With the large influx of new players that will be coming to RO with the next update (and probably the associated free weekend) we need some changes to the existing maps to improve balance to improve player retention. It is obvious that poorly designed maps which are too difficult to attack on ruin player retention. Nothing puts a new player off more than running out of spawn on the attacking team and getting mown down and their team making no progress on the map towards winning. One team being pinned in spawn or at a single objective for 30-40 minutes is bad for player retention.
Furthermore, strongly imbalanced maps actually create and even greater team skill imbalance with all the experienced players stacking easier side, especially during free weekends. Therefore, something should be done to improve the flaws in existing RO2 maps for the good of the game and enhance player retention and I propose these changes below. Constructive comments regarding improvements to RO2 maps is welcomed; arguing that these maps do not have problems or that it is just related to the teams is simply naïve.
Bridges of Druzhina – seriously flawed
Bridges is a fantastic map. However, D and E are fundamentally flawed objectives. Fixing D and E would go a long way to improving the map as most games are over before the city is even played, which is a shame because it’s the best part of the map.
The first fundamental flaw is that the defenders can cover the D and E from the top of the ridge which is in a spawn protected zone. This is terrible map design. The defender spawn protection should be moved back so the attackers can flank beyond the objectives to cut off the reinforcements.
The second fundamental flaw is that D and E can be recaptured by the defenders (and to a lesser extent G and F). This doesn’t work for these objectives because they are too far apart to be attacked simultaneously very well; except when the teams are stacked attackers, which is rarely.
I also think that C takes too long to capture so the defending team leader can easily call down artillery on the bridge and completely destroy the attacker’s chances.
Additionally, the tank respawn location should move forward for the final few objectives since the tank is much more likely to die in the city in close quarters fighting.
Gumrak Station – seriously flawed
It is obvious that the attackers need a radio close to their spawn for TL to help them take A, the hardest objective. Generally, A should not be the hardest objective to capture on any map because then the whole map will not be played – which doesn’t show off the best RO2 has to offer.
Additionally, attackers should also spawn on the flanks to help new players learn what to do. Currently too many new players just run over the top, getting killed immediately, and putting them off the game. This would be somewhat avoided by switching to two spawns on the left and right flanks.
Rakowice – seriously flawed
This map is still terribly defence biased and was not fixed with APCs. Why did the defenders get so many APCs? It is obviously attackers who should have more. Therefore, I suggest removing one from the defenders and/or adding it to the attackers.
An obvious change that is required is that both B and C need to lock when captured. Additionally, once both B and C are capped, the defenders need to be prevented by spawn protection from pushing into these areas and killing attackers from the sides.
D on Rakowice is the worst designed objective in RO2. To improve it without redesigning the map it is clear that the attackers need to spawn on the flanks for D, defenders in the middle; not the other way around. The attackers should be able to spawn in B or C. Defender spawn protection should also be moved back further from the rear of B because the only way to attack it is to flank and cut off defender reinforcements and this is prevented by excessive spawn protection.
Another obvious fix is that defenders should get mortars only, not artillery. Dropping artillery on the attackers’ entrance to D is just a far too effective way to defend. The shorter time spread of mortars will make it much more tactical to use.
Additionally, lockdown needs to be faster on A so that it’s not such a boring waste of time to play with the usual defender stack and no progress on one objective.
Stalingrad Kessel – seriously flawed
The design of Stalingrad Kessel is fundamentally flawed. The most common outcome on Stalingrad is that the attacking team get pinned at A and lose without capturing it. Two things happen on A: 1) either a fast quick cap if the attackers do the right thing on spawn; 2) get pinned in spawn for the whole round if they don't do the right thing at the start and take A immediately. It is very rare for the attackers to take A after 10 minutes or so. If it doesn't fall in 5 minutes, it won't fall. This is indicative of flawed map design.
Objective A is flawed because there are easier routes into the high ground for the defending team behind cover than for the attacking team. Objective A would be significantly improved with the addition of giving the stairs a steel back so that the attackers can get up to the top floor behind cover.
If map modification isn’t possible, the attackers need to spawn closer to A so they get there sooner to improve balance. I also suggest that the doors to the right of the attackers are already destroyed at the start so that the attackers have two quick routes into the high ground on A. Defender reinforcement waves also need to spawn further away.
