Please improve the map balance for the next release to help player retention

[Spetz]

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 na

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I will agree only on Bridges and that is because on pub servers where the map is full/almost full, I have yet to see the attackers get past D and E objectives in maybe 3 or 4 months.

Now, that is strictly my experience when I visit servers that are nearly full running this map. From what I see, I can't understand how this maps gets voted all the time and is so popular in its current state.

I will say that with less players on the map, this is really not a problem. I will also add, the map seemed to play so much better when it was a custom map.

---------------

The rest of the maps, if they are imbalanced, I don't notice much.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

I agree with you on bridges and stalingrad kessel being seriously unbalanced, but the rest of the maps are fine, the biggest issue for balance is axis teamstack imo, which I doubt there is anything tripwire can actually do about it.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I agree with you on bridges and stalingrad kessel being seriously unbalanced, but the rest of the maps are fine, the biggest issue for balance is axis teamstack imo, which I doubt there is anything tripwire can actually do about it.

On Bridges, that doesn't help, because the Russian players are more likely to get frustrated and leave. Add that to the (sometimes) axis team stacking and its even harder for the Russians.

 

[Jean_Luc_Picard]

I will say that D and E on Bridges can be tough, but moving the spawn back isn't the answer. That will cause attackers to camp behind the objective and be a nuisance. That is what always happens on Hanto. The attackers can be in D before they even cap C.

I think the last objective on Bridges can also be tough for some teams. On depopulated servers the attacking team can steam roll their way to the last objective in 20 minutes, and for the next 30 get stuck on that last objective.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

1I will say that D and E on Bridges can be tough, but moving the spawn back isn't the answer. That will cause attackers to camp behind the objective and be a nuisance. That is what always happens on Hanto. The attackers can be in D before they even cap C.

2I think the last objective on Bridges can also be tough for some teams. On depopulated servers the attacking team can steam roll their way to the last objective in 20 minutes, and for the next 30 get stuck on that last objective.

1.) I agree, those objectives are (one of) the biggest problems, and moving the spawn probably wouldn't help much, I think that adding the universal carrier for the Russians would be the best move, if only to give the Russians some extra fire power.

2.) I can't really comment on this as i have only made it to this objective once since it became official (days after the halftrack patch, unstopable noob Russian team, most fun i had had in a while), although I'm sure the universal carrier would also solve this problem.

3.) Shouldn't you be busy fighting the Borg?

 

[Mr Headshot95]

Just throwing my 2 cents out there, but I would like some more APCs for the bigger maps. Even just adding one for attackers could really help alleviate some of the problems that they face on defense heavy maps.

Bridges being an obvious choice.

Anyway, I agree with some of the OP but not all of it. Brings up a good discussion for map, ticket, and team design.

 

[Spetz]

I agree with you on bridges and stalingrad kessel being seriously unbalanced, but the rest of the maps are fine, the biggest issue for balance is axis teamstack imo, which I doubt there is anything tripwire can actually do about it.

As I mentioned, Axis team stack is somewhat created by significantly Axis-biased maps. Rectifying the map balance will go some way towards reducing stacking.

A good way of telling if a map is flawed or if the teams are stacked is to play campaign mode: if one team is dominating the campaign and then votes (stupidly) to attack on Rakowice/Bridges/Commissars/Stalingrad and then loses badly. This happens too frequently on these maps.

I appreciate the agreement on Bridges. Some comments regarding the thoughts on the other maps would be appreciated.

 

[titsmcgee852]

If your server runs the newest version of Bridges put out by Harley you will find it is much more balanced than the current stock version in the game.

 

[shooter77]

Agree with most of them except three. Barracks is significantly biased towards the Allies, the entire layout of the map favours them. That machinegun is only useful if it actually spawns there and the Germans can actually hold that building (which usually they can't, since it's farther from the German spawn than Allied spawn). Also the German left flank is completely dominated by the Allies, they can just dig in the trenches and cut off reinforcements there. They also get much easier to the C objective required to win.
It has a hard Allied bias.

Pavlov's is more delicate but definitely Allied favored, absolutely nothing should be changed to favor the Allies even more there. Besides, the Panzer IV G seems severely underpowered and/or the T34 quite overly powerful (I believe this is the result of an exaggerated patch to balance the previously more powerful Panzer 4, which resulted in a weak P4 instead, besides all realism issues).

