure there is a reason somewhere, but why are there so few maps? How hard is it to make a map? There could be hundreds of maps in a rotation so you would not see the same map for weeks or months. We have all had the experance of the same map 3 or more times in a row. If it's for competative then stop that. Talk about the 1 percent that demands they are the only ones catered to above all else. And no I dont want that argument please. If any one knows whys so few maps pleae let me know. Is there a technical reason?
  13. Every time I get certain maps like for example Two Brothers I breathe a sigh of relief because I tend to do well on them. With other maps, Islands of Ice for example, my hopes for a good game evaporate. Do you do better on some maps and worse on others?
  14. So, I decided to play a bit around the Wowstactik site and came with a simple idea to try to help how Okinawa layout could be more enjoyable for players. For me, Okinawa with the A-B-C layout put a large emphasis on open water combat, being a not so enjoyable experience for all. So I came with a idea that changes nothing but the spawn and cap position. Of course is not perfect and any positive feedback will be welcomed (and maybe who knows WG notices this thread and they might consider this or a different layout in the future). So there it goes: Right from the start the team has to make a choice: Do they go for both smaller caps at where today is A? Or they attempt to get one and focus on controlling the larger cap so they flank the enemy team? The idea to have caps taken is to speed up the game, while they are on the enemy side to seem tempting for the DDs to capture them. As mentioned, is not perfect neither I'm putting as THE solution but rather a idea that might bring more ideas to make Okinawa more enjoyable.
  15. Enough with the symmetry. The maps are all starting to look like Rorschach tests. Maps do not need to be symmetrical for balanced play. If one side has a perceived advantage it will randomly be assigned to players when their spawn is assigned. They also do not need to be broken up into little channels and tiny islands. WG is making them all look like Mountain Range. The latest revision has ruined North. The best version of Islands of Ice was the original. Give us lots of sea room and break it up with large land masses. Stop designing maps for tanks and start designing maps for war ships.
  16. Ok boys I will try to be brief and straight to the point. Its to long of a tier X grind from Ranked 16 to 2. No ocean map. Excitement don't start until halfway into the match for the majority of the games (at least in matches that I have participated so far). Some tier 10 maps are too big for the event IMO. At tier X with the current Ranked system, The Conqueror is the must toxic ship because It has the unfair advantage of out farming damage then anyone in the fleet it joins A Conqueror driver, never has to play the objective per se. All he has to do is out damage the fleet and well his star is saved from being taken away. The effect this has on the fleet it joins is Even in a lost, he will never lose a star because his damage farming capabilities This causes the rest of the fleet to try to win at all cost but, if its a loss, its no longer a wait to see who saved there star situation. Thanks to the overwhelming fact the conqueror can out damage the fleet (and probably tops the red team as well if he could). Everyone will lose a star except the Conqueror. I believe its an unfair situation. But if WOWS lets you get away with it, HECK I would use it too. But its not right. lol I can probably think of more but its a feed back thread... Speak your minds, I love Ranked, I mean its the above points that sours me to it but over all I enjoy the format. If anything I suggest a solution. A Tier 10 only ranked with different rules/regulations and a mix tier ranked with the current system. I feel player retention for the long run doesn't start at tier X. Its in the lower tiers. GL/HF
  17. 4 in a row in Coop on the cramped choked craphole of Shatter, by far the worst map in the game. I thought WG had fixed it so that doesn't happen. I moved down to T5 lest I get that garbage yet again.
×