A second major flaw of Stalingrad is that defenders actually gain advantage from the attackers blowing the doors at B when they don’t take it immediately (because it’s a hard map to attack). This is because the defenders can push through from B into the ruins area and spawn exit camp the attackers from the right flank, mowing them down. It is indicative of bad map design if the attackers suffer from completing the objectives. The only obvious way to fix this is to spawn protect that area, which is heavy handed, I know, but the only way I see to do it.
Another obvious fix that is required is that B and C should lock when captured by attackers. The current system of only allowing them to lock when both are captured favours the defenders too much on an already poorly designed map.
These flaws of Stalingrad Kessel have nothing to do with team skill level. The map is flawed even with equal teams.
Commissar’s House – seriously flawed
Commissars was improved significantly with objective locking in the last update (which I argued for); however, it is still too defender biased.
It is clear that the defenders should be limited to only mortars here like on Station – artillery is too much of an advantage that the defending team does not need as it is too effective at delaying an attack on a time-limited map.
Additionally, G needs improved by removing the ruins from the cap zone. This is already a very strong defensive position and does not need the further advantage of being in the cap zone. Currently, the only way for attackers to effectively clear it is with artillery, and that is too infrequent.
I also think tanks are imbalanced on Commissars. To have a chance of winning, the attackers need a hero-level tank player who is good enough to kill the enemy tank and support the infantry. This is very hard to do since the defending tank respawns too quickly. Tanking essentially ends in stalemate if both tanks are equally skilled and the attackers do not get the benefit of tank support – something that is sorely needed.
Therefore, I suggest that either the attackers should get two tanks (rather a strong change, I agree); or defending tank respawns should be limited or less frequent to give the attacking tank time to support the infantry in between fighting the tank. Additionally, I believe the defenders have too many AT classes and access to too many satchel charges which are too effective at neutralising the tank.
Note that these are only quick fixes to the fundamental map flaw that Commissars is an easy crossfire for the defenders as attackers have to run up the middle, which is not simple to fix.
Cold Steel – slightly imbalanced
Generally Cold Steel is a hard map to attack on but attackers seem to win quite frequently. However, I think that the defenders have marginally too many tickets such that they can play stupidly and get away with it. A clear flaw is that lockdown on A is not triggered fast enough so that people are forced to play out the map in a boring massacre on the first objective too frequently.
Barracks – slightly imbalanced
Barracks is one of the best maps in the game. However, there is one feature which weights it to the Axis as opposed to being balanced: The fixed MG34 on the right flank of C. This is too strong a position compared to the equivalent Maxim which has much worse field of fire, tactical impact and can be more easily flanked. Removing both of these MGs will improve balance.
Pavlov’s House – slightly imbalanced
Pavlov’s is a good map however it requires some modification to spawn locations and protection to improve the balance as outlined below.
First, when D is captured by the Allies the spawn numbers need to be swapped so that spawn 1 is closer to D. Currently, too many new players (who are usually on Allies) spawn at the wrong position on the map closer to E and F than to the critical objective D and the south of D.
Second, when C is captured by the Allies they should spawn further to the rear of D such that they can use the trench to get to the trench route to the south of D rather than run out in the open in front of a fixed MG.
Third, the Axis spawn when D is captured is far too close to D because it is too easy to attack via the trench and get inside D. This spawn needs to be moved further away; I suggest further to the south. This brings me to my next point.
Fourth, removing half of the area south of D at the last update was a terrible mistake – this should be reinstated and the Axis spawn should move to here when D is captured.
Finally, the ridge overlooking the Axis approach to D is a spawn protected zone to the far left flank of the Allies next to the wall. This is terrible map design as this is a required position for Allies to be able to defend the approach to D. Spawn protection in this area (combat zone limitation – it is nowhere near a spawn!) should be removed.
Barashka – slightly imbalanced
I have noticed that the Axis get to B and C faster than the Allies which slightly imbalances the map. There is just no excuse for bad timing – it’s a basic aspect of map design. Please fix this because the advantage of capturing both A and B simultaneously on Barashka is so significant with both spawns moving very far forward.
Apartments – slightly imbalanced
The balance of Apartments was improved significantly at the last update considering it previously was seriously flawed and almost always resulted in a defender win. However, it has gone too far in the opposite direction and is marginally too hard to defend. I suggest maybe increasing the ticket count by 30-50 for the defenders because sometimes they run out too soon after doing a very good defending job.
Conclusion
I seriously wonder if TWI understands the importance of good and balanced maps for player retention. From my experience thus far, it seems not. Please understand. Quickly, before it’s too late.
