Maps, Map design Feedback

[IOC_000 923]

First of all thank you for making this thread; second i agree with the majority that RB needs larger more immersive maps.

However there is an issue that iv'e not seen discussed; the airfields on most RB maps are the size of combat air strips.

This does make sense given the game mode; however it means that landing a B25 is impossible unless you stall and belly land.

Along with larger aircraft like heavy bombers being even more of a hassle

 

There were a few suggestions of cities on the edges of the map to cover larger tanks from sniper fire; i would also like to see larger airstrips in them that would be manageable for a heavy bomber or a medium with a high stall speed like the b25.

Flak is also an issue; RB GF has flak around the airfields that is completely useless against clever players. There have been several occasions where my engine was damaged; i spent 5 minutes nursing the aircraft back to base. Then right as the rubber touched the strip; a enemy plane strafed me.

 

Also with improved flak it may be possible to move the combat airfields closer in; allowing ground pounders to rearm themselves faster. Then if located a reasonable distance away from the ground spawn; could cover it from aircraft or harass enemy tanks. 

[PL_Andrev 7,375]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

With WWM on the horizon new locations , altered locations on a larger scale is the idea , testing will prove what will be what , so when closed testing begins i hope many of you are in it 

 

New locations? No huge air maps for GF?

[Iron_physik 3,482]

7 hours ago, Tivoru said:

Spoiler

 

1. Realistic Terrain/Field

 

At this moment every map, doesn't matter it is small or big one, is designed to be full of humps. That humps slow down tanks, especially slower tanks, like Churchill, Matilda, T95, Tortoise, Maus. They need to be more flat like in real life. 

 

For example El Alamein ingame:

 

And real one:

 

"But you'll be able to snipe poeple from spawn to spawn"

 

Thats why we need real fortifications, shooting possitions, trenches as part of the fields to lep poeple play with different tatcits. Maps need to look like prepared to fight, with some sniper positions for TD's, roads for slow and heavy tanks etc. 

 

 2. Spawns

 

To protect players from spawn kills we dont need "Spawn Protection" mechanic. It's possible to make it easier and better, we need spawns out of map. We need 3 spawns on each side, every on the edge of map. When you'll spawn there, you'll need to enter the battlefiled.

 

3. Battle Directions

 

At this moment we can see, that almost at all maps we fight from West to East or vice versa. We need more scenarios of one map with vertical or aslant fights.

For example on Poland map one team can spawn in town and another one in forest in North of the town.

http://imgur.com/a/iU6Rm

Village will protect one side from sniping by entire length of map, and another side will be protected by woods, bushes and fortifications.

 

3. Core Map

 

The best maps in the game is propably Mozdok and Volokolomsk, maybe it still has lot of humps, but villages, forest, train station and big parts with open fields makes this maps so real. In Hurtgen Forest we don't even fight in forest, whole south part of map isn't used by players. Other maps should be designed similiar to these maps but with own unique features like towns, rivers, hills, bridges.

 

 

 

Some great Ideas here :-)

 

I would like to see more realistic based maps.

I also would like to see less small maps.  im fine with medium sized maps but small aps are a No-Go for me.

the Bigger and more realistic looking map, the better for me.

 

For excample Korea, it is a good map I like it ALOT. it features all key playstiles.

for that map I would like to seee a slightly bigger version and perhaps an flatter area.

 

(I would like to see in general more asiatic themed maps like Vietnam, Korea etc...)

[Tivoru 4,926]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

 

El Alamein different photo of real life 

 

Yep, they working on fortifications near hills. But look deeper, theres more flat areas then hills. I know its easier to balance when map is full of humps but you can use fortifications/bushes/forest to balance it aswell. 

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

Battle Directions

 

Not a bad concept for that map , some flaws but possibly a RB SB arrangement 

Same for the new map, Abandoned Factory, why we fight in factory, not for factory?

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

There are a few things taken into consideration , typical importantly is vehicle type and capabilities from lower to higher end ranks

 

with more vehicles then ever in war thunder   the range of vehicles  on a map at any given time and their capabilities is important the map functions for all walks of life

 

 

With war thunder many things affect many things , MM, BR and maps are closely related.

