Please TEST Maps Before Releasing Them

Archive Suggestions - Archive
1

There are many good Enlisted maps, both in terms of aesthetics and in terms of gameplay. Equally, there are some maps which are, putting it mildly, “not good” when 10v10 sweaty matches occur on them… And 10v10 matches are going to be EVERY game when the campaign merge update comes soon.

Nobody (I assume), apart from the devs, know how the upcoming Pacific map will play. For example, can they answer the following questions…?

  • Is the map suitable for both attackers and defenders?
  • Is there ample cover for both sides?
  • Are there no unnecessary completely open spaces for attackers to be forced to run through?
  • Can attackers flank well?
  • Is the “playable area” wide enough to allow flanking?
  • Can players flank on BOTH SIDES (think Beloe Lake Invasion map for an example of where this isn’t possible)?

Now, maybe the devs do have the answers to all of the above. Perhaps the new Pacific map will be the best map ever made! In fairness, I do believe that Stalingrad Tractor Plant and the new Normandy Steel Mill map regions are fantastic for both attacking and defending teams, so if that’s anything to go by, then we’re definitely in good hands. But there’s no way to know, especially when maps like Kahif Cave Village, Armoured Train gamemode/Werbig Station/River Crossing and other regions were released in recent memory.

My suggestion:
Allow people to TEST new maps.

Now I’m not saying make the map public when it’s not ready, you don’t even need to do that. Just allow SOME PEOPLE to have full 10v10 matches, and quite a few of them, to really get an idea of how the map plays before it’s released. If they want to keep it more “in-house”, then make the Alpha Testing Team do this or Helpers, as we all know for a fact they play the game a lot on public battles. Even as I suggest this though, from seeing how few of both groups there are (<10 from those I’ve seen active on the forums, as an estimate), this may not be possible yet unless those teams expand.

A different idea is to hire a “gameplay team” - do applications similar to what they did for alpha testers recently, and pick people with differing opinions but who play the game regularly on public battles, both F2P and paid players, to get solid feedback to adapt the maps before releasing them. This team could also be relevant for any future official events/tournaments, should they be planned.

There’s many ways to do this, of course. And this isn’t to say the devs DON’T test the new map announced last week, I assume they do behind closed doors - it’s just that players who play super regularly on public servers, enjoying both empty games and full 10v10 games, could provide a different perspective.

What do you all think?

23 Likes
2

More testing could’nt hurt, your points are a pretty good list of problems with the maps. My biggest personal gripe is the wide open approaches and no cover, I should’nt be able to watch the enemies spawn or them me from the objective clearly.

5 Likes
3

I think not everything as to be 1 to 1 to provide a good game experience.

Some maps need to be harder to defend
Some maps. Need to be harder to Atack.

A 1 to 1 pure balance map is boring to play and watch
Imo.

7 Likes
4

I don’t expect a pure 1 to 1 balance, because that would be impossible without creating basically the same map 100 times and they’d all look the same.

I mean more about preventing CLEARLY not ideal gameplay designs, like objective points on the side of a lake (Beloe Lake) making only 1 side flankable by the enemy, super open objective points with no cover at all for attackers, those things mostly.

If one point is slightly harder for one side it doesn’t matter, it could even be balanced by making a following point in the same map the other way around in terms of ease if people really cared enough.

3 Likes
5

I’m already having nightmares playing on quarry with sweaty tryhards as attackers in invasion mode

1 Like
6

Admitting that you are not omniscient, as well as paying extra for server resources.
All of this is anathema to the capitalists and their sheeple.
There will be no test servers unless it is proven through time that the capitalists can’t devise a concrete solution.
Free, or protests and riots from the player labour force that pays the capitalists to work. It’s only then that the capitalists will raise welfare benefits and perks.
In the current game, the various mechanisms on the map are algorithmic models designed and produced by the development team and regularly regulated based on big data.
The development team rarely makes manual interventions.
Therefore, in the opinion of the development team, the new map does not require additional testing. Instead, they are directly placed and tested on humans. These participants are also free, or paid to participate.
As for balancing the mechanics of the new map? Just enough effort and time to sacrifice is enough.
The Drudgery Sect will also work on its own to overcome difficulties such as holes in the ground, rivers, pathfinding mechanisms, destructible stairs, window and door frames that interfere with pathfinding, and so on

1 Like
7

Couldn’t agree more.

Good points and arguments.

From my experience: Some maps just works out really bad when there’s 10 v 10 (especially when everyone has end-gear).

However, as you pointed out, I think the recent maps (Tractor plant and Power plant) works really great.

Also all Normandy maps have been widened since they added paratroopers (if you all might’ve noticed). Works much better now.

So I hope we’re in good hands.

But solid points. Some testing would definitely not hurting anyone. Its not that hard to adjust, even after release (if they want to keep the new maps hush-hush). Just let a dedicated and mixed group of players evaluate and make changes accordingly.

