Kola Peninsula is EVIL

[NuclearToast™]

I would love to see the stats on player completion rates starting with Kola. That set of maps is so evil, I can practically feel the level designer constantly slapping the side of my head, "How about now? How about now?"

With over 250 solo hours into the campaign, I understand challenge. But the Kola maps seem to go out of their way to make you suffer in the worst possible way. Maybe it was an attempt to appease players who thought the base game was too easy, but it's about to drive me away for good. I certainly don't want to buy a Season 2 pass if the maps continue like this.

[Malidictus]

Hans Meiser a écrit :

I'm gonna be honest and say using an oversized mod truck kind of disqualifies you from criticizing the devs for making paths "too narrow". Using something that is much larger than the largest vehicle ingame will obviously not fit through passages or on roads the devs intended to be used.

Sometimes it feels like there's an echo in these forums, because I find myself having to say the same thing multiple times until it gets across. You seem to have glossed over entirely the part where I said I didn't find the airplane mission "hard." I found it unpleasant and tedious. Please, if you can, stop bringing up this binary fallacy. It's entirely possible for content to be both "not difficult" and "not fun" at the same time. My truck of choice is irrelevant. The trailer with the aircraft attached to it is by far the widest part of the entire mission.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

I also strongly agree with them limiting you to drive only one exact way. There are always options and I've found shortcuts on every map, especially on Imandra there are a few very significant shortcuts that make navigating the map alot easier.

Yes, shortcuts exist - where the map maker has deliberately decided to put them, and usually with some kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obstacle right in the middle. I strongly DISagree with limiting the paths I drive because it entirely defeats the purpose of an open-world game. There's no point in spending time to model terrain that players aren't intended to traverse - and indeed, the game often doesn't. You may as well go the Need 4 Speed route and lock the player into corridors, at that point.

Normally, I wouldn't be opposed to linear gameplay, but Kola uses it as a tool to troll the player. Because the map maker has complete control monopoly over which routes the player takes, said map maker is free to place whatever ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obstacles they choose in the player's way, with no real option existing to avoid them. To cut off an argument I KNOW is going to happen - yes, you can avoid AN individual obstacle by taking a different route. In Kola, that simply means running into another equally unpleasant obstacle because the map maker put them in every viable path.

The only option to avoid these obstacles is to roll the dice and try driving through dense forests or steep cliffs and hope to find a gap in the design which allows you to "get outside the play area." Kola has fairly few of those non-designated areas and few of them are worth taking a chance on. I've not played Amur yet, but I have played all the other maps. None of them have felt either as restrictive nor as deliberately malicious. Kola is a distinct aberration in this regard.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

If the game offered 0 challengess driving cargo from A to B, I fail to see the appeal for a game like this. If you want carefree driving, a different game like one of the truck simulators might be more down your alley.

Yes, and if I said any of these words you're putting in my mouth, this would mean something. Unfortunately, this is little more than the same binary fallacy. If I don't like the design, the only possible reason is because it's hard (it isn't). If it's hard, then the only possible alternative is "super easy" (which it isn't). I don't know if you're aware of how dishonest this line of argument is or whether you haven't thought it through, so let me give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat myself.

Kola is not "difficult." Kola is "cheap." Once the player falls in all of the deliberate traps and figures out all the ways in which the map screws with the player in non-obvious way, all of the challenge goes away. There exist safe and reliable paths to get from anywhere to anywhere in Imandra without significant difficulty, using pretty much any arbitrary vehicle. The game already offers "0 challengess" as it is.

I still don't like Kola's approach to creating the appearance of "challenge" because it's not actually challenging. It's simply one giant sucker trap. Fail enough and eventually the intended "correct" way reveals itself. Guessing how the developers want me to play is not "challenge." It's paint-by-numbers.

Once again - it's entirely possible for the game to be "not difficult" and "not fun" at the same time. Or to put it in another way - the game's level of difficult is entirely irrelevant. Kola could be the easiest map in the game and I'd still dislike it just as much because its central failures have nothing whatsoever to do with difficulty, other than by coincidence. What's at issue is the design, not the difficulty.