 

 

Let's say large map some very open areas , some cover in say town encampment , but at a higher rank play all we would end up seeing is ATGMs fighting ATGMs (predominantly )  so we force closer encounters for different types of vehicles that one would use , so they are able to use them. bad example but you get where i'm going.

 

 

Again i'm not saying maps are perfect and i'm not defending , im just giving you guys more info to include in the thought process of maps 

 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

8 minutes ago, Tivoru said:

 

Same for the new map, Abandoned Factory, why we fight in factory, not for factory?

 

well this map , hmmm umm lol personally this map is 50/50 with me , and well i can see some alterations coming  possibly in the near  future 

[KH_Alan 5,256]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

Let's say large map some very open areas , some cover in say town encampment , but at a higher rank play all we would end up seeing is ATGMs fighting ATGMs (predominantly )  so we force closer encounters for different types of vehicles that one would use , so they are able to use them. bad example but you get where i'm going.

Not necessarily if ability to shoot down missiles with MG is implemented.

 

Very open areas is not equal to flat areas. Mozdok is quite open map yet there are lots of dips where one can go hull down or hide. Also its easier to evade missiles on greater distance than CQB.

 

ATGMs are dangerous but so are high tier shells which in general have higher speeds than rockets.

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

51 minutes ago, KH_Alan said:

Not necessarily if ability to shoot down missiles with MG is implemented.

 

Very open areas is not equal to flat areas. Mozdok is quite open map yet there are lots of dips where one can go hull down or hide. Also its easier to evade missiles on greater distance than CQB.

 

ATGMs are dangerous but so are high tier shells which in general have higher speeds than rockets.

 

agreed there , is why i said bad example for me to use , the ability to shoot atgm rockets well , the amount of work in the code that would need to happen for this would be hmm complicated to say the less 

 

Mozdok suits a particular style and tank arrangement i guess is what i'm saying and can be applied to most bigger maps , smaller maps do suit all vehicles and new maps , factory not included  are somewhat leveled this way 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

Whitie_W0lf   usually on every update improves  maps every patch be it textures , layers of cover improvements and so on  .  He is very open to suggestions on spawn locations and improvements &  so on so really want you guys to focus on these areas  at some point , and some of you have already 

 

Im very pleased with your guys conduct here and constructive approach to the thread , and i really must thank you all who are contributing  so far , im very pleased 

 

 

Upvoted ideas that you players upvote will be moved / copied to dev Q & A  from here 

[John_Q_ 1,535]

39 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

 

Upvoted ideas that you players upvote will be moved / copied to dev Q & A  from here 

 

A good question is about how will gaijin compensate for the lack of infantry - type threats against tanks. In my opinion, that s a really big problem for ground forces. Tanks are able to cut through urban areas really fast. I am talking about vehicles with little to none armor, like the m18 or the zsu 57. How can you compensate that with map design ? Maybe with the addition of ai AT guns inside cities? That s my question. 

[Tupoun 690]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

Whitie_W0lf   usually on every update improves  maps every patch be it textures , layers of cover improvements and so on  .  He is very open to suggestions on spawn locations and improvements &  so on so really want you guys to focus on these areas  at some point , and some of you have already 

 

Im very pleased with your guys conduct here and constructive approach to the thread , and i really must thank you all who are contributing  so far , im very pleased 

 

Upvoted ideas that you players upvote will be moved / copied to dev Q & A  from here 

 

I find this discussion very interesting with valid points. What I fear though as I read it - most people are experienced players talking about maps regarding RB. Open realistic maps are not suitable for AB. If you have big red label above your tank and well trained crews, you can snipe new players/guys with not so experienced crews pretty easily. If those changes should take the direction of vast open areas, it would harm AB. I still think most maps should have two slightly different variants - one smaller with more cover for AB, the other changed according the needs of RB. Talking about tanks of course. I can see it when I play some Mozdok maps - I take a position and take the low level players nice and easy with IS-2, they have problems to aim, I don't - well trained crew at my side (and in AB you don't need so much skill, just the calm to aim). Also the other valid argument for RB vastness - heavy tanks are clumsy in the towns, not so in AB. Players usually know, who is where and can adjust, which can't be done in RB. I love town maps in AB with heavies.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tupoun

