Change tank maps back to the way they used to be?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
1

I remember the tanks maps used to be very open, no off limits areas where if you didn’t turn around your tank would be destroyed. Why would they change this? Because a bunch of cry babies wouldn’t shut up about getting shot or killed from areas they didn’t know how to get to? I always thought that that was just a part of the game! You have to find the best vantage points from which you can hit your enemies while making it hard for them to hit you.

This is a war/strategy game, if you limit what players can do and where they can go, doesn’t that take away from the experience of it? Its impossible to use a lot if strategies now because players can no longer get to places to get a good shot at the enemy. Isn’t part of war being able to get the best firing position to shoot your enemies without being seen or getting shot at? What’s the point of having all these big maps if parts of it are inaccessible? When I was new to tank battles, I had to learn where the good shooting spots were, just as I had to learn where the bad spots were; it was just part of the game!

If people want to whine and complain that something isn’t fair because they don’t know as much about a map as others do, let them complain! It doesn’t take a genius to figure out these things, just watch your teammates and learn from your mistakes, that’s how you grow to become a better player in any multiplayer game! Why isn’t Gaijin able to understand this? My 13 year old nephew was able to understand all of this and he has never even played! He has only watched me play, but he was still able to figure out that you needed to learn to get better at the game. If some players aren’t able to do that, why should everyone have to change to accommodate them? That’s just absurd!

I want to know what other people think about this, so go ahead and comment, tell me what you think. Is Gaijin doing the right thing by changing the game to make it easier for some players, or are they making a mistake by ruining parts of the game for the majority of the players?

19 Likes
2

Yes I agree ,change them back.Lose the red zones ,edge the borders with rocks,rivers, mountains etc .Bring back the cover for SP guns.Every body seems to hate the maps but Gaijin wont do a damn thing about it.its a real shame GRB /Arcade and Low tier and High tier share so much.

1 Like
3

I don’t see them putting any such limits on sea battles; your ship can go where ever there is water as long as your keel doesn’t hit the bottom, that’s just common sense! In air battles, if you go high enough you don’t suddenly get a warning that you’re too high and its unfair to those with aircraft that aren’t able to climb as high/fast. That’s part of having a wide variety of aircraft; not all of them perform the same way! If you had limits on the altitude at which all players could fly at, that would make the concept of height advantage completely useless! Same thing with boom and zoom! So why is tanks treated differently? Some tanks are faster than others, they didn’t change that. But some tanks have the ability to go up steeper slopes than other tanks, and suddenly you have entire sections of a map that are blocked off so you aren’t able to use your tanks full potential to get the best advantage you can get? I’m honestly having a lot of trouble just trying to wrap my head around this, never mind seeing why you would do it. It makes no sense to me at all.

2 Likes
4

Why? it was less fun. Huge and open just means there’s a million ways to sneak around the entire map with no reasonable counterplay, and spawncamp. It doesn’t matter if I know the map, if it’s big enough, I physically can’t be everywhere and covering everything, so you just will get through for free.

This is a war/strategy game

In a real war, you can’t just go way around the map no matter what, because there’s usually an entire division of enemy troops spreading out across a large part of the whole horizon, stationed both far away and near. Unlike in War Thunder. Or eventually you hit the sea or a mountain.

So you’re not missing out on any historical experience, in most cases. You usually have to actually face enemies… not just magically get behind them 100% of the time. Learn how to do both, as needed.

If people want to whine and complain that something isn’t fair because they don’t know as much about a map as others do

Sounds like you’re just describing yourself. In urban maps. Learn the urban maps as well as others do, get better at CQC, and you won’t have issues anymore.

to make it easier for some players

CQC isn’t any “easier” than flanking is. The win rate in all types of maps is 50%, against all the same player pool. They’re all equally easy/hard.

2 Likes
5

We need good maps, not larger maps. Large open maps are incredibly boring and skill-less at high tiers with the current design of most of them.

Large maps will not work with war thunders current gameplay design and loop. You need to get close to play the objective, and it will lead to camping on large maps.

Gaijin also doesn’t design large maps well at all too, because on many maps there are large areas of dead space where you can’t go.

2 Likes
6

The only maps which had their borders decreased in size were the single-cap maps. It was always bizarre that they had they same playable space as three-cap maps, so this fix was long overdue.

7

I remember the days when maps where so accessable, you could always go around and flank someone who was not careful enough or had noone to watch their back. (likewise you could retreat and avoid a dangerous target, which you could not take on head on)
I had a lot of fun games flanking in my Tiger I and countering light tanks, who did not expect you there. You were able to outplay the enemy by predicting their next move and doing the exact thing you needed to get around them for another flanking shot in your fast, but undergunned light tank.

That’s all in the past now. These days I drive 10s, sit behind a hill and wait for the enemy to pop up. :(
It lost a lot of flavor, because there is not much thrill left. I am always driving at the edge of the map while still being in close quater fights. A shame. I’m 100% for bringing back more room to manouver.

8 Likes
8

There were a few others that got smaller, but the changes were neutral or positive.

Hurtgen, Sinai, and Mozodok all got slightly smaller, but they didn’t get worse, and even got better in some places.

1 Like
9

In real war there aren’t out-of-bounds areas, though.

CQC is 100% easier than flanking. In CQC there are less areas that people can attack you from and the only thing you have to do is peak corners. Flanking requires constant movement between sparse cover, all the while being incredibly loud due to the movement, in addition to being much easier to spot and shoot.

The win rates of all maps is 50%, because there are two teams per match and only one gets to win. What do you mean?

3 Likes
10

And? I was simply explaining why he is not missing out on any “real experience” by being denied his favorite strategy here due to recent map changes.

