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

[A_Cute_Chihuahua]

@SpeclistMain

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

I am speaking functionally not aesthetically. A red zone FUNCTIONS the same as any of these things, and your end experience is about the same in this regard.

But there aren’t more enemies off to the side

If you consider dunes enough to hide behind effectively, then again, delete 50-60% of your lines, since YOU can be assumed to be hiding behind dunes etc. where YOU are, and in between you going to anywhere else. You can’t have it both ways. Either:

• Dunes are insufficient, meaning they are hanging out in the breeze and thus wouldn’t generally be there.

• OR dunes are sufficient, they aren’t hanging out in the breeze, but then neither are you, so they can’t actually attack you from all those places if you can’t attack them in all those place.

Pick one.

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

It wasn’t “missed” it was “wrong” ^ see just above

There are less areas you need to pay attention to

1. Not true (see above)

2. But for sake of argument, even if it was true: that would mean there are also less places you can go while being overlooked by the enemy. So you’re in more danger and more pressure from the other side, too. When facing equally skilled opponents (Same player pool), this would cancel out your advantage.

Both invalid and unsound.

It requires less map knowledge

1. Lol no

2. Again, for sake of argument, even if it did, it STILL wouldn’t matter, because that would mean more of your OPPONENTS would be able to effectively kill you even the ones with little map knowledge. Again, completely canceling out the benefit, since the enemy also would have that benefit.

Both invalid and unsound.

and people can just camp

1. So can they in an open map… so although true this time, that wasn’t a difference.

2. And your ENEMY can also “just camp”, providing just as much of an obstacle to you as vice versa. If you “just camping” stopped them from getting to a point when they need to to win, them camping YOU just as often stops YOU from getting to a point when you need to win about half the other situations.

Invalid

Putting a PhD level student into an elementary math competition

Again, this is a bizarre and pointless analogy. There is no crossover, there is no suddenly totally different competition. Both types of maps have the SAME enemy pool. Your competitors never changed from PhD to elementary or vice versa. Your oponents stayed the same, I don’t understand how you’re not getting this. Maps are randomly assigned, it’s the EXACT SAME people you’re facing in all maps. You were having a linear algebra contest vs a PhD, now you’re having a calculus contest vs a PhD.

[EddieVanHalo]

I get bored of hearing how we have to have one type pf map but not another
I dont consider myself a great player but I will at least take the time to unlock the secrets of every map eventually and that I feel is the key.

No matter how much you may hate a map initially bear with it because you will simply learn how they work.Its a shame so many don’t do this and all the effort the map maker put in is wasted and the maps are torn apart later to accommodate the whiners.

CQC or big and open ,all good as far as I am concerned. What I do hate is War Thunder’s constant tinkering which means map knowledge is worthless and you waste time going to a point at which was there yesterday and gone today.

I also think it is a shame that choice is being removed in the game and its all becoming very Mobile phone in terms of game play.

If you want to get a Flak 88 and sit on the edge of a big map behind a bush and fish for targets then fine ,its no crime and it will either work or backfire.

I make my line ups to suit what ever map may come. My only real recommendation would be to have maps that may reflect the era of the vehicles but that will never happen.

I did hate the narrow red line maps but I am playing the Jagdtiger currently so maybe it will work out for me there.

My final input would be to only change maps once every six months unless new and let us get used to them. Dont scrap maps because of whiners ,they may be favorites for others or at least have a vote on the issue.

[ItsOnyy]

How are big maps skill less? Using the terrain to your advantage is the whole point of tank on tank engagement, imagine a light tank, ATGM carrier or a tank destroyer being forced to engage in short point-blank ranges all the time, they might as well not be in the game anymore since no map would support their play style.

Big maps account for almost everything, close, mid and long range. Everyone wins. Low tier gets a smaller portion and top tier gets the full map like Tunisia. I will agree that all maps in general are bad, and we really need new ones that aren’t just remakes like “Holland”, old maps just don’t work for 9.0+ BR gameplay.