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

33 minutes ago, JohnQ11939ChtBan said:

 

A good question is about how will gaijin compensate for the lack of infantry - type threats against tanks. In my opinion, that s a really big problem for ground forces. Tanks are able to cut through urban areas really fast. I am talking about vehicles with little to none armor, like the m18 or the zsu 57. How can you compensate that with map design ? Maybe with the addition of ai AT guns inside cities? That s my question. 

 

The m18 your first shot needs to be gunner /loader   full stop , granted they turn up at cap points firsts but they dont last long there , T34s are not far behind (BR arrangement )  to combat them . many players try to oneshot the m18 its just not going to be a thing to 100% effectively do this.     No AT won't happen , player awareness and knowledge of said tank is your compensation , this is the dynamic in game tank knowledge is key to your success , knowing repair time of said tank also improves your game  effectiveness , take out gunner loader , back off asses surroundings take a shot at any other tank advancement and then re concentrate on the m18  

 

war thunder is not a FPS  .. we have many publishings to allow you to know each tank's strengths and weakness  , this is key to this game 

 

 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

28 minutes ago, Tupoun said:

 

I find this discussion very interesting with valid points. What I fear though as I read it - most people are experienced players talking about maps regarding RB. Open realistic maps are not suitable for AB.

 

correct this is why we predominantly try to cater for all round functionality of a map , its a very hard task to accomplish and everyone should know and   take this into consideration , we cater for one type and good bye war thunder 

[Stoikc 1,469]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

war thunder is not a FPS

it's tps for ab and rb.

 

is there a slight chance for making runways longer? i wasn't playing Brits lately, because of fix of M60A1. But i am pretty damn sure, that landing a Hunter on Korea and Abandoned Factory is a lot of fun. kappa.

[Dezzantibus 471]

3 hours ago, Tupoun said:

 

I find this discussion very interesting with valid points. What I fear though as I read it - most people are experienced players talking about maps regarding RB. Open realistic maps are not suitable for AB. If you have big red label above your tank and well trained crews, you can snipe new players/guys with not so experienced crews pretty easily. If those changes should take the direction of vast open areas, it would harm AB. I still think most maps should have two slightly different variants - one smaller with more cover for AB, the other changed according the needs of RB. Talking about tanks of course. I can see it when I play some Mozdok maps - I take a position and take the low level players nice and easy with IS-2, they have problems to aim, I don't - well trained crew at my side (and in AB you don't need so much skill, just the calm to aim). Also the other valid argument for RB vastness - heavy tanks are clumsy in the towns, not so in AB. Players usually know, who is where and can adjust, which can't be done in RB. I love town maps in AB with heavies.

 

Agreed. Also the style of play is different between RB and AB in one particular aspect (among others of course): team play.

 

@Hunternz mentions that changes are made to force teamplay, but that happens less on AB games, even with the changes to the maps. This makes some maps less fun to play, especially if they come up more frequently in rotation. One can't teamplay by oneself if you see what I mean.

 

there is a thread elsewhere on the AB GF section that laments people going for sniping points and ignoring objectives. I see this happening more and more frequently. In one particular game (Ash River) nobody was trying to capture the southern cap. Seeing everyone hanging around behind rocks around the cap point I tried to make a rich for it and hide behind the big rock on the cap point itself, I thought that with an almost spaded M24 I had a fairly good chance due to the speed.

 

As soon as I put my head out I was shelled by at least five different directions. 

In that match the southern cap point was not captured at all.

 

In my experience modifications to force team play don't work well in AB because there is little of it anyway. You will find people that will do it, indeed, but a lot of AB players see it as a tank based FPS and play accordingly, by trying to rack up as many kills as possible, and "yeah, someone else can capture that".

