Stalingrad Kessel is fundamentally flawed

[Spetz]

I think their is a difference between a map that is balanced towards one side,which is the way it should be,and one where its common to fail on the first capzone.
Considering its rarely played its hard to tell which it is!

Play it more often. You will find that most frequent occurrence is lock down at the first cap zone.

I can get behind the idea of unbalanced maps that make it more satisfying for the undergod team to win, but there comes a point where it just becomes predictable and boring to play that map, knowing that most of the time one team will win, I am sure everybody has fun playing Mamayev with the Axis steamrolling, Saipan for Allies, or some of the other maps that played differently before the last update (I think most play exactly the same now, but I havent played too much since then so I am not sure).

For me, a map might be hard for one team, but there has to be a good possibility of winning or it just becomes demotivating.

Mamayev is well designed so even when the attackers nearly always win it is still fun.

Mamayev favours the attackers because it gives the attackers three spawns to chose from so they can easily flank.

On Mamayev ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES LOCK WHEN CAPTURED! This is fundamentally the best way to design a map because it helps to ensure that the whole map is played, or at least avoids bogged down attacks at one cap all round, which is boring to attack and defend.

Maps like Stalingrad where the most frequent outcome is the attackers being bogged down at one objective and being mowed down for the whole round is an illustration of flawed map design.

If Stalingrad were designed to play like Mamayev it would be much improved!

Maps should be designed such that the whole map is played most of the time instead of 25% (fact - A) of it 75% (guesstimate) of the time.

It's not rocket science...

 

[BlackLabel]

Stop drawing assumptions regarding mapbalance from 64 pubby Servers. Especialy if we talk RO1 Remakes...

 

[ro2player]

I can get behind the idea of unbalanced maps that make it more satisfying for the undergod team to win, but there comes a point where it just becomes predictable and boring to play that map, knowing that most of the time one team will win, I am sure everybody has fun playing Mamayev with the Axis steamrolling, Saipan for Allies, or some of the other maps that played differently before the last update (I think most play exactly the same now, but I havent played too much since then so I am not sure).

Kowalczyk

it's fun to play axis in defense on Mamayev too in a campaign.

Play it more often. You will find that most frequent occurrence is lock down at the first cap zone.



Mamayev is well designed so even when the attackers nearly always win it is still fun.

Mamayev favours the attackers because it gives the attackers three spawns to chose from so they can easily flank.

On Mamayev ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES LOCK WHEN CAPTURED! This is fundamentally the best way to design a map because it helps to ensure that the whole map is played, or at least avoids bogged down attacks at one cap all round, which is boring to attack and defend.

Maps like Stalingrad where the most frequent outcome is the attackers being bogged down at one objective and being mowed down for the whole round is an illustration of flawed map design.

If Stalingrad were designed to play like Mamayev it would be much improved!

Maps should be designed such that the whole map is played most of the time instead of 25% (fact - A) of it 75% (guesstimate) of the time.

It's not rocket science...

Spetz

It's not so unrealistic to meet unlock objective in game.
In the early period of the battle of Stalingrad, Station ( main station 1 ) have been captured and recaptured 15 times during a evening.
Unlock objective reflect hard fight. It's sure you can have hard fight with locked objectives too. But Unlocked objective give team ability to be more agressive.

So Players of Stalingrad in 1942 were on a map using unlocked objectives ! )

I can be a part agree with you about the fact using unlocked objectives on Mamayev make the map impossible for russians. I don't know.
Maybe with a good russian team ?
...but I am sure that Unlocked objective give you a more realistic battle effect !

 

[Spetz]

Stop drawing assumptions regarding mapbalance from 64 pubby Servers. Especialy if we talk RO1 Remakes...

That is however where most people play.

Indeed, a map imbalance actually creates a team imbalance as a large proportion of experienced players just end up chosing the easier side which makes the map even more imbalanced and no fun for anyone.

Kowalczyk
Spetz

It's not so unrealistic to meet unlock objective in game.
In the early period of the battle of Stalingrad, Station ( main station 1 ) have been captured and recaptured 15 times during a evening.
Unlock objective reflect hard fight. It's sure you can have hard fight with locked objectives too. But Unlocked objective give team ability to be more agressive.

The unlock concept itself is fine so long as the map is balanced and usually both teams attack and defend simultaneously.

However, on very imbalanced map designs, unlocked objectives is a flawed concept.

We have seen recently that ROF, Commissars and Guadalcanal have all had some objectives which used to be unlocked become locked. This change has significantly improved play on these maps making things much more fluid and fun to play. Case closed.

BTW: I argued for these changes for a long time.

So Players of Stalingrad in 1942 were on a map using unlocked objectives ! )

This is a game, not real life. I believe games should be balanced.

I can be a part agree with you about the fact using unlocked objectives on Mamayev make the map impossible for russians. I don't know.
Maybe with a good russian team ?
...but I am sure that Unlocked objective give you a more realistic battle effect !

I think Mamayev is quite well balanced. The defenders can win but usually it is close. What you are seeing is instead an illustration of consistent Axis stack in RO2.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

I still think Stalingrad kessel is balanced. People just need to play the game the right way. Just have fun on it.
P.S. mameyev kurgan is pretty easy ti defend. I agree its balanced if the Russians have a good tl. It's a good infenty map.

 

[Sulman]

All the problems in SK are exacerbated by the modelling changes in RO2. It's far harder to move between zones because everybody is shooting to a higher degree of accuracy, so the map deadlocks at A very quickly as it's trivial to hold it with handful of riflemen.

 

[Spetz]

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 badly designed map.

Anyone who disagrees with B and C locking is either not smart or an Axis-stacker.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Anyone who disagrees with B and C locking is either not smart or an Axis-stacker.