I should also note that Sabre appear to agree with me. Yukon - the follow-up to Kola - is a substantial improvement in game design. It almost entirely lacks most of the "sucker traps" found in Kola and has a vastly more open take on open world, with a litany of viable paths to just about every locations and very little in the way of sitting on my hands waiting for my vehicle to crawl through deep snow. Wisconsin - the follow-up to Yukon - is even better still, offering a large number of unmarked but fully viable routes through the forest and shifting challenge almost entirely to moving large loads as opposed to crawling through mud with small vehicles.

This is perhaps the biggest shame of Kola. As the chronologically-first DLC, it's where players are likely to go first after wrapping up the main campaign. Because Kola sucks ass, however, many of them are discouraged from buying the follow-up and far better DLCs. It rather reminds me of Vermintide putting Convocation of Decay as the second map players run chronologically, while having easily the hardest finale in the entire game even including the end game boss. At least Amur is 4 DLCs in.

[Hans Meiser]

Malidictus a écrit :

Sometimes it feels like there's an echo in these forums, because I find myself having to say the same thing multiple times until it gets across. You seem to have glossed over entirely the part where I said I didn't find the airplane mission "hard." I found it unpleasant and tedious. Please, if you can, stop bringing up this binary fallacy. It's entirely possible for content to be both "not difficult" and "not fun" at the same time. My truck of choice is irrelevant. The trailer with the aircraft attached to it is by far the widest part of the entire mission.

Your truck of choice, your route of choice and your own skill while driving is not irrevelant. You are the one complaining about the mission, a mission that I personally found VERY easy compared to other missions. It wasn't unpleasant and it definitely wasn't tedious in any way compared to some other missions. In my eyes your judgement here is plain wrong and using a mod truck, chosing the wrong path, etc. can make this contract much harder than it usually is. You even said yourself you might have made the mission harder on yourself, but then go ahead and criticize it anyway. This doesn't fit.

Malidictus a écrit :

Yes, shortcuts exist - where the map maker has deliberately decided to put them, and usually with some kind of ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obstacle right in the middle. I strongly DISagree with limiting the paths I drive because it entirely defeats the purpose of an open-world game. There's no point in spending time to model terrain that players aren't intended to traverse - and indeed, the game often doesn't. You may as well go the Need 4 Speed route and lock the player into corridors, at that point.

This is plain wrong, I routinely use paths that are in no way put in place by the devs as alternatives. I scout alot and if they work I use them. There are "intended shortcuts" which you can make out on the map, these are very commonly riddled with additional obstacles, but there are tons of shortcuts you need to find yourself and those work wonders. If you don't scout for them, or can't use them, that's on you, not the game.

Malidictus a écrit :

Normally, I wouldn't be opposed to linear gameplay, but Kola uses it as a tool to troll the player. Because the map maker has complete control monopoly over which routes the player takes, said map maker is free to place whatever ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ obstacles they choose in the player's way, with no real option existing to avoid them. To cut off an argument I KNOW is going to happen - yes, you can avoid AN individual obstacle by taking a different route. In Kola, that simply means running into another equally unpleasant obstacle because the map maker put them in every viable path.

Kola is extremely open and offers a plentitude of paths to almost every obstace, once you scouted it correctly and figure them out. Again the statement that it's linear is just plain wrong.

Malidictus a écrit :

The only option to avoid these obstacles is to roll the dice and try driving through dense forests or steep cliffs and hope to find a gap in the design which allows you to "get outside the play area." Kola has fairly few of those non-designated areas and few of them are worth taking a chance on. I've not played Amur yet, but I have played all the other maps. None of them have felt either as restrictive nor as deliberately malicious. Kola is a distinct aberration in this regard.

This is also plain wrong. I completed both maps on hard mode 100% and Yukon forces you into certain paths more than Kola, it just seems to me that you absolutely DID NOT scout Kola sufficiently for paths to be used.