 

I suppose one could call it Sheldon syndrome: "this is my sniping spot"

Edited December 28, 2016 by Dezzantibus

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

1 hour ago, Dezzantibus said:

 

Agreed. Also the style of play is different between RB and AB in one particular aspect (among others of course): team play.

 

@Hunternz mentions that changes are made to force teamplay

 

 

A player who knows a map and layout of said map can do very well , given there ..how you say more comfortable vehicle  and knowledge , change spawn and cap locations on said map  bring a new dynamic to the map , a thing war thunder players seem to miss but then say they  want change in threads .   Adaptability on your part enhances the realism , emerse yourself as well .  Take a player like me . I personally would love to see voice communications in game session  but not game lobby  , real time commands  from maybe player who have achieved a certain level can voice over instructions , this player must have achieved  x amount of tasks  or what ever . wow we super have gone off topic , my bad 

 

^^Apply restrictions on that concept as much as you want 

[Dezzantibus 471]

I agree with what you say in principle. What I said above was in the context of map design.

 

AB play style is different also in the level of teamplay from RB. What I'm saying is that making changes in maps to force/promote teamplay will have different results in the two modes, because while you'd be hard pressed to find players in RB playing like "quake in tanks" there are plenty in AB.

 

What I'm saying is that maps also have to account for the less teamplay in AB and still be enjoyable. I don't object to changes per se (despite what might seem from other messages I posted!)

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

" my experience modifications to force team play don't work well in AB because there is little of it anyway. You will find people that will do it, indeed, but a lot of AB players see it as a tank based FPS and play accordingly, by trying to rack up as many kills as possible, and "yeah, someone else can capture that".

 

 

Economics of the game is the core of your post but nicely  put elegantly like , AB RB economics are solid both in fairness and winnability (yeah that's a word ) 

 

Team play in AB is more then RB and SB  purely because of the game mechanics for said mode , one cant argue with a challenge   "that means war"  it can be insanely intense   and with new visibility introductions past ,  arcade mode is full on adrenaline you could say , if intuned  (also a word) 

 

 

 

 

[Godman_82 9,389]

6 hours ago, Hunternz said:

the ability to shoot atgm rockets well , the amount of work in the code that would need to happen for this would be hmm complicated to say the less 

Complicated or not, I believe it doesn't matter, it should be done. It's the same thing that multi-point penetration - without things like this we will never see a balanced game. Because tanks are made with huge precision, so in order to keep their real pros and cons, the environment should be also precisely done. Otherwise tank modellers should take a step back and simplify every model, like in WoT, without any holes or openings. But I don't know how would we simplify the WT world to make ATGM vulnerable to MGm, so imo - it just have to be coded.

 

Physics is another thing that needs to be fixed quickly, if we are talking about making the maps more playable. For example - Ash River has three levels, and the highest is made very high, with steep cliff, so tanks can't move from highest to mid level (except the passages). Of course You can't go up this cliff, but You can slide down pretty easily. Now if AB players like their engines to be +25%, maybe they also like the idea of gravity -50%, but I bet most if not all RB/SB players would love to see some damages done to a 30-80 ton tank sliding almost vertical for 15-20 meters. Even if tank itself would not be harmed greatly, the crew surely would be hurt, injured and probably unconscious. If plane pilots can lose control, similar things should happen to tankers. 

 

 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

13 minutes ago, Dezzantibus said:

I agree with what you say in principle. What I said above was in the context of map design.

 

AB play style is different also in the level of teamplay from RB. What I'm saying is that making changes in maps to force/promote teamplay will have different results in the two modes, because while you'd be hard pressed to find players in RB playing like "quake in tanks" there are plenty in AB.

 

What I'm saying is that maps also have to account for the less teamplay in AB and still be enjoyable. I don't object to changes per se (despite what might seem from other messages I posted!)