Well, gee, who can argue with logic like that

 

[Floyd]

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 badly designed map.

Anyone who disagrees with B and C locking is either not smart or an Axis-stacker.

To qualify my response:

(1)I seldom play axis (and almost never on that map).
(2)I'll put my IQ and life experience up against yours anytime you're ready.
(3) Your momma!

You are obviously very closed minded about the map and have formed your own opinions, so I don't know why I'm bothering to even respond....

In RO:Ost, I'll concede that A can be extremely difficult against a well oiled Rambo style Axis team. The same holds true in RO2 Classic mode. But RO2:Realism not so much. Spawn on SL and the TL's ability to immediately spawn peoples alleviates much of that.

B and C could be tough in RO:Ost, but very easy once the Russian's control the administration building. In RO2, coupled with the addition of the extra rooms directly off the train yard at C and the spawn on SL and the TL spawn option, controlling the administration building is a moot point.

Again, it just takes people who know how the game plays and are able to communicate that with their teammates.

 

[PeteAtomic]

The problem lies more with poor Russian tactics, and not the map. Time and time again, some "clever" Russian engineer believes they are taking the initiative by blowing up the Assembly Hall doors before A is capped, and before there are enough Russians to start attacking B. What happens when the Assembly Hall doors are blown too early, is that the Germans simply outflank the Russians while they are still attacking A, and make it more hard for the Russians to take the first objective.
As Black said, spawn on SL.
Another problem, and this one is just confined to this particular map, but the game entirely on either teams, is that on this map too many Russians try to attack too far into the cap. It's generally not necessary. Most of the Russian team can cap A in a relatively short amount of physical space. You don't have to try to run all the way back to the end of the cap, to cap the A objective.
Now, after you cap A, you need to clear it. That's the second stage. The third is to defend it vs. German counterattack until you can lock the A cap down by either taking C or B.

 

[Floyd]

The problem lies more with poor Russian tactics, and not the map. Time and time again, some "clever" Russian engineer believes they are taking the initiative by blowing up the Assembly Hall doors before A is capped, and before there are enough Russians to start attacking B. What happens when the Assembly Hall doors are blown too early, is that the Germans simply outflank the Russians while they are still attacking A, and make it more hard for the Russians to take the first objective.
As Black said, spawn on SL.
Another problem, and this one is just confined to this particular map, but the game entirely on either teams, is that on this map too many Russians try to attack too far into the cap. It's generally not necessary. Most of the Russian team can cap A in a relatively short amount of physical space. You don't have to try to run all the way back to the end of the cap, to cap the A objective.
Now, after you cap A, you need to clear it. That's the second stage. The third is to defend it vs. German counterattack until you can lock the A cap down by either taking C or B.

Shhh....
Common sense and sound tactics are not allowed when determining a map's virtues (or lack thereof).

 

[Spetz]

Why isn't this map fixed yet?

B clearly needs to lock the instant it is captured to prevent Axis pushing into there in order to spawn kill the Allies.

Allies spawn when A and B are captured are also poorly designed.

 

[TrOOper]

Why isn't this map fixed yet?

Just because you say its broke, dont make it so......I think the map is fine.

 

[Clowndoe]

Why isn't this map fixed yet?

- Because even simply modifying maps takes time and effort;
- because trumpeting the same complaints on the forums doesn't help maintain coding bullet-time for programmers;
- because they can't release a patch every time they bring a change to one map;
- because no matter how much you like to believe in clockwork universe map balance isn't a matter of solving for X;
- because the map is fine until you can convince anyone other than yourself that it isn't.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

Why isn't this map fixed yet?

B clearly needs to lock the instant it is captured to prevent Axis pushing into there in order to spawn kill the Allies.

Allies spawn when A and B are captured are also poorly designed.

Because this map doesnt need fixing?

 

[GARY OAK]

This map is both fine to attack and defend on with a competent team. which should always be the case.

A falls very easily if you push around Left though B, into the Back of A. With smoke covering the streets.

C is very easy to capture so long as you have smoke Covering the Lanes into C.

This map is all about Aggressive Engineers, and Smoke. if you have both of those it is a easy win for the attackers.

 

[Rattler]

which should always be the case.

It is. But people prefer to use the "map is broken" excuse when they lose.

 

[kathmandu]

we just need better attackers, bad defenders we already got.
thats all.

 

[seienchin88]

i managed to be Number one on the list without a kill as SL 1 atacking on this map once.
It was incredible meat grind but we won with 5 minutes left because of swift atacking and just counteratacking defenders.

Atackers need a really goody alive SL, defenders that dont cover everything, a long counteratack on A when they rush B, a lot of Smoke and luck on C and the list goes on.

Defenders need: Actually just defending and maybe a little bit of counteratacking.

This map is easier for the defenders and I wouldnt mind it if it both teams wouldnt have the same number of players.
Most of the time I won on this map I did because the defenders didnt defend and just counteratacked leaving the next target nearly undefended.
I rage quited this map once when the team couldnt take C because SL did a terrible job at smoking and all enemy mgs and like 6 riflemen plus SL where hiding at the far right overwatching the street.
I never had that problem at A myself while atacking though I watched it like 3 times when defending. Its incredibly easy to just grenade spam the atacking positions.
Luckily most teams that are doing very well get some light hearted SL dont caring for their life and spawning abilities.

 

[Sgt.NightFire]

Remember loving this map in the RO1 days, but i can't stand this version, most of the time it ends up in the allied team getting spawncamped inside B or at their initial spawnpoint. I cant really remember how in RO1 you could setup a mg in the back at B with the no roof rooms and just blast at everything that comes from the allies main spawn.

And it seems most engineers dont know what they are doing.