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

I am speaking functionally not aesthetically. A red zone FUNCTIONS the same as any of these things, and your end experience is about the same in this regard.

Cool, but if the maps were real places IRL 99% of the current out-of-bounds would not actually be out-of-bounds.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

If you consider dunes enough to hide behind effectively, then again, delete 50-60% of your lines, since YOU can be assumed to be hiding behind dunes etc.

I already tried to do that as much as possible going off of the topographical map, but ok.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

It wasn’t “missed” it was “wrong” ^ see just above

All you said was that they are some how equally as complicated, while acknowledging that they are not equally complicated: “I didn’t say it was MORE 5-brain than flanking,” but also “they are equivalently complicated to master and difficult playstyles.”

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

that would mean there are also less places you can go while being overlooked by the enemy.

It means it is much easier to do CQC, yes.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

When facing equally skilled opponents (Same player pool), this would cancel out your advantage.

The player pool being the same has no bearing on player skill, though, nor does it have any relation to how well your specific tank does (from a design perspective) in CQC. A Russian tank is going to be better at CQC because it was designed for it, therefore it is easier for Russian players.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Again, for sake of argument, even if it did, it STILL wouldn’t matter, because that would mean more of your OPPONENTS would be able to effectively kill you even the ones with little map knowledge.

So again, CQC is much easier than flanking. Thank you for again proving my point.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

And your ENEMY can also “just camp”, providing just as much of an obstacle to you as vice versa. If you “just camping” stopped them from getting to a point when they need to to win, them camping YOU just as often stops YOU from getting to a point when you need to win about half the other situations.

Flanking by definition means constant movement and being completely open to being shot, not camping. It’s not a counterargument.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Both types of maps have the SAME enemy pool.

Which matters because? CQC is easier than flanking, enough said. People who are skilled enough for flanking will probably do well at CQC, but players who can only do CQC are probably not going to do well at flanking. That’s without getting into vehicle design doctrine.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Maps are randomly assigned, it’s the EXACT SAME people you’re facing in all maps.

You aren’t facing the “exact same people,” because people have different skill levels, CQC is just straight up easier than flanking, and vehicle design doctrine is different.

[EddieVanHalo]

@ItsOnyy

How are big maps skill less? Using the terrain to your advantage is the whole point of tank on tank engagement, imagine a light tank, ATGM carrier or a tank destroyer being forced to engage in short point-blank ranges all the time, they might as well not be in the game anymore since no map would support their play style.

Big maps account for almost everything, close, mid and long range. Everyone wins. Low tier gets a smaller portion and top tier gets the full map like Tunisia. I will agree that all maps in general are bad, and we really need new ones that aren’t just remakes like “Holland”, old maps just don’t work for 9.0+ BR gameplay.

Some people have no patience and in reality little skill.If its not in front of them ready to just hit the fire button they are not interested,You share the game with such people and the forum and that is why the game is failing currently.

The devs have no leadership and can’t decide which section of the community they want to appease so it becomes a directionless mess which is the best way to describe War Thunder currently.It’s all getting very mobile phone game presently.

Show me the money as quickly as possible.

[cheseburgeer]

+1

[Ion_Protogen]

@ItsOnyy

How are big maps skill less?

The majority of the time they devolve into camping and peeking. You can’t use skill when the maps don’t allow you to. There isn’t skill involved in camping and using an LRF.

Gaijin does not design good big maps. There are a couple that are “drive for 10 secs and shoot at an enemy who just left the spawn,” such as large Tunisia, or Pradesh sometimes.

@ItsOnyy

Big maps account for almost everything, close, mid and long range. Everyone wins. Low tier gets a smaller portion and top tier gets the full map like Tunisia. I will agree that all maps in general are bad, and we really need new ones that aren’t just remakes like “Holland”, old maps just don’t work for 9.0+ BR gameplay.

I do agree that big maps can accommodate most play styles, but gaijin just doesn’t make good maps. However they are not the only solution. The solution is better maps, both big and small.

