• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Rakowice requires significant improvements

Spetz

Grizzled Veteran
Dec 25, 2012
246
2
Travelling
Rakowice is a textbook example of how to make a completely one sided map. It is terribly easy for the defenders to defend because of some poorly thought out aspects of the design.

Sure, the map layout itself makes it hard to attack - lots of open ground - but the map flow is badly designed to exacerbate the layout making it very biased towards the defenders.

Since meat grinders are bad for player retention I suggest the following obvious changes be made to Rakowice immediately:

1) All objectives should lock when captured. This is mind-numbingly obvious. It is shocking it hasn't been done already. Too frequently do the attackers get massacred trying to take B or C and then switch to attacking the other objective only to lose the first one. This is flawed map design and there is no excuse for it not to be rectified. Recapturable objectives is a flawed map concept on maps already significantly biased towards the defenders

2) Defender fixed MG overlooking attackers left spawn should be removed immediately. I don't know what the map designer was thinking when they put that in.

3) Defender spawn protection around C objective is too much and should be removed. Defenders can shoot the attackers from inside a spawn protected area. That is just poor map design.

4) Defender artillery should be replaced with Mortars only. Just like Station. Artillery is too strong when called on the terribly designed D chokepoint

5) The attackers' spawn for D is badly designed. It funnels them into the middle crossfire and prevents flanking options because there is no cover going to the flanks. The attackers actually lose out by spawning in the middle once C and B are captured. Therefore, the attackers should get the choice of three spawns: one in the middle, and one on each flank near B and C. The three spawn approach works for Mamayev because it naturally creates flanking.

Too many times I see the attackers bogged down at A as well. I'm not sure how best to fix this and I welcome suggestions.

Maps should be designed for all objectives to be played and not be just a meat grinder at a handful of objectives near the start.
 
Your comments about Custom Maps should go in the Level Design section. This map already has a thread that's about 10 pages long.
[url]http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?t=85623[/URL]

It's not a custom map any more.

It has already been clearly established that maps while custom do not achieve significantly rigorous play testing to accurately establish the flaws and the obvious possible improvements.

There is no excuse for maps to not be improved once they are made "official".

I believe in continuous improvement.

Such an imbalanced map reflects poorly on RO2 and will be reflected in player retention (bad - if you didn't realise that already).
 
Upvote 0
Spez..i totaly hate your idea of locking ALL objectives on ANY map that Comes to your mind...thats just wrong and makes for linear , boring gameplay.


1) All objectives should lock when captured. This is mind-numbingly obvious. It is shocking it hasn't been done already. Too frequently do the attackers get massacred trying to take B or C and then switch to attacking the other objective only to lose the first one. This is flawed map design and there is no excuse for it not to be rectified. Recapturable objectives is a flawed map concept on maps already significantly biased towards the defenders


You seem to shy away from a challenge ? With good comms ist totaly doable. The more clever Team wins.
I dont know when you got the idea that hard maps are bad... I played booth sides and booth to all the thinkable outcomes..



5) The attackers' spawn for D is badly designed. It funnels them into the middle crossfire and prevents flanking options because there is no cover going to the flanks. The attackers actually lose out by spawning in the middle once C and B are captured. Therefore, the attackers should get the choice of three spawns: one in the middle, and one on each flank near B and C. The three spawn approach works for Mamayev because it naturally creates flanking.


I COULD agree on this but i tend to belive in People
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I agree it's a tough map, and it has some rally bad spawnkill exploits that need to be fixed.

Especially the issue where Axis can flank out on the sides and behind, and can fire into Allies spawn. Especially the ruins on the left flank is used by Axis players to exploit.


On the other hand I do like playing it, with a competent commander and some good SLs it can be a rollover for Allies. I tend to play Russian servers and generally the people playing Allies there are the best players, have good comms and know their roles.
 
Upvote 0
Spez..i totaly hate your idea of locking ALL objectives on ANY map that Comes to your mind...thats just wrong and makes for linear , boring gameplay.
Agree with blacklabel.

You said well : "locking ALL objectives on ANY map make a linear and boring gameplay."

Same problem with commissars house. ( but maybe you will be disagree )
Unlocked Objective A and B in commissars house miss me.

Station, for example, is more interresting when we see teams capturing, recapturing etc.
Unlocked Objective A in station miss me.
 
Upvote 0
It's not a custom map any more.

It has already been clearly established that maps while custom do not achieve significantly rigorous play testing to accurately establish the flaws and the obvious possible improvements.

There is no excuse for maps to not be improved once they are made "official".

I believe in continuous improvement.

Such an imbalanced map reflects poorly on RO2 and will be reflected in player retention (bad - if you didn't realise that already).

We try to "rigorously test" them, but people never fill up the servers that we are doing it on. Zetsumei will be able to fill you in on when to join, as we are testing the current contest maps.
 
Upvote 0
We try to "rigorously test" them, but people never fill up the servers that we are doing it on. Zetsumei will be able to fill you in on when to join, as we are testing the current contest maps.

Duh, I can't recall I seen someone named Spetz playtest a current custom map.
I could be terribly wrong off course. For that my sincere appologies.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The fact the attackers only have one central spawn from which to attack the hanger is the obvious glaring problem. The attackers end up getting shot at from the flak guns and bunker.. objectives they've apparently capped by that point. Giving them side spawns would prevent the axis moving up the flanks like that.
 
Upvote 0
This is one of my favorite maps and also one of my favorites to attack on. Like most good maps, with reasonably competent teams on both sides it often ends up in a fierce battle down to the last few seconds on the last cap. It only ends up being lopsided if one of the teams is completely incompetent. No tanker and no TL sort of hopeless. And that is not the map or mapmakers fault.

The only point I agree with is that having additional spawn options for allied attacking D would be an improvement, but I'm not whining. It's still a great map.
 
Upvote 0