If you disagree with any of my suggestions above, I challenge you go away and play these map as both sides 10 times each side (Axis or Allies – not the side you always play – I do NOT mean campaign mode!), while using your head, think about repeating situations, and then come back and say that the these maps are perfect and don’t require improvement.
Furthermore, strongly imbalanced maps actually create and even greater team skill imbalance with all the experienced players stacking easier side, especially during free weekends. Therefore, something should be done to improve the flaws in existing RO2 maps for the good of the game and enhance player retention and I propose these changes below. Constructive comments regarding improvements to RO2 maps is welcomed; arguing that these maps do not have problems or that it is just related to the teams is simply naïve.
Bridges of Druzhina – seriously flawed
Bridges is a fantastic map. However, D and E are fundamentally flawed objectives. Fixing D and E would go a long way to improving the map as most games are over before the city is even played, which is a shame because it’s the best part of the map.
The first fundamental flaw is that the defenders can cover the D and E from the top of the ridge which is in a spawn protected zone. This is terrible map design. The defender spawn protection should be moved back so the attackers can flank beyond the objectives to cut off the reinforcements.
The second fundamental flaw is that D and E can be recaptured by the defenders (and to a lesser extent G and F). This doesn’t work for these objectives because they are too far apart to be attacked simultaneously very well; except when the teams are stacked attackers, which is rarely.
I also think that C takes too long to capture so the defending team leader can easily call down artillery on the bridge and completely destroy the attacker’s chances.
Additionally, the tank respawn location should move forward for the final few objectives since the tank is much more likely to die in the city in close quarters fighting.
Gumrak Station – seriously flawed
It is obvious that the attackers need a radio close to their spawn for TL to help them take A, the hardest objective. Generally, A should not be the hardest objective to capture on any map because then the whole map will not be played – which doesn’t show off the best RO2 has to offer.
Additionally, attackers should also spawn on the flanks to help new players learn what to do. Currently too many new players just run over the top, getting killed immediately, and putting them off the game. This would be somewhat avoided by switching to two spawns on the left and right flanks.
Rakowice – seriously flawed
This map is still terribly defence biased and was not fixed with APCs. Why did the defenders get so many APCs? It is obviously attackers who should have more. Therefore, I suggest removing one from the defenders and/or adding it to the attackers.
An obvious change that is required is that both B and C need to lock when captured. Additionally, once both B and C are capped, the defenders need to be prevented by spawn protection from pushing into these areas and killing attackers from the sides.
D on Rakowice is the worst designed objective in RO2. To improve it without redesigning the map it is clear that the attackers need to spawn on the flanks for D, defenders in the middle; not the other way around. The attackers should be able to spawn in B or C. Defender spawn protection should also be moved back further from the rear of B because the only way to attack it is to flank and cut off defender reinforcements and this is prevented by excessive spawn protection.
Another obvious fix is that defenders should get mortars only, not artillery. Dropping artillery on the attackers’ entrance to D is just a far too effective way to defend. The shorter time spread of mortars will make it much more tactical to use.
Additionally, lockdown needs to be faster on A so that it’s not such a boring waste of time to play with the usual defender stack and no progress on one objective.
Stalingrad Kessel – seriously flawed
The design of Stalingrad Kessel is fundamentally flawed. The most common outcome on Stalingrad is that the attacking team get pinned at A and lose without capturing it. Two things happen on A: 1) either a fast quick cap if the attackers do the right thing on spawn; 2) get pinned in spawn for the whole round if they don't do the right thing at the start and take A immediately. It is very rare for the attackers to take A after 10 minutes or so. If it doesn't fall in 5 minutes, it won't fall. This is indicative of flawed map design.
Objective A is flawed because there are easier routes into the high ground for the defending team behind cover than for the attacking team. Objective A would be significantly improved with the addition of giving the stairs a steel back so that the attackers can get up to the top floor behind cover.
If map modification isn’t possible, the attackers need to spawn closer to A so they get there sooner to improve balance. I also suggest that the doors to the right of the attackers are already destroyed at the start so that the attackers have two quick routes into the high ground on A. Defender reinforcement waves also need to spawn further away.
A second major flaw of Stalingrad is that defenders actually gain advantage from the attackers blowing the doors at B when they don’t take it immediately (because it’s a hard map to attack). This is because the defenders can push through from B into the ruins area and spawn exit camp the attackers from the right flank, mowing them down. It is indicative of bad map design if the attackers suffer from completing the objectives. The only obvious way to fix this is to spawn protect that area, which is heavy handed, I know, but the only way I see to do it.