2 Likes
8

They’ll just be like the tractor factory and the power plant, dramatically increasing the percentage of new battlegrounds to allow all players to participate in the free test.
As for sending a test team? Is that like some people? (Of course, such people are in the minority.)
someone Not good at games‘ Veteran “player”

9

While I am also in favor of the maps not being unnaturally symmetrical.

It is on some maps that should be redone, e.g. places of points to be gained in the invasion. Because the distance of 120 m between points is a misunderstanding. In such situations, there is no way to defend the next point.

1 Like
10

Yes, like I said. I hope we are in good hands since those maps are awesome.

What do you mean?

But he never said anything about 1:1?

1 Like
11

Bad bad take, one of the few maps that combined warfare matters where vehicles can face each other at relatively long ranges, where they can make a difference on the outcome of the battle instead of the usual shit fest that is brawling tanks on other maps.

If Below Lake is bad I wish every map is bad.

1 Like
12

I find the steel mill map very anoying for vehicles.
The first objectives are always small buildings or areas with no cover wich leads to every defender dying when an tank or plane shoots at it. The rest of the objectives are inside buildings making tanks and planes useless. And the map is filled with undestructible objects like the tubes so navigating with an tank is pain.

13

well, the same falls into:

because, from what i gather, enlisted has some sort of different parts of sector difficulties.

which oftens falls into 4 different type of objectives.

favorable to the attackers,
favorable to the defenders,
favorable to no one
and, lastly, balanced.

which, aid and assist to make up for the lack of teammates and what not.

where it allows good players to have some disadvanatages and in other istances, advantages.

i’d also argue for a fun factor and having things slighlty different rather than being too much similar and not offering a real challenge.

just like being realistic and what not, terrain isn’t equal. and it’s up to the players being able to make up the best of the situation based on their skill and equipment.

and so far, i don’t think there’s a map i hate.
sure, some are less than ideals, and even my favorite bias maps in berlin sometimes are one sided.
but most of the time maps are combination where in certain areas it’s more favorable for attackers, other deffenders, and others either none or both.

even my own custom made ( for how much the editor allows ) perhaps aren’t ideal for attackers / defenders
( though, were made for pve in mind so… not sure how i can compare them )

with that being said, i’m not particularly against people trying stuff earlier to adjust it.

but nothing that a sugggestion liked wouldn’t solve that issue.

for example, over the year alot of changes in maps were made.

from boxes to rocks placement and what not.

glamerous example ( that i’m proud of it ) was to call out the hesco fortifications on the pacific.
which, i took in the editor and made a different version more in a stream line.

sure, it might really have much to do with balancing.

but this proves that devs with time, are willing and will change maps based on the players.

1 Like
14

Whole Berlin/Tunis/Japan be like: :V

1 Like
15

Bruh the Devs has been trying so hard to prove they don’t even play their own game(“Crosshair” event doesn’t count since they didn’t learn a crap from it)

If they actually playtest their game, topic like this shouldn’t exist but here we are

And no, Normandy Steel Mill, Power Plant and its variant has the funny spawn in the open issue despite there are so many god dam buildings, nope, you spawn outside

$talingrad map need polish, and god damn the rotation is awful, cuz I spent most of my time playing Tractor Factory Destruction mode, like 10 match in a row

1 Like
16

There are some maps in Pacific and Normandy (Hangar) that can spawn camp both tanks and infantry that just spawned we really shouldn’t have points that favor either of the team with easy kills. Spawns should be a bit further away from the combat.

pacific
pacific1697×678 186 KB

normandy
normandy1259×642 130 KB

17

Yeah, there’s that shitty map in the russia campaign, the one where the first capture point is located in the middle of an 8-shaped trench. It’s so hard to capture considering attackers get almost no cover. Add in a couple of tanks and a battalion of snipers and you’re done. Some fix on the attacking side would be in order.

18

This “unusable flank” is actually a great shooting range. LMGs*, HMGs, MG nests and tanks can be very potent there. Even regular BA rifles can be effective though not as much obviously.
It’s a very nice change that you can engage at long ranges and still be quite usefull.

Problem is you can’t follow with rush and as we know that’s what enlisted is all about.

19

Developers never thought about the map balance. LOL

20

I understand that point, but the game is not a shooting range. The game is based around objective points, and if you aren’t actively ON/next to it to attack/defend it then nobody is moving anywhere and the game is a pure stalemate, with defenders winning as a result.

Unusable flanks make for no fun gameplay unless you like to camp on the other side of the lake with tanks in the grey zone, and the spawn point for defenders, which is inside the mini village, is so ridiculous that the only remaining side for attackers to flank is literally where the defenders spawn by default, making this map impossible to attack if you have even remotely balanced teams.