Small maps often have no cover and have lots of corner peaking, with very little terrain. Large maps often have lots of spawn sniping, and many large areas where you can’t go.

[EddieVanHalo]

@Ion_Protogen

Small maps often have no cover and have lots of corner peaking, with very little terrain. Large maps often have lots of spawn sniping, and many large areas where you can’t go.

Is there not room for both? I actually enjoy large open maps but then I can see the cover in a gently rolling set of hills where others may not. Im sure good WT players can also. Also what is wrong with taking a vulnerable SP gun and trying to hide and snipe ? That is what they do and are made for.They have been forced out of the game lately.

People criticize players for not using the M18 or Leo 1 incorrectly and relying on armour all the time but what alternative is there now? So how do you use the Leo 1 correctly on new maps with no cover and no flanking opportunities ?

Everybody is free to have preferences but the game choices are being removed and I don’t see that as progress.

[A_Cute_Chihuahua]

@SpeclistMain

All you said was that they are some how equally as complicated

“Somehow” = People already gravitate to the few places that have good pop-out cover, not open fields or big rolling hills. There are about as many of these places in both map types.

Not as some sort of law of nature or something, but because Gaijin pretty clearly designed them to have roughly the same amount of cover in a give area of the map. When a city doesn’t have enough, they add a rubble pile so it does. When a country map doesn’t have enough, they put a low stone barn or a rock there, etc. It ends up about the same, on purpose. Since people sit in these spots, there’s about equally many places you can get reasonably attacked from.

The player pool being the same has no bearing on player skill, though

It literally has 100% to do with player skill. What on earth are you talking about “Who the players are has nothing to do with their skill” lolwat? Skill is a function of a player… What ELSE do you think has a bearing on player skill other than “who the player is”?

people have different skill levels

And you’re facing the same mixtures of them in both maps. In your flanking friendly map, 20% of the enemy team is on average very good, 50% is meh skill, 30% is terrible, or whatever. In your CQC map, ALSO 20% is very good, 50% meh, 30% terrible… because the enemy team is drawn from the same pool. Like, I don’t know how to ELI-5 this any more than I am here.

how well your specific tank does

Tanks that consistently do too well go up in BR, so there is no tank that performs significantly better.

Flanking by definition means constant movement and being completely open to being shot, not camping.

1. No, it literally by definition means “To be or get onto the side of something”. And then in the context of War Thunder, usually people use it in a way where the “something” is assumed to mean “the whole enemy team/enemy lines”, not “just one tank a block over”. So: playstyles where you move around the outer parts of the map to get onto the side of the enemy team. You can, should, and flankers almost always DO, then proceed to camp and stay behind cover once they reach that side-viewing flank position.

2. In the quote you quoted, I was referring to CQC anyway, though. The point was that yes you can camp in CQC, but the enemy can also camp you in CQC, and you both gain exactly the same degree of advantages and disadvantages overall, so it has no impact on difficulty, since your pros and cons from this cancel out.

[RocketLawnChair]

Wow, this has been a much bigger topic of discussion than I thought it would be. A lot of good points being made, but I think that some of these things are more opinion than fact. Not everyone has the same playing/combat style, which makes a huge difference on how they would view many of these things. Another part of it is that different situations require different responses/actions, which, again, can completely change things. I think that it’s fair to say that there are many different arguments, and all of them could be right or wrong depending on what BR, what map and what vehicle is present. I guess there is no one universal answer to this.

[EddieVanHalo]

Only thing I can say is that most maps I played stayed pretty much unchanged for a long time.So all we had to do to improve as a newbie was learn them.
By learning them we unlocked the secrets of the game and we got our feet in the door so to speak.

OK many of the so called broken spots were “Fixed” and maybe that was good but then it came down to serious copium and bowing to those who simply could not be bothered to put the work into this great game as it was then and it was a great game.