Malidictus a écrit :

Yes, and if I said any of these words you're putting in my mouth, this would mean something. Unfortunately, this is little more than the same binary fallacy. If I don't like the design, the only possible reason is because it's hard (it isn't). If it's hard, then the only possible alternative is "super easy" (which it isn't). I don't know if you're aware of how dishonest this line of argument is or whether you haven't thought it through, so let me give you the benefit of the doubt and repeat myself.

I never put words in your mouth, I said if you don't like the struggle, as you find the game to be "tedious" and "unpleasant" the game might not be right for you.

Malidictus a écrit :

Kola is not "difficult." Kola is "cheap." Once the player falls in all of the deliberate traps and figures out all the ways in which the map screws with the player in non-obvious way, all of the challenge goes away. There exist safe and reliable paths to get from anywhere to anywhere in Imandra without significant difficulty, using pretty much any arbitrary vehicle. The game already offers "0 challengess" as it is.

The "It's ChEaP, nOt DifFiCuLt" argument is commonly used to search the fault within something, instead of looking at yourself, so you don't have to accept that it might be you and not the game. Heard it a million times, this is always the same thing. Doesn't matter if it's trouble getting around a fireball in fighting game, a boss mechanic the player fails to adapt to or in this case failing to scout correctly and then blaming the game for "linearity, traps and lack of options".

Malidictus a écrit :

I still don't like Kola's approach to creating the appearance of "challenge" because it's not actually challenging. It's simply one giant sucker trap. Fail enough and eventually the intended "correct" way reveals itself. Guessing how the developers want me to play is not "challenge." It's paint-by-numbers.

Trial and error is one solution to a given problem. It's not the only solution, good scouting, good map reading, choosing the proper truck for the task are all solutions to the problems you are having. You are choosing trial and error, then complain about the fact that trial and error sucks. You should seriously take a look at the way you approach certain missions and you might discover that this isn't as clearcut as you make it out to be.

Malidictus a écrit :

I should also note that Sabre appear to agree with me. Yukon - the follow-up to Kola - is a substantial improvement in game design. It almost entirely lacks most of the "sucker traps" found in Kola and has a vastly more open take on open world, with a litany of viable paths to just about every locations and very little in the way of sitting on my hands waiting for my vehicle to crawl through deep snow. Wisconsin - the follow-up to Yukon - is even better still, offering a large number of unmarked but fully viable routes through the forest and shifting challenge almost entirely to moving large loads as opposed to crawling through mud with small vehicles.
This is perhaps the biggest shame of Kola. As the chronologically-first DLC, it's where players are likely to go first after wrapping up the main campaign. Because Kola sucks ass, however, many of them are discouraged from buying the follow-up and far better DLCs. It rather reminds me of Vermintide putting Convocation of Decay as the second map players run chronologically, while having easily the hardest finale in the entire game even including the end game boss. At least Amur is 4 DLCs in.

This whole section is just your opinion and theorizing, there is not a single factual point in this. Personally I found Kola much more enjoyable and much quicker than Yukon. Yukon has big contracts and very little challenge, which means you make the same boring drive multiple times, while Kola had a nice challenge and quick to finish tasks and contracts. Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has one, so this is up for debate, but the rest of your rambling just seems to me that you didn't scout Kola right and routinely drove yourself into a ditch instead of taking a second to scout and pick the right path and vehicle for the job.

[Malidictus]

Hans Meiser a écrit :

You are the one complaining about the mission, a mission that I personally found VERY easy compared to other missions.

*sigh* Here we go again. Let's see how many times I'll need to repeat this. I never claimed the mission was hard. You finding it easy is irrelevant. It's entirely possible for a mission to be easy AND bad at the same time.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

If you don't scout for them, or can't use them, that's on you, not the game.

Citation needed. Far as I'm concerned, you're doing a mix of "humble bragging" and applying an ad hominem fallacy.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

Kola is extremely open and offers a plentitude of paths to almost every obstace, once you scouted it correctly and figure them out. Again the statement that it's linear is just plain wrong.

