Remove Map Banning.

[ОG 23]

Hello all!

 I come here today with a bit of a concern. I play a lot of top tier Japan & Russia and seem to have noticed in recent times, We play the same maps over and over again more than before. 

Now we play the same 5 maps over and over again...Poland(both variants), Alaska/Ground Zero, Ardennes, Normandy, Stalingrad...

Let me just say, I really appreciate these maps & do not mind playing them!

 

I however mind playing ONLY them. 

So many people have GREAT top tier maps banned such as Fire Arc, Maginot Line, Surroundings of Volokolamsk, Fulda, Pradesh, Red Desert. You get the picture, Big maps with actual thinking involved!

 

With so many people having these maps banned, Not because they are bad, but because it doesn't fit their COD type thinking and it subjects us to a very small amount of maps.

 

I don't think that map banning will be removed. I'd just like to see some sort of change. 

 

 

edit:

Or increase the amount of maps we can ban, We we all have further control of what we play.

 

Edited March 26 by felOn

[CoffeeBean100 2,893]

(Remove the red)

2 minutes ago, felOn said:

With so many people having these maps banned, Not because they are bad, but because it doesn't fit their COD type thinking and it subjects us to a very small amount of maps.

 

Also, I don't think any player knows how map rotation is formed or what the majority bans. One thing to remember is the rotation of available maps alters on a regular basis so why it might be some are not available; not all maps are available at all times.

 

You just have to roll with the majority, you can't win this one regarding map sizes, the majority have spoken (probably).

[ОG 23]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeBean100 said:

(Remove the red)

 

Also, I don't think any player knows how map rotation is formed or what the majority bans. One thing to remember is the rotation of available maps alters on a regular basis so why it might be some are not available; not all maps are available at all times.

 

You just have to roll with the majority, you can't win this one regarding map sizes, the majority have spoken (probably).

 

It's just very unfortunate that If in a map rotation, Lets just say Volokolamsk is in current rotation. Out of 100 games, you MIGHT get it once or twice.

 

While some folks including myself, Like those maps don't get to play them because people I don't know say I cant. Lol.. 

 

But people would rather just play Poland over and over and over.

 

 

[CmdrVince 341]

10 minutes ago, felOn said:

With so many people having these maps banned, Not because they are bad, but because it doesn't fit their COD type thinking and it subjects us to a very small amount of maps.

 

I don't think that map banning will be removed. I'd just like to see some sort of change. 

 

Map rotation is about as random as you could get. You don't know what's on your plate for that day, or week, or month, or whatever. Saying that people are banning all these maps just because you don't see them is an illogical, and frankly, false point of evidence. 

 

I don't think as many people as you think have these maps banned. The only few maps I can think of that WOULD be widely banned are Vietnam, Fire Arc, and Italy. And that isn't because "oh big hurr durr" it's because they just don't have appealing map design (spawn to spawn fighting, easy to spawn camp, poor point placement, etc) 

 

And finally, you could never get away with doing away with the map ban. So many people fought so hard for it. Plus, map dislike and like is really only to collect information about what maps are and aren't popular. They don't do anything except for some very rare things, like the removal of white rock fortress (which I am very sad about) or the removal of and redoing of Volokolampsk (also sad about, but I'm happy it at least got readded into the game). 

[ОG 23]

3 minutes ago, CmdrVince said:

Map rotation is about as random as you could get. You don't know what's on your plate for that day, or week, or month, or whatever. Saying that people are banning all these maps just because you don't see them is an illogical, and frankly, false point of evidence. 

 

I don't think as many people as you think have these maps banned. The only few maps I can think of that WOULD be widely banned are Vietnam, Fire Arc, and Italy. And that isn't because "oh big hurr durr" it's because they just don't have appealing map design (spawn to spawn fighting, easy to spawn camp, poor point placement, etc) 

 

And finally, you could never get away with doing away with the map ban. So many people fought so hard for it. Plus, map dislike and like is really only to collect information about what maps are and aren't popular. They don't do anything except for some very rare things, like the removal of white rock fortress (which I am very sad about) or the removal of and redoing of Volokolampsk (also sad about, but I'm happy it at least got readded into the game). 

 

 

I've done quite a bit of small polling, amongst all the discords I am in, my squadron, random games...

 

It's almost always  Fire Arc, Maginot Line, Surroundings of Volokolamsk, Fulda, Pradesh, Red Desert.

 

On top of the map rotations, It further burdens the games content. All because people don't like it. While I am sure not everyone has one of these banned. The majority do, or it feels like.

I'd like to see an actual statistic on map bans.

 

[CmdrVince 341]

2 minutes ago, felOn said:

 

 

I've done quite a bit of small polling, amongst all the discords I am in, my squadron, random games...