The options you had,wow ,so may styles of play for the cowardly,the foolhardy,the timid ,the ultra competitive all were included ,no one forced method of play.
Even Stona would proudly defend it on here citing freedom of choice as the aim of the game against the whiners and rightly so ,it was player freedom to do what you wanted.You had choice and freedom,if you got it wrong tough ,your fault go again.

CAS was there if you wanted it but there was plenty of cover on many maps to hide from it if you didn’t and CAS was cheap and easy so even a poor pilot like me could eventfully get into it. .New players had forests and foliage to hide behind to take stock and plane their next move or maybe grab their only kill of the game from cover.(Poland,Normany etc) We had big open maps ,small close quarters(White rock castle was great) and you were expected to get used to them all if you wanted to be
somebody on this game.

Gaijin had some balls back then I guess ,you took the game how it was to a degree and you had to put the work in,It is a hard game,some may say brutal but that made for a sense of achievement when you got good at it. Now they fold to any lunatic suggestion and whiny kids who want it handed to them on a plate.

Game is losing its appeal and so many are bailing and many long term players are bailing out and leaving it to the stupid where it now belongs.

Sorry for the ramble but I was very much a WT fanatic not so long ago,I spent a fortune : ) and its a shame to see how just a few changes killed off an amazing addictive game.The pros outweighed the cons not that long ago but now its even at best.

I hope Gaijin will turn it around not for my sake as much their own. They had a good thing going on.

[Italy_Suffers]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

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%.

Maybe yours is?

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

since maps are randomly assigned.

haha no they are not.

[Italy_Suffers]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

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.

Complete fabrications

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

No, it literally by definition means “To be or get onto the side of something”.

Which necessitates getting to the side, meaning moving to the enemy’s side where (during the flank) you are vulnerable.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

“Somehow” = People already gravitate to the few places that have good pop-out cover, not open fields or big rolling hills. There are about as many of these places in both map types.

But that doesn’t have anything to do with flanking, which by definition requires being vulnerable through rapid movement.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

You can, should, and flankers almost always DO, then proceed to camp and stay behind cover once they reach that side-viewing flank position.

Potentially for a time, but then you need to move as you are easy to target by people further back. Flanking requires near constant movement.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

The point was that yes you can camp in CQC, but the enemy can also camp you in CQC, and you both gain exactly the same degree of advantages and disadvantages overall, so it has no impact on difficulty, since your pros and cons from this cancel out.

But CQC is easier because there are less variables to think about, not that one side of the map necessarily has an advantage over the other. In CQC there are less areas that you can be shot from, you have an easier time moving around/keeping yourself out of sightlines of others; there are also minimal elevation changes in CQC as they are most often in an urban setting, so you don’t have to factor in whether you will be able to have the gun depression to hit someone nor do you need to think about higher-up spots where people can look down at you to shoot.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

It literally has 100% to do with player skill. What on earth are you talking about “Who the players are has nothing to do with their skill”

The player pool =/= player skill, though, and since who you face is (mostly) based on you nation, and nations have different vehicles that were designed under different doctrines.

I was responding to the “There is no crossover, there is no suddenly totally different competition. Both types of maps have the SAME enemy pool,” part, where you imply that the competitiveness of a player pool does not change based on whether you are playing on a CQC or flanking map.

If you play a nation that gets matched up against the USSR often, that USSR player pool will perform better in CQC than they will in maps that are built more around a mix of open and CQC (i.e. good flanking maps).

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Tanks that consistently do too well go up in BR, so there is no tank that performs significantly better.

But that’s not what I’m talking about, I’m talking about the design doctrine of a nation’s vehicles. A nation that designed their vehicles in the doctrine of CQC is going to do much better on a CQC map than a more open or mixed-area map all other things being equal; the majority of the recent map changes have been moving the gameplay more towards CQC, and this is frustrating to the players of nations whose doctrine isn’t CQC (and to people who like the game being fair). I mean the frustration around said changes is why OP made this thread.

[_chaotic]

The mapdesign is just a business design decision. At least it feels like it. IMO pretty obvious.
The one who is the looser is the one who is playing on these types of maps. Doesn’t matter which side he is playing.