OK, that's as far as I care to go. This is three-for-three just making naked assertions without even an attempt to justify them. If you're not interested in arguing in good faith, then two can play that game. No, Kola is not extremely open, nor does it offer a "plentidue" of paths to almost every "obstace." Regardless of how well you scout, you can't "scout" paths which don't exist.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

This is also plain wrong. I completed both maps on hard mode 100% and Yukon forces you into certain paths more than Kola, it just seems to me that you absolutely DID NOT scout Kola sufficiently for paths to be used.

This is also plain wrong. I completed both maps on normal mode 100% and Yukon does not fdorce you into certain paths more than Kola. It just seems to me you absolutely DID NOT scout Yukon sufficiently for paths to be used.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

I never put words in your mouth, I said if you don't like the struggle, as you find the game to be "tedious" and "unpleasant" the game might not be right for you.

You absolutely did put words in my mouth. You just couched them in the same tired old "just asking questions" bit of rhetoric. You make "if" statements while implying that the answer is "yes." Moreover, you're moving the goal posts because that's not what you actually said. What you said was: "If the game offered 0 challengess" and "If you want carefree driving." No mention of either "tedious" or "unpleasant" - those only showed up once I called you on strawmanning me.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

The "It's ChEaP, nOt DifFiCuLt" argument is commonly used to search the fault within something, instead of looking at yourself, so you don't have to accept that it might be you and not the game.

So another argumentum ad hominem. Well, now I KNOW you're not arguing in good faith. It's also a pretty dumb argument, though. Not only are you using alternating caps typically reserved for derisive mockery, you're also entirely disregarding two key factors.

First of all, it very well COULD be the game. Since we're arguing in bad faith, however, I'm going to assume that you deliberately disregard this fact because it reduces the size of your e-peen if the game that you're so good at has issues. Much easier to think that I must suck. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

Secondly, you're repeatedly ignoring the fact that I didn't have difficulty completing Kola once I scouted it out as you propose. It's actually quite silly just how much of your argument hinges on me having difficulty and not being able to complete the map when I completed the map without difficulty and still didn't enjoy it.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

You are chosing trial and error, then complain about the fact that trial and error sucks. You should seriously take a look at the way you play the game and you might discover that this isn't as clearcut as you make it out to be.

Second verse, same as the first. "It's a you problem." And here I thought I'd be repeating myself.

Hans Meiser a écrit :

This whole section is just your opinion and theorizing, there is not a single factual point in this.

Well, there IS one factual point in there. Sabre didn't release another DLC like Kola. If you have a plausible explanation for why they changed course this drastically if Kola was as good as you claim it to be, then I'd like to hear it. Although, since we're arguing in bad faith, I'm going to venture a guess that the explanation will be something along the lines of "kowtowing to entitled babies and dumbing down the game for casual players" or something to this effect.

Your turn. I expect more repetition of how much I suck even though I keep telling you I didn't have difficulty, how badly I scouted Kola despite scouting it completely and some form of double-think about how I could have probably had difficulty despite not having difficulty. Don't let me down.

[Hans Meiser]

Malidictus a écrit :

Well, there IS one factual point in there. Sabre didn't release another DLC like Kola. If you have a plausible explanation for why they changed course this drastically if Kola was as good as you claim it to be, then I'd like to hear it.

Have fun playing Amur Mr. Factual. :) You have absolutely NO idea what Sabre is going for and it's pointless to argue with you around the fact that you clearly didn't scout the map right, then blame the game for your own incompetence. I guess since we're "arguing in bad faith" I can just say it. I really wish I could see your face when you eventually try Amur. lmfao

[Malidictus]

Hans Meiser a écrit :

Have fun playing Amur Mr. Factual. :) You have absolutely NO idea what Sabre is going for and it's pointless to argue with you around the fact that you clearly didn't scout the map right, then blame the game for your own incompetence. I guess since we're "arguing in bad faith" I can just say it. I really wish I could see your face when you eventually try Amur. lmfao

I feel a Prince of Persia quote is appropriate here: "Make it easy for me. Conform to my low expectations." And you did. I tried to argue in good faith, I tried to explain what I did and why I felt the way I did. You disregarded it completely, accused me of lying, repeatedly asserted a point that I repeatedly told you was not true and proceeded to spin your own fan fiction of what kind of person I must be. If it makes you feel better to imagine pain on others, then by all means continue. This, however, is where I get off. Don't expect any more responses.