 

It's almost always  Fire Arc, Maginot Line, Surroundings of Volokolamsk, Fulda, Pradesh, Red Desert.

 

On top of the map rotations, It further burdens the games content. All because people don't like it. While I am sure not everyone has one of these banned. The majority do, or it feels like.

I'd like to see an actual statistic on map bans.

 

You and your friends are not the community (70 million+ players). 

Anything they say does not apply universally, and statistically is an incredibly poor representation of what players want. If gaijin hasn't removed them, then there is probably a reason (not disliked enough/people do like it). After all, they have more than enough maps to remove two or three from rotation to rework them.

 

Plus, the new Maginot line is actually Goated. It was an incredible redo. Props to the dev team for making it so cool. Even if they only made it less wide.

[ОG 23]

5 minutes ago, CmdrVince said:

You and your friends are not the community (70 million+ players). 

Anything they say does not apply universally, and statistically is an incredibly poor representation of what players want. If gaijin hasn't removed them, then there is probably a reason (not disliked enough/people do like it). After all, they have more than enough maps to remove two or three from rotation to rework them.

 

Plus, the new Maginot line is actually Goated. It was an incredible redo. Props to the dev team for making it so cool. Even if they only made it less wide.

Surely you just missed the part where I said I ask people in game and other discords all the time or the part where I said "The majority do, or it feels like"

 

That aside, The new Maginot line is great. Just wish they'd quit shrinking it.

[CmdrVince 341]

Just now, felOn said:

Surely you just missed the part where I said I ask people in game and other discords all the time or the part where I said "The majority do, or it feels like"

Yes, but feels like doesn't mean is.

 

The best way to put map banning and map rotation is as stated by Coffeebean

 

The problem, all in all, ISN'T map banning. It's Map Rotation. Which is perfectly acceptable to have quarrels with- but don't remove a feature the community seemed to have enjoyed (as many requested it and many more are requesting more map bans) just because you THINK it affects you and what maps you see (and the YOU isn't directed specifically at you, more just to the general populace who believes in eliminating the map ban). 

 

Also we need to remember that you need to have premium in order to use the Map Ban feature. A good bit of players don't have premium. So that's just more of a point that it isn't map bans but map rotation.

[GNDM [email protected] 829]

No, I want to ban more maps. 

 

All of them are trash. Some of them are more insufferable than others and even as a premium account holder I only have the option to ban 1 map? That's nonsense. I'd like to have the option to ban up to 3 maps, though ideally I'd like to ban 5 maps, but 3 would be a reasonable middle ground.

[ОG 23]

1 minute ago, GNDM [email protected] said:

No, I want to ban more maps. 

 

All of them are trash. Some of them are more insufferable than others and even as a premium account holder I only have the option to ban 1 map? That's nonsense. I'd like to have the option to ban up to 3 maps, though ideally I'd like to ban 5 maps, but 3 would be a reasonable middle ground.

Even then, It would be easier to be able to force the playing of other maps, Im tired of playing poland, normany, staligrad? let me ban them 3 for a bit. I could be on board with that lol.

 

Queue times to the moon!

[GNDM [email protected] 829]

1 minute ago, felOn said:

Even then, It would be easier to be able to force the playing of other maps, Im tired of playing poland, normany, staligrad? let me ban them 3 for a bit. I could be on board with that lol.

 

Queue times to the moon!

 

You still seem to be under the false pretense that premium players banning maps impacts queue times. No, it doesn't. Never has. 

[ОG 23]

5 minutes ago, GNDM [email protected] said:

 

You still seem to be under the false pretense that premium players banning maps impacts queue times. No, it doesn't. Never has. 

 

 

If 10 people have 10 maps banned while 20 people are in queue, and those other 10 people have the opposite maps banned, in theory, if map banning works how its supposed to. (it does, I've never played a map I have chose to ban)

 

It impacts it. 

Edited March 26 by felOn

[GNDM [email protected] 829]

3 minutes ago, felOn said:

 

 

If 10 people have 10 maps banned while 20 people are in queue, and those other 10 people have the opposite maps banned, in theory, if map banning works how its supposed to. (it does, I've never played a map I have chose to ban)

 

It impacts it. 

 

It doesn't, and you have no proof otherwise that proves it does. As it is, your stance has no solid ground for you to stand on. 

[ОG 23]

4 minutes ago, GNDM [email protected] said:

 

It doesn't, and you have no proof otherwise that proves it does. As it is, your stance has no solid ground for you to stand on. 

 

 

In that case, Neither does yours. I know when I ban a map, I do not play it. So theory becomes a reality.

 

So given that FACT.

 

Anything you say is just to be argumentative against a fact, or rather than speculation.

Edited March 26 by felOn

[GNDM [email protected] 829]

2 minutes ago, felOn said:

 

 

In that case, Neither does yours. I know when I ban a map, I do not play it. So theory becomes a reality.