Removing good and interesting positions and not replacing them is just a very bad decision by someone who doesn’t care about that.

It doesn’t matter if the map is big or small. If you remove interesting positions and sterilize everything to cater the statistics doesn’t make the game better just worse. Especially in the long term.
But of course the one who is responsible for this decision either doesn’t care about that or is just completely incompetent. But what you gonna do ?

I would rather play on a small map with one corridor only with frontal confrontation but with really good and interesting mid to longrange positions than this CQC trash nowadays. That’s not combat thats like playing a lotterie.

TBH i don’t mind map changes. I don’t care about changing positions if there are coming alternatives. But just removing them and even deleting more vehicle player choice out of your game is just bad game design. I do have enough time to find the new spots but if there are none anymore why even playing.

[A_Cute_Chihuahua]

Which part was a fabrication?

• you’re fighting the enemy, not the map <— this one? Do you fall in rivers as your main way of dying a lot in game?

• the enemy is always equally skilled as you on average <— This one? You think Gaijin has a special conspiracy where they bring out the best players when YOU specifically are playing?

Which part?

[A_Cute_Chihuahua]

Potentially for a time, but then you need to move as you are easy to target by people further back. Flanking requires near constant movement.

Nope, the most successful flankers I ever see, and the most successful when I do it too, even, is when you get to the best god tier spots and do. not. move. at all until you eventually get killed, while taking like 3 more guys with you on top of the other 11 you got earlier, as they try to root you out because it’s a god spot.

In CQC there are less areas that you can be shot from

We were already arguing this. No new points made, just just re-stating your conclusion without actually continuing/replying to the last thing said on this topic = pointless. [Skip] until/if new points.

The player pool =/= player skill

Yes it it is straight up exactly =. Skill is a factor of the player. If you meet the same mix of players across situations, whatever their various skill levels, the skill of your average opponent is the same across situations.

who you face is (mostly) based on you nation

Nations have been equalized and had their average skills canceled out and matched already by the BR algorithm. Because if a nation’s vehicle does way too well (due to the nation’s players being highly skilled) it goes up in BR. So at a national level, skill is normalized out by BR and it doesn’t matter what nation you’re on or facing. Average [skill + compensating handicaps or crutches from the BR] faced is the same.

That is not true on a 1 by 1 player level, because we don’t have individual SBMM, but we do have team level SBMM, so teams are all washed out to gray.

nations have different vehicles that were designed under different doctrines.

1. This isn’t “skill” anyway, even if relevant. You were trying above to act like it was a PART of your “skill not being equal” point, but it is vehicle design that is completely separate from player ability.

2. This is also compensated out already by BR. Vehicles’ BRs are already overwhelmingly based on them being played on the maps they’re designed for, since people have these cool things called “lineups,” and they bring out the vehicle that is best for the map the large majority of the time. Nobody brings out an SU-100P to brawl in a city map, unless they’re making a funny youtube video or are kinda dumb. They bring out a brawling tank instead. So then the brawling tank gets its BR data from brawling maps, and the SU-100P gets all its BR data from sniping situations, so the BR is already tailoring to those specialties.

(I mean, “knowing not to bring an SU-100P to brawl” is I suppose a very very very minimal level of skill, but not counting that since 98% of players should have that much skill)

doctrine of a nation’s vehicles

Doctrines would be much more important if the game randomly assigned you a vehicle from your lineup. In actuality, nobody is making you spawn a KV-1 for flanking, or an SU-100P for brawling, or a PT-76 for frontline spearheading

[eqS729gYidXuT2BN]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Nope, the most successful flankers I ever see, and the most successful when I do it too, even, is when you get to the best god tier spots and do. not. move. at all until you eventually get killed, while taking like 3 more guys with you on top of the other 11 you got earlier, as they try to root you out because it’s a god spot.