[Hans Meiser]

Malidictus a écrit :

Hans Meiser a écrit :

Have fun playing Amur Mr. Factual. :) You have absolutely NO idea what Sabre is going for and it's pointless to argue with you around the fact that you clearly didn't scout the map right, then blame the game for your own incompetence. I guess since we're "arguing in bad faith" I can just say it. I really wish I could see your face when you eventually try Amur. lmfao

I feel a Prince of Persia quote is appropriate here: "Make it easy for me. Conform to my low expectations." And you did. I tried to argue in good faith, I tried to explain what I did and why I felt the way I did. You disregarded it completely, accused me of lying, repeatedly asserted a point that I repeatedly told you was not true and proceeded to spin your own fan fiction of what kind of person I must be. If it makes you feel better to imagine pain on others, then by all means continue. This, however, is where I get off. Don't expect any more responses.

lmfao. Jesus Christ Homie talk about putting words in someones mouth. I guess this is your strategy when you don't have any actual arguments. By the way, we can make a nice a game out of this, if you're up for it. Take a misson from Imandra and the map from maprunner and draw the way/s the game "forces" on you. That was your complaint right, the game is linear, filled with traps and forces you into a paths/certain paths. Then give that map to me and I'll draw on it all the possible ways to actually do it. Prove to me that my point was not true. :) Easy said, easy done. Show your map knowledge. You did the map 100% and you did scout sufficiently right? So this shouldn't be an issue for you.
Let's start with the plane mission, as this was a huge point of contempt for you.

[Dee]

those who did the star in my arse (or arse in the sky?) mission with 1 (one!) truck, you are the elite of s&m elite out there.

i had a tayga (metal detector), cat 745 (mobile tanker), azov 5319 (tractor), azov 5319 (crane) and both my tatarins out there. i took a different route to the lake with each truck and every single one is an absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥♥♥♥ of a route, for reasons i described too many times to bother again.

seeing the cat 745, lauded by the game itself as the truck capable of 'handling anything' getting bogged down at 0.2 mph in 2 inches of snow just made me lol, recover everything, and move on to yukon.

[Malidictus]

Dee a écrit :

those who did the star in my arse (or arse in the sky?) mission with 1 (one!) truck, you are the elite of s&m elite out there.

I don't think anyone did it with "one" truck - I don't see how. You need at least one truck with a heavy crane and at least one truck with a high hitch for the trailer. Potentially, I could see bringing a third truck for the metal detector - if the metal detector actually worked. I've never been able to "detect" anything with it, not unless I'm sitting right on top of it. I knew where the pieces were (from cheating and looking at Maprunner) and I still couldn't ping them on the map without driving to within spitting distance of them.

For me personally, the big "secret" was not driving the flatbed truck on the ice. Typically, I'd park a crane next to what needs to be craned and bring another truck to it. Unfortunately, this puts the flatbed truck on a one-way trip to a really unpleasant run across half the map. Did that on my first run with the full fuselage. On the subsequent runs, I attached the items to the crane truck and dragged them across the ice to the one area where a large truck can easily turn around and loaded them there.

If you don't get stuck on the ice near the lake, there's a fairly simple route back-and-forth. It's mostly snow with some rocks, mostly along the shoreline.

[NuclearToast™]

Kola broke me before I could even finish scouting all of Imandra with my radar trailer. Suffice it to say, Imandra made me quit, even with the promise of better maps.

I'm also, so far, zero-for-two for crossovers from Epic games. That should tell me something too.

[TheyNeverSawHimComing]

All Map-DLCs are bull**it, Only the Apache-DLC is worth to buy it.