 

So given that FACT.

 

Anything you say is just to be argumentative against a fact, or rather than speculation.

 

You can't pull an uno reverse card here, fella. Don't even try. 

 

The only evidence I need to provide against your stance is to point at current queue times; Anywhere from tens of thousands to a couple hundred thousand players matchmaking at once and running matches where the current MM is getting matches going anywhere within 10 seconds to 45 seconds on average throughout all BRS and PvP modes - With exception to Naval due to it having a nonexistent playerbase. Your claims that map banning affects that is utter nonsense and you have no evidence to prove otherwise. 

 

Now you can either admit you're full of it or you can keep coping and believing that denial is a river in Egypt. Either way you are both subjectively and objectively wrong.

[rUl3r 297]

12 minutes ago, felOn said:

 

 

If 10 people have 10 maps banned while 20 people are in queue, and those other 10 people have the opposite maps banned, in theory, if map banning works how its supposed to. (it does, I've never played a map I have chose to ban)

 

It impacts it. 

You merely assume that map banning impacts queue times to a relevant extend. Your "example" is completely absurd, because you have no argument to backup your assumption.

Also, I will go as far as to say your assumption is wrong. The likelyhood of a massive impact on queue times due to a part of the playerbase banning a single map each is less than slim. The wiki lists almost 50 GF maps, and that list isn't even complete. A small number may be on overhaul atm, but that doesn't matter. It's safe to assume there are at least a dozen maps in the rotation at any given time. This shows how unrealistic your made up numbers are.

[ОG 23]

8 minutes ago, rUl3r said:

You merely assume that map banning impacts queue times to a relevant extend. Your "example" is completely absurd, because you have no argument to backup your assumption.

Also, I will go as far as to say your assumption is wrong. The likelyhood of a massive impact on queue times due to a part of the playerbase banning a single map each is less than slim. The wiki lists almost 50 GF maps, and that list isn't even complete. A small number may be on overhaul atm, but that doesn't matter. It's safe to assume there are at least a dozen maps in the rotation at any given time. This shows how unrealistic your made up numbers are.

 

Impacting queue times or not.

 

It impacts the game & what the people play. In mere theory if map banning worked the scenario I laid out would have a significant change in queue times; given map banning works how it is supposed to.

 

You can't argue numbers, It doesn't work.

 

Is it significant, probably not. Is at some degree it a viable issue, yes.

 

What I stated is factual. People ban maps, they don't play them, Gaijin doesn't put them in those games having selected map bans for all parties involved, Queue trying to find a common ground map could be difficult unless the vast amount of map bans are the same with the repetitiveness of maps, They do. 

[Bunny 宝妮 1,476]

I'm not sure about top tier, but some maps I've seen are seriously unsuitable for mid-BR. Campania, the Maginot Line, the Fulda Gap, the Fire Arc, and the Sands of Sinai are infuriatingly difficult to play in low- to mid-high BR due to the extensive driving required to reach the capture zones. Furthermore, if you secure the capture zone after the initial contact with the enemy, you will immediately begin pushing their spawn. The entire journey from your spawn to the capture zone is much more dangerous than maps like Poland (you are fully exposed to any enemies camping near and around the capture zones; it is either your team has good enough CAS to remove them one by one or is really good at sniping at far range). There are also maps, such as the Second Battle of El Alamein, where the terrain is extremely mountainous and unfriendly to Soviet tank players.

While I understand your point about the frustration of playing the same map over and over, I don't want to risk my chances by playing in the maps mentioned above, which require a lot of driving while having little cover. If you paid attention during battles on the above-mentioned maps, you will have noticed a significant increase in the number of 1-death quitters.

 

To be honest, I believe the queue time is long because squads play in tri- or quad-nations. I'd seen too many newbie squads go US + Germany + Soviet Union + UK in ground RB (it is exactly squads like this that cluster the entire queue and force mixed matches).

Edited March 26 by LadyValencia

[ОG 23]

14 minutes ago, LadyValencia said:

I'm not sure about top tier, but some maps I've seen are seriously unsuitable for mid-BR. Campania, the Maginot Line, the Fulda Gap, the Fire Arc, and the Sands of Sinai are infuriatingly difficult to play in low- to mid-high BR due to the extensive driving required to reach the capture zones. Furthermore, if you secure the capture zone after the initial contact with the enemy, you will immediately begin pushing their spawn. The entire journey from your spawn to the capture zone is much more dangerous than maps like Poland (you are fully exposed to any enemies camping near and around the capture zones; it is either your team has good enough CAS to remove them one by one or is really good at sniping at far range). There are also maps, such as the Second Battle of El Alamein, where the terrain is extremely mountainous and unfriendly to Soviet tank players.