In CQC there are less areas that people can attack you from

I don’t even know what you’re talking about, that’s not true and I don’t even know how to address it because I can’t think of how you arrived at that belief.

the only thing you have to do is peak corners.

If you just peak one corner after another and do nothing else, then I can hear your engine, realize that you’re just moving along happily, and cut around behind your direction of progress, where you aren’t peaking the corner anymore behind you, and kill you. So no, this = failure if that’s “the only thing you do”

This is all irrelevant to argue about though, because the proof is mathematically objective: your win rate in CQC is 50%. Your win rate in a flanking map is 50%. Your opponents are the same people in both cases, all equally good at WT, since maps are randomly assigned. So by DEFINITION, it’s equally difficult.

The win rates of all maps is 50%, because there are two teams per match and only one gets to win. What do you mean?

Yes, that’s why all maps are equally difficult. Because you’re fighting the enemy, not the map, and the enemy is always equally skilled as you on average, and has all the same advantages and disadvantages as you do.

11

yeah bro, they removed my sniper secrit spot on Japan.

2 Likes
12

I never liked Karelia before and I still don’t like it now, but the new rocks added in the change make it a bit more tolerable. Sands of Sinai removing the sniping spots on the western side is a mild bummer but I also don’t miss it very much. The only map change I do want reverted back is the foliage density in Jungle map.

13

Ahhhh yes. Have a number of places that you can only get to with a guide on Youtube and hold a pixel angle.

Then I bet you’ll come on the forums and complain about revenge bombing from CAS.

3 Likes
14

So good maps butcherd for the stupid and so many we simply dont see anymore.

5 Likes
15

Flanking is despised by a large part of the playerbase because they wear horseblinders and lemmingtrain down the middle of the map.

When you accept this fact it becomes very understandable why people want channelled choke point maps and possible play area/flanking routes removed and shrunk.

3 Likes
16

But having “out of bounds” is literally unrealistic. In real war there are no “out of bounds” to stop flanks.

Uh, here are some CQC sightlines versus trying to flank (or just not being in a CQC setting):

CQC -
MapLayout_Domination_Alaska_ABRBSB

Non-CQC -
MapLayout_Domination_SandsofSinai

Flanking -
MapLayout_Domination_Ardennes_ABRB

So exactly the same thing with flanking, only you are more covered and make less noise as you’re moving less?

No, saying “there is only one winner and one loser” does not mean they are equally difficult. It’s like comparing a math competition of purely elementary level math versus PhD level math - there may be one winner and one loser, but one is infinitely easier.

17

Firstly, yes there are often out of bounds areas. Called forests, ridgelines, cities (which you want to avoid at all costs even if you physically could drive through), etc.

Secondly, even when there aren’t, there’s just a different set of things USUALLY stopping you from flanking behind the entire enemy line.

  • Mostly “That there’s just even more enemies off to the side, ad nauseum, stopping you from casually going around the side” – so the realistic experience in game is to fight people more so head on, since you’d have to do exactly that in real life if the enemy line stretched out for miles and miles.

  • And also supply lines not included in game. You will run out of gas and need tankers to get more and so on, and so cannot be hanging around in a tank behind enemy lines for meaningful periods of time.

The end result is that you sometimes cannot do a type of fighting that… people usually ALSO don’t do in real life. So you’re not missing out on anything super realistically important. Sometimes you can flank, often you can’t. Both in game and in real lfie.

CQC / Non-CQC

Great, now erase like 80% of those lines in the second Sinai diagram, because they point to gigantic open fields where nobody would be camping in a million years, as they would have no cover. So are not realistically relevant. And you will then be back at something pretty similar to the diagram above it.

So exactly the same thing with flanking

I didn’t say it was MORE 5-brain than flanking. I simply was pointing out that “AlL yOu haVe to dO is PeaK a fEw corneRs” was preposterous. You have to do all kinds of things. Yes, pretty much “exactly like [you do in] flanking” They are equivalently complicated to master and difficult playstyles.

It’s like comparing a math competition of purely elementary level math versus PhD level math

No, because all these maps go to the exact same player pool. My comment was not referring to everything ever in life in any context, it was only meant for the context of War Thunder. In War Thunder, it’s the same enemies in both these maps, from one hour to the next, because they are randomly assigned. In your example, you completely changed the field of opponents from “elementary kids” to “PhDs”. That is not analogous to this situation.

GIVEN THAT your opponent pool is exactly the same in both cases, it is instead “PhDs” vs “also the same PhDs, but a slightly different area of math being quizzed than last time” = same difficulty.

It would only change difficulty meaningfully if your opponent pool changed, which it didn’t.

18

maybe if there was a reason to be out in the middle of nowhere

19

Yep, that’s about what I could observe once the game started blowing up. It saddens me still. I have left WoT because of this tunnel map fetish. :(
Well… my adaptation followed foot.

1 Like
20

Of which 99% of the ‘new’ map changes do not involve those types of ‘out-of-bounds’ (there are no massively dense forests in game).

But there aren’t more enemies off to the side, the battles in game involve one fighting group going against another.

But the distances in game measure ~10km at most, and capture points/spawn points can act as storage caches.

People have to go out in the middle of nowhere to get to C, plus there are dunes (which is why I tried to most of the sight lines that ran into elevation changes).

Did you miss the “in CQC there are less areas that people can attack you from” part?

It’s not though, as CQC is just easier. There are less areas you need to pay attention to, it requires less map knowledge, and people can just camp (not to mention there is no need for paying attention to elevation at all, with the extra dimension of difficulty elevations changes add).

Putting a PhD level student into an elementary math competition will result in both them and an elementary student doing well, but when the elementary student is put into a PhD level math competition they will do poorly.