This tank deal also brings me to the last point: Barashka. It is generally hard for any 'attackers' to get to the enemies last point in any way. Couple this with underpowered German tanks and further changes are not needed.

A very 'honorable' mention which you omitted is Arad: one of the most unbalanced maps in the game. 90% of the games I played on this map are won by the Allies within 5 minutes or less, as the T34 is faster and gets to the objectives faster then while the underpowered Panzer 4 has nothing to make up for it, either with its gun, armor or rate of fire (which was different IRL).

 

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

If your server runs the newest version of Bridges put out by Harley you will find it is much more balanced than the current stock version in the game.

And it has a universal carrier for the Russians. Although after the forest row of caps is taken the carrier no longer respawns. D & E caps can not be recaptured.

Thanks Harley.

 

[Spetz]

And it has a universal carrier for the Russians. Although after the forest row of caps is taken the carrier no longer respawns. D & E caps can not be recaptured.

Thanks Harley.

Good changes. Is this version going to be adopted in the next release?

Did you also fix the defender spawn protection so that they cannot shoot into the cap zones from a spawn protected zone?

Agree with most of them except three. Barracks is significantly biased towards the Allies, the entire layout of the map favours them. That machinegun is only useful if it actually spawns there and the Germans can actually hold that building (which usually they can't, since it's farther from the German spawn than Allied spawn). Also the German left flank is completely dominated by the Allies, they can just dig in the trenches and cut off reinforcements there. They also get much easier to the C objective required to win.
It has a hard Allied bias.

Thanks for your comments. I still don't like the concept of fixed MG positions as it detracts from the team play and skill to actually set up and cover an MG class in that position. Allowing any old rifleman class to dominate and spawn kill the Allies is a bit OP. The equivalent MG has no such power and is much more easily flanked by Axis. Barracks is one of the best maps in the game.

Pavlov's is more delicate but definitely Allied favored, absolutely nothing should be changed to favor the Allies even more there. Besides, the Panzer IV G seems severely underpowered and/or the T34 quite overly powerful (I believe this is the result of an exaggerated patch to balance the previously more powerful Panzer 4, which resulted in a weak P4 instead, besides all realism issues).

I don't agree. The Axis have a very easy attacking route to D via the right flank which is too hard for the Allies to get to without running an MG gauntlet. The Axis also get C first, the required objective to win, and the Allies only have one valid route to the cap zone. The Allies also spawn in the wrong place as I mentioned in my post.

This tank deal also brings me to the last point: Barashka. It is generally hard for any 'attackers' to get to the enemies last point in any way. Couple this with underpowered German tanks and further changes are not needed.

My comment is that the timing is off for the cap zones. Both cap zones are not always equally contested at the start.

A very 'honorable' mention which you omitted is Arad: one of the most unbalanced maps in the game. 90% of the games I played on this map are won by the Allies within 5 minutes or less, as the T34 is faster and gets to the objectives faster then while the underpowered Panzer 4 has nothing to make up for it, either with its gun, armor or rate of fire (which was different IRL).

I have not played Arad enough to be able to detect bias as it is a relatively new map.

 

[Jolly Jew]

great suggestions overall but you missed some maps.

1) red october factories. - the sole fact that russians need two bloody tanks in this map is evident enough how difficult it is to attack it. there is far too much open space between the objectives and the objectives themselvs are always artillery and tank proof

2) Betio - attacker biased. americans get a whopping 20 minutes to capture just 3 points.

how come its 3 when there are in fact 5 points? well, because the AA guns, C and D. cannot be considered as points because of how easy it is to drop a satchel charge on them. there are no walls or high ground that obstructs them, and any american can pick up an AT charge from ammo dumps.

so either delete these AT charges so only engineers could pick them up or add walls to the guns.

 

[Kowalczyk]

Bridges - unbalanced. I am pretty sure there are some players that don't even realize there is an urban part to this map! I certainly haven't seen Allies go past D/E for ages. Could extending the D/E capzones towards the river help I wonder - far enough that a nades thrown from behind the hut can be avoided and Axis actually has to do some work to hold them?