[pdaw.pd]

Idk, I kinda liked Kola. The Kovd Lake map seemed perfectly passable, although I came there under-equipped: I only had off-road tires, mud tires and chained tires were still locked for me at the moment. But it turned out to be enough to scout the map and rescue Actaeon (which was the primary objective of the my mission there).

Imandra appeared too hard for the equipment I had, so I only grabbed the Warthog and got the @#%& out of there for good. Now that my park of trucks is much better, and fitted top tier equipment, I actually plan a return, after I'm done with Taymyr.

Pro tip for Russian maps: Avoid roads as much as you can; go along them, not on them. They are there just for orienting reference.

[Malidictus]

pdaw.♥♥ a écrit :

Imandra appeared too hard for the equipment I had, so I only grabbed the Warthog and got the @#%& out of there for good. Now that my park of trucks is much better, and fitted top tier equipment, I actually plan a return, after I'm done with Taymyr.

You'll have a much easier time on rerun. Kola works a lot like Taymir, just with the malice turned up to 11. As long as you know what the map maker wanted you to do and AVOID doing that, you'll generally be fine. It's like you said - if you go along any of the apparent routes, you'll run into some kind of deliberate trap that the map maker set for you. If you can avoid that, the map doesn't really have much else to offer in terms of challenge.

[pdaw.pd]

Malidictus a écrit :

if you go along any of the apparent routes, you'll run into some kind of deliberate trap that the map maker set for you.

Well, this concept looks realistic though. You can expect puddles on the mud roads, so your choice is to dive in and probably get stuck, or to try and get around it.

[mendel]

Malidictus a écrit :

As long as you know what the map maker wanted you to do and AVOID doing that, you'll generally be fine. It's like you said - if you go along any of the apparent routes, you'll run into some kind of deliberate trap that the map maker set for you. If you can avoid that, the map doesn't really have much else to offer in terms of challenge.

In my opinion, the map maker does want you to not go by the obvious route, so following your advice you'd actually be playing the map as designed.

For example, this is very clear in Black River, Alaska, where there is a spot with a very big mud hole, with a rocky ridge and another mud hole next to it that has sticks you can winch to, with a rocky ridge and a snowed-in overgrown path that can be traversed with the heavy trailer without winching once if you're using the right truck to pull it.
That non-obvious path is there because the map designer put it there for you to discover and use, if you find it.

[Bubba Fett]

I first played Kola when it came out I hated it too. The roads seemed designed to roll trucks. I played it a bit, got the free trucks and enjoyed using them on other maps. When I got the Yukon and Wisconson maps and the trucks there I enjoyed those maps a lot too.
Then, after getting bored I went back to Kola and had a lot more fun with it using different trucks and ended up doing all the missions there.
For scouting I'd use the Tuz 166. That thing will go anywhere and is light enough to drive over weak ice without falling through.
For hauling the Paystar 5600 works great. It does fall through the ice, but doesn't care because it climbs back out easy and you can tow a fuel trailer around to deal with it's thirsty engine. The Ford F750 is also excellent once it's been fully upgraded and has far more traction than you'd expect.
Part of the reason that Kola seems so bad is that the first 3 regions were all pretty easy. Michigan had minor mud holes, Alaska had icy roads that you needed chains for, and Tamir had deep mud. Pretty basic stuff so when they suddenly increased the difficulty of Kola it seemed like too extreme a jump.
Playing on the Yukon and Wisconsin maps was sort of like an intermediate mode to prep you for Kola.
By comparison, Amur is much more difficult and if you play that for a while and go to Kola it will seem like a cakewalk. (especially if you get the Zikz first)

What I've noticed in Snowrunner is that the trucks you get in a given region are probably not the best trucks to use in that region. Russian trucks are great in the first 3 regions, but the Bandit from the Yukon is better in Tamir than most other russian trucks. (it's not great in the Yukon though) The Paystar 5600 is really good in ice and snow, but it's not great in Wisconsin.
It's sort of like they design the map to take advantage of the weakness that each truck has and using trucks from other maps with other weaknesses makes things a lot easier.