 

BR range and player skill level on a map need aye algorithm ( Matchmaker )  with this match maker some may see + 1 vehicles(typically long rage engagement ) because of BR an MM  then med rang vehicles support close range , and then well our litle guys  4.3-5.3 5.3.6.3  good  fighting BR range all nations , thats where the mosy fight is , raw figh for me 

[Volfram42 196]

I am usually play only SB.

I have problems with the very artifical maps. Just the 3 lines moba maps. If I can I just leave and join the waiting queue again. Because of this I don't know this maps. I don't have an opinion about them.

 

However I like a lot of the maps. But I don't like the artifical and unlogical man constructed elements. All of this is an immersion breaker for me.

Maybe it's just my problem, but I want to share.

 

Some quick example.:

 

Eastern Europe. One of my favorite map, but. We have 14 bridges. Why?

One little town maybe 500 population have 14 bridges. In the middle of the twentieth century. Not just in the town, around the town too. I think this is a very advanced infrastructure. I live in central Europe in a 8k population town next to the Danube. If I want to go across the river I need to travel 18 kilometers.

They have two bridges (the western one) beside each other. I never see this kind of architecture in my life.

 

 

 

 

And a lot of poligons used needlessly.

 

 

 

However, there are a lot of low bridge in the village and next to them immediately one very high bridge. This is not very logical for me.

 

Tunisia. I want to love this map, but.:

 What is this? Maybe two kidneys in a digestive system? This area is inhabited for thousands of years. The only fresh water coming from the river and the population cultivated the land. But here in the game world they just rolling a lot of huge rock because tanks need cover. I think in this game we have one of the best armor penetration system ever (I hope the Godman_82 kinds proposal will be success sometime), but the mighty brave tanks need to use impenetrable rocks. Why?

I just use google earth and take a picture from one random river in Tunisia. I don't see rocks just a lot of agriculture. 

 

Many other things are illogical, but I think this is enough because maybe this is just my problems.

Thank you the patience and sorry for my english.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Volfram42

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,758]

2 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

Complicated or not, I believe it doesn't matter, it should be done. It's the same thing that multi-point penetration - without things like this we will never see a balanced game.

 

Here is a bombshell for you , balance has a percentage , now that's in life , in history , in chemistry , it is linear to its purpose  and applications be it a game or RL .

 

its an issue in  algorithms &  linear programming

 

[LordMustang 7,398]

In 1.65 lots of maps were shrinked in RB, like Hürtgen, El Alamein and Eastern Europe. I really, really miss the old Hürtgen. Right now it's only the town, which limits your playstyle. Same goes for Eastern Europe. It's city or die.

Edited December 28, 2016 by LordMustang

[Godman_82 9,389]

15 minutes ago, Hunternz said:

 

Here is a bombshell for you , balance has a percentage , now that's in life , in history , in chemistry , it is linear to its purpose  and applications be it a game or RL .

 

its an issue in  algorithms &  linear programming

 

Yes, but it one factor is missing from the equation, You can't have a good result  Tanks are set up to specific BR according to their mobility, firepower, armor and so on, but amount of holes which can lead to unrealistic penetrations - not  IT-1 rocket is exposed, and the whole vehicle can be covered. In RL the fact, that it is very low and can be fully covered is a pros, while exposing the rocket launcher without any protection - a con. In WT it is not a con, as You can't much much about it, and it's another missed factor.

 

Place two football players on ice and let them play. Who will win, better footballer, or the guy that will be able to stay on ice and not fall down when kicking?

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

1 hour ago, LordMustang said:

In 1.65 lots of maps were shrinked in RB, like Hürtgen, El Alamein and Eastern Europe. I really, really miss the old Hürtgen. Right now it's only the town, which limits your playstyle. Same goes for Eastern Europe. It's city or die.

Yesterday, when i saw the new el alamein and hurgen i realy wanted to cry. Maps are not interesring anymore. there is now ton of spawncamping, at it hapens relitively early in the battle now. also, hurtgen is now limited to city combat, much less opportunities in el alamein as well. why do these changes for RB and SB? i get AB, but other 2 modes are suposed to be realistic to some extent.