Kessel - this is such an unbalanced map, I don't even know where to begin to try to fix it. It's basically a sure win for Axis. Perhaps Axis should just all spawn in that warehouse they spawn in for the last cap, way back and in the corner, so that they have a long way to go to defend - then they will care about their lives instead of rushing in and nading A again and again.

 

[seienchin88]

Agree with most of them except three. Barracks is significantly biased towards the Allies, the entire layout of the map favours them. That machinegun is only useful if it actually spawns there and the Germans can actually hold that building (which usually they can't, since it's farther from the German spawn than Allied spawn). Also the German left flank is completely dominated by the Allies, they can just dig in the trenches and cut off reinforcements there. They also get much easier to the C objective required to win.
It has a hard Allied bias.

Pavlov's is more delicate but definitely Allied favored, absolutely nothing should be changed to favor the Allies even more there. Besides, the Panzer IV G seems severely underpowered and/or the T34 quite overly powerful (I believe this is the result of an exaggerated patch to balance the previously more powerful Panzer 4, which resulted in a weak P4 instead, besides all realism issues).

This tank deal also brings me to the last point: Barashka. It is generally hard for any 'attackers' to get to the enemies last point in any way. Couple this with underpowered German tanks and further changes are not needed.

A very 'honorable' mention which you omitted is Arad: one of the most unbalanced maps in the game. 90% of the games I played on this map are won by the Allies within 5 minutes or less, as the T34 is faster and gets to the objectives faster then while the underpowered Panzer 4 has nothing to make up for it, either with its gun, armor or rate of fire (which was different IRL).

Agreed!

Furthermore appartmens is extremly atacker biased and fallen Fighters is just a nightmare for beginners.

 

[AzizTheCombatFighter]

You do know you can blow up the radar in the last objective with an satchel to capture it instantly! (on Betio)

 

[Jolly Jew]

You do know you can blow up the radar in the last objective with an satchel to capture it instantly! (on Betio)

yeah but that is much, MUCH harder. as the only way to get there is via a ladder which is inside the point, which is already heavily fortified.

compared to AA guns that just sit in an open space, which can barely even be considered as objectives

 

[Spetz]

great suggestions overall but you missed some maps.

1) red october factories. - the sole fact that russians need two bloody tanks in this map is evident enough how difficult it is to attack it. there is far too much open space between the objectives and the objectives themselvs are always artillery and tank proof

I left out ROF because it was improved in the last update (by, it should be noted, actually adopting my suggestions). ROF is now just a difficult map to attack on. It's not stupidly difficult like the others I discuss.

Bridges - unbalanced. I am pretty sure there are some players that don't even realize there is an urban part to this map! I certainly haven't seen Allies go past D/E for ages. Could extending the D/E capzones towards the river help I wonder - far enough that a nades thrown from behind the hut can be avoided and Axis actually has to do some work to hold them?

Kessel - this is such an unbalanced map, I don't even know where to begin to try to fix it. It's basically a sure win for Axis. Perhaps Axis should just all spawn in that warehouse they spawn in for the last cap, way back and in the corner, so that they have a long way to go to defend - then they will care about their lives instead of rushing in and nading A again and again.

Good suggestions. You're clearly someone who understands map balance.

Agreed!

Furthermore appartmens is extremly atacker biased and fallen Fighters is just a nightmare for beginners.

While apartments is attacker biased now it should be noted that before the last update it was just far too easy to defend and really boring to play. The changes to this map where good, but perhaps went slightly too far. However, the new apartments is MUCH better than the old one.

Fallen Fighters is one of the few Allies biased maps in the game. However, if the Axis play it correctly they can win. It has no serious flaws.

So, no comments from TWI?

No change in the latest patch either to fix map balance issues and adding an incredibly imbalanced feature (MG42) to even more favour the Axis. Why?

Can I get an answer please?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

So, no comments from TWI?

No change in the latest patch either to fix map balance issues and adding an incredibly imbalanced feature (MG42) to even more favour the Axis. Why?

Can I get an answer please?

Not everyone agrees with all that you say (although I personally agree with your Bridges assesment)

 

[Jank]

The answer is that TWI put it to a vote, remember? Gameplay improvements or new content... new content won by a landslide.


So presumably that's where they put their effort. As the community wished.