Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
elodea

Map veto

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
35 posts
1,224 battles

Please let us veto atleast 1 map when entering the MM.

 

I don't want to play that utterly horrible gank map called hotspot where everything depends on RNG spawn compositions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
506 posts
1,386 battles

Please let us veto atleast 1 map when entering the MM.

 

I don't want to play that utterly horrible gank map called hotspot where everything depends on RNG spawn compositions.

 

I dunno, i have to say Hot Spot is the least predictable map out there. And Carrier players hate it so much since they can get ganked from two sides hahaha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,923 posts
4,018 battles

 

I dunno, i have to say Hot Spot is the least predictable map out there. And Carrier players hate it so much since they can get ganked from two sides hahaha.

 

Lol I argree playing CV on that map = OMG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Funny cause I liked Hotspot with my Cvs during CBT.

Much easier to sail along the rest of the team and act as a decoy for enemy salvos.

 

As for map vetoing.

Same as with WoT, no map vetoing, cause it would have negative effects on the matchmaker.

I.e. all BBs veto one map... does not makemuchsense does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Look at certain WoT maps being gradually changed or removed.

The devs have tools to determine map popularity without a veto system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

It would send a message to the developers though.

 

It does, as in prompting them that there's something wrong with certain map and it needs to be changed, which they are doing almost every patch now in WoT.

They don't need a veto system to know that, the feedbacks we are giving here is a sign.

 

I suspect Hotspot gonna get changed one way or another...someday :hiding: (cuz patch rate for this game is still slower than WoT). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

 

It does, as in prompting them that there's something wrong with certain map and it needs to be changed, which they are doing almost every patch now in WoT.

They don't need a veto system to know that, the feedbacks we are giving here is a sign.

 

I suspect Hotspot gonna get changed one way or another...someday :hiding: (cuz patch rate for this game is still slower than WoT). 

 

If the devs were silly enough to listen to the WoT forums then Malinovka would have been dropped years ago, yet when they surveyed the player population they voted overwhelmingly to keep it. They go by things like whether or not one side has a definite advantage, which takes tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime.

 

The only problem I see with hotspot is if both enemy groups decided to gank one side, its GG.

 

Which every team at least now tries to do because obviously the team that can combine its fleet to destroy an isolated part of the enemy fleet will win.  However, it's pure luck where each fleet will try to combine and woe betide the poor suckers if you're caught in the middle of the enemy deciding to combine in your sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
35 posts
1,224 battles

The problems with hotspot are really very obvious, it's truly horrible design to the point of ineptitude.  And when you look at the feel of the map, it isn't just that it plays badly but you gotta ask what kind of idiot engages naval forces like that in the first place?  It isn't internally consistent with how the ships are designed to interact with each other - square peg in circle hole.

 

1. One side will always spawn with much less ships than the other, and when you have a CV in that lesser number side, the gankfest becomes truly horrific.

 

2. The compositions are random for all effects and purposes.  You can get heaps of BB's and not many CA in a side or vice versa.

 

The team which correctly guesses (50% chance.  Such skill) and ganks the side with either less spawned players or poor composition will win through a deterministic snowball.  When they both guess right, the side with the poorer randomly generated composition will lose.  Outcomes are not based on controllable factors like player/team skill and positioning etc but 100% on uncontrollable factors relating to the matchmaker, resulting in many time and credit wasting matches.

 

It's just unacceptable to allow that kind of a map to feature heavily in high tier games.  Especially with the high repair costs.

Edited by elodea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×