And they would’ve lived if they moved from that one spot.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

We were already arguing this. No new points made, just just re-stating your conclusion without actually continuing/replying to the last thing said on this topic = pointless. [Skip] until/if new points.

CQC: Has to check signtlines, but only a few of them.
Flanking: Has to check sightlines, but tons of them.

Therefore, flanking is more difficult even if they both technically have to check sightlines.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

This isn’t “skill” anyway, even if relevant. You were trying above to act like it was a PART of your “skill not being equal” point, but it is vehicle design that is completely separate from player ability.

Some vehicles are designed under the CQC doctrine → because CQC is objectively easier, they will rely on CQC → they become less skilled than the players of nations that focus on movement or long-range fighting, which is objectively more difficult.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Yes it it is straight up exactly =. Skill is a factor of the player. If you meet the same mix of players across situations, whatever their various skill levels, the skill of your average opponent is the same across situations.

It very much depends on the nation you’re playing and the BR. The average 6.0-6.7 German player is going to be garbage compared to a top tier Italy player.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Nations have been equalized and had their average skills canceled out and matched already by the BR algorithm.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

This is also compensated out already by BR. Vehicles’ BRs are already overwhelmingly based on them being played on the maps they’re designed for, since people have these cool things called “lineups,” and they bring out the vehicle that is best for the map the large majority of the time.

This is blatantly untrue, there are tons of problems with the BR algorithm.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Nobody brings out an SU-100P to brawl in a city map, unless they’re making a funny youtube video or are kinda dumb. They bring out a brawling tank instead. So then the brawling tank gets its BR data from brawling maps, and the SU-100P gets all its BR data from sniping situations, so the BR is already tailoring to those specialties.

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Doctrines would be much more important if the game randomly assigned you a vehicle from your lineup. In actuality, nobody is making you spawn a KV-1 for flanking, or an SU-100P for brawling, or a PT-76 for frontline spearheading

I highly, highly doubt that people are purely playing “brawler” tanks only on CQC or purely “snipers” on more open/longer-range maps. That is just wishful thinking.

[Italy_Suffers]

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

Which part was a fabrication?

@A_Cute_Chihuahua

the enemy is always equally skilled as you on average, and has all the same advantages and disadvantages as you do.

---

[A_Cute_Chihuahua]

@SpeclistMain

And they would’ve lived if they moved from that one spot.

The goal of the game is not to live, it’s to win. Yes I can move and live all game almost 100% if I hide under a tunnel somewhere nobody looks and go AFK lol

CQC: Has to check signtlines, but only a few of them. Flanking: Has to check sightlines, but tons of them.

I have no idea why you believe flanking has any more sightlines to worry about at all. It’s the same types of areas of the maps, you’re just to the side of the enemy. That’s it. Being to the side of the exact same area of the map doesn’t change the number of sightlines.

Some vehicles are designed under the CQC doctrine

Literally just not what the word skill means.

The average 6.0-6.7 German player is going to be garbage compared to a top tier Italy player.

You wrote this as a reply to “Skill is a factor of the player”. So… you just agreed with me then. Cool, nice, moving past this point then.

This is blatantly untrue, there are tons of problems with the BR algorithm.

Such as? At very very top tier and at 1.0, where they don’t ALLOW the algorithm to do its job, there are problems, but that’s not even a problem with the algorithm, that’s a problem with Gaijin NOT using the algorithm.

I highly, highly doubt that people are purely playing “brawler” tanks only on CQC or purely “snipers” on more open/longer-range maps. That is just wishful thinking.

I said nobody MADE you bring the wrong tank. Yes, people do, but that’s again a player component. Like I said, skill is player based. That includes “using lineups badly” and “bringing the wrong tank”, that’s a player decision, not some inevitability of your nation, or the map.

The relevance to the thread is that you were not screwed over by the map design, if so. You were screwed over by YOURSELF if you brought the totally wrong tank into the game for the map. You can fix that flaw on your own by getting better at using lineups, you don’t need Gaijin to change the maps back for you to fix this problem.