While I understand your point about the frustration of playing the same map over and over, I don't want to risk my chances by playing in the maps mentioned above, which require a lot of driving while having little cover. If you paid attention during battles on the above-mentioned maps, you will have noticed a significant increase in the number of 1-death quitters.

 

To be honest, I believe the queue time is long because squads play in tri- or quad-nations. I'd seen too many newbie squads go US + Germany + Soviet Union + UK in ground RB (it is exactly squads like this that cluster the entire queue and force mixed matches).

 

 

Thank you for well thought reply.

 

You're 100% right, Some maps fit specific tanks better than others, while that doesn't mean you should only play maps significant to your needs.

 

We end up in this position we are in now. People in chat constantly complaining about the same maps (myself included) over and over and over, All from banning maps.

 

If you're going to offer the option of banning maps, Make it where you can ban at the very least 3. As stated above, I then can control the constant spam of playing the same maps over and over while everyone else can ban what they don't want.

 

 

 

 

[_Zekken 698]

2 hours ago, CmdrVince said:

Map rotation is about as random as you could get. You don't know what's on your plate for that day, or week, or month, or whatever. Saying that people are banning all these maps just because you don't see them is an illogical, and frankly, false point of evidence. 

Its most definitely not random, when I havent seen some maps in literally months (pradesh, surroundings of volo, red desert) but I can almost guarantee ill play on maps like Seversk 13 or Carthipans at least once but often twice in any 10 game session I play regardless of day or time. And I ended up banning Breslau because while its not my least favourite map, I was getting it so often that I was completely sick of it and had to force the game to let me play on literally ANYTHING else

 

[SlayerMkX 9,944]

tHe MAp roTAtIoN iS rANdoM!

 

 

 

12 matches.

 

8 map repetitions.

 

Out of 8 matches, 4 have been Golden Quarry.

 

There are more than 50 maps and this match maker still manages to spam the same maps over and over.

[ОG 23]

3 minutes ago, SlayerMkX said:

tHe MAp roTAtIoN iS rANdoM!

 

 

 

12 matches.

 

8 map repetitions.

 

Out of 8 matches, 4 have been Golden Quarry.

 

There are more than 50 maps and this match maker still manages to spam the same maps over and over.

 

 

It's causing such a snooze fest...

 

I like quarry. I don't like quarry 4/8 times.

Even for air, Where the map doesn't matter as much 

 

3/6 Games, Pyrenees.

 

[CmdrVince 341]

20 minutes ago, _Zekken said:

Its most definitely not random, when I havent seen some maps in literally months (pradesh, surroundings of volo, red desert) but I can almost guarantee ill play on maps like Seversk 13 or Carthipans at least once but often twice in any 10 game session I play regardless of day or time. And I ended up banning Breslau because while its not my least favourite map, I was getting it so often that I was completely sick of it and had to force the game to let me play on literally ANYTHING else

 

I should rephrase. I did not mean random as in literally random. I meant random as in we have no clue how it works. Clearly there is some logistics to it- but we don't know what they are or how they function. It is random in the fact that it isn't know, therefore it cannot be accurately predicted to a high enough degree.

[Bunny 宝妮 1,476]

24 minutes ago, felOn said:

 

You're 100% right, Some maps fit specific tanks better than others, while that doesn't mean you should only play maps significant to your needs.

I was actually thinking about adding more covers to the maps I mentioned above and slightly shortening their overall length (at least for mid-BR) to make it more appealing to the player communities. It's very frustrating to drive for three minutes and then die in 30 seconds in first contact with the enemy team (people might call it skill issues, but everyone messes up every now and then).

[ОG 23]

3 minutes ago, CmdrVince said:

I should rephrase. I did not mean random as in literally random. I meant random as in we have no clue how it works. Clearly there is some logistics to it- but we don't know what they are or how they function. It is random in the fact that it isn't know, therefore it cannot be accurately predicted to a high enough degree.

 

Looking over, There are roughly 40 maps open to Top tier gameplay, the obvious ones removed

Say for 5 days, I manage 50 games per day without changing my BR. (250 games)

 

I will be very liberal here and say 15-20% of those maps will represent 95% of my games. That leaves me playing a map unique to the current popularity contest of 13 times & maps I am tired of 237 times.

 

9 minutes ago, LadyValencia said:

I was actually thinking about adding more covers to the maps I mentioned above and slightly shortening their overall length (at least for mid-BR) to make it more appealing to the player communities. It's very frustrating to drive for three minutes and then die in 30 seconds in first contact with the enemy team (people might call it skill issues, but everyone messes up every now and then).

 

 

I think that adding some spawn items to help assist in some of these maps would drastically help bans. Even maps like Poland, Whoever controls the area where C is, Controls either both eastern spawns or 1 western.