Another obvious fix that is required is that B and C should lock when captured by attackers. The current system of only allowing them to lock when both are captured favours the defenders too much on an already poorly designed map.
These flaws of Stalingrad Kessel have nothing to do with team skill level. The map is flawed even with equal teams.
Commissar’s House – seriously flawed
Commissars was improved significantly with objective locking in the last update (which I argued for); however, it is still too defender biased.
It is clear that the defenders should be limited to only mortars here like on Station – artillery is too much of an advantage that the defending team does not need as it is too effective at delaying an attack on a time-limited map.
Additionally, G needs improved by removing the ruins from the cap zone. This is already a very strong defensive position and does not need the further advantage of being in the cap zone. Currently, the only way for attackers to effectively clear it is with artillery, and that is too infrequent.
I also think tanks are imbalanced on Commissars. To have a chance of winning, the attackers need a hero-level tank player who is good enough to kill the enemy tank and support the infantry. This is very hard to do since the defending tank respawns too quickly. Tanking essentially ends in stalemate if both tanks are equally skilled and the attackers do not get the benefit of tank support – something that is sorely needed.
Therefore, I suggest that either the attackers should get two tanks (rather a strong change, I agree); or defending tank respawns should be limited or less frequent to give the attacking tank time to support the infantry in between fighting the tank. Additionally, I believe the defenders have too many AT classes and access to too many satchel charges which are too effective at neutralising the tank.
Note that these are only quick fixes to the fundamental map flaw that Commissars is an easy crossfire for the defenders as attackers have to run up the middle, which is not simple to fix.
Cold Steel – slightly imbalanced
Generally Cold Steel is a hard map to attack on but attackers seem to win quite frequently. However, I think that the defenders have marginally too many tickets such that they can play stupidly and get away with it. A clear flaw is that lockdown on A is not triggered fast enough so that people are forced to play out the map in a boring massacre on the first objective too frequently.
Barracks – slightly imbalanced
Barracks is one of the best maps in the game. However, there is one feature which weights it to the Axis as opposed to being balanced: The fixed MG34 on the right flank of C. This is too strong a position compared to the equivalent Maxim which has much worse field of fire, tactical impact and can be more easily flanked. Removing both of these MGs will improve balance.
Pavlov’s House – slightly imbalanced
Pavlov’s is a good map however it requires some modification to spawn locations and protection to improve the balance as outlined below.
First, when D is captured by the Allies the spawn numbers need to be swapped so that spawn 1 is closer to D. Currently, too many new players (who are usually on Allies) spawn at the wrong position on the map closer to E and F than to the critical objective D and the south of D.
Second, when C is captured by the Allies they should spawn further to the rear of D such that they can use the trench to get to the trench route to the south of D rather than run out in the open in front of a fixed MG.
Third, the Axis spawn when D is captured is far too close to D because it is too easy to attack via the trench and get inside D. This spawn needs to be moved further away; I suggest further to the south. This brings me to my next point.
Fourth, removing half of the area south of D at the last update was a terrible mistake – this should be reinstated and the Axis spawn should move to here when D is captured.
Finally, the ridge overlooking the Axis approach to D is a spawn protected zone to the far left flank of the Allies next to the wall. This is terrible map design as this is a required position for Allies to be able to defend the approach to D. Spawn protection in this area (combat zone limitation – it is nowhere near a spawn!) should be removed.
Barashka – slightly imbalanced
I have noticed that the Axis get to B and C faster than the Allies which slightly imbalances the map. There is just no excuse for bad timing – it’s a basic aspect of map design. Please fix this because the advantage of capturing both A and B simultaneously on Barashka is so significant with both spawns moving very far forward.
Apartments – slightly imbalanced
The balance of Apartments was improved significantly at the last update considering it previously was seriously flawed and almost always resulted in a defender win. However, it has gone too far in the opposite direction and is marginally too hard to defend. I suggest maybe increasing the ticket count by 30-50 for the defenders because sometimes they run out too soon after doing a very good defending job.
Conclusion
I seriously wonder if TWI understands the importance of good and balanced maps for player retention. From my experience thus far, it seems not. Please understand. Quickly, before it’s too late.
If you disagree with any of my suggestions above, I challenge you go away and play these map as both sides 10 times each side (Axis or Allies – not the side you always play – I do NOT mean campaign mode!), while using your head, think about repeating situations, and then come back and say that the these maps are perfect and don’t require improvement.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire