Do our community really favors small maps?

Game Discussion Realistic Battle
,
270

No, its false. Its not challenging, but rather empty and frustrating. Most of the time, you wont meet many opponents, and most of the time they would either camp near the capture point, or you will camp near capture point.

False. OLD techs, like Tiger 1, were build for 1km engagements. Them NOT SO modern MBTs like T-62 were build for 2km engagements. Modern MBTs arent build for engagements whatsoever, what modern combat records show perfectly.

False again. You are not allowed to further decision making after you chose the route. You wont be able to move to different route (get killed because moving on empty space much), or you wont just make it in time. Then again, what is most frustrating is that your “root choise” doesnt matter as much as you lack the info about the spread of the enemy team, so you just throw a D6 on if you WILL meet enemies or you wont. And that randomness plus that you WONT be able to change route either makes you play effective and even interesting if you`re lucky, or spend 10 minutes on 1 kill and 9 minutes of driving on empty space.

you sure can, to the extent that you come camp the spawnpoing without meeting anyone. Or get sniped because, you got it already, moves on the empty space, and one who doesnt move has all the advantage.

Its just false. Its MUCH easier to camp on a large map because your enemy wont be able to shoot you anyhow lethal. On the low tier is because you ALREADY know the distance and they dont and need to make several target shots. On the top tier because your tank is so mobile you wont let them make a good shot.

Thats for sure

And thats te point: everyone is forced to use their mobility on the CQC, which makes it POSSIBLE to change routes quickly, get flanks with kills and counter them.

Thats just false. On teh big maps, your only engagements are either VERY far or just FAR. Anything close means you already played too bad.

1 Like
271

Why do you assume large maps have to have no cover? Current poor designs does not rule out better designed larger maps.

Why is this a bad thing? Isn’t that what team-mates and scouting is for?

1 Like
272

Not related to size. e.g. Attica is more empty than Rhine.

Letting light armour heavy cannon TDs and/or missile carts camp make them playable.

Traditional arcade FPS logic ought to be frustrating.

Sounds like Attica

Yea it’s Attica

You know we already have a red zone extending to 1/4 of spawn to spawn length on some length, yet it’s so small that people can drive it through in a minute right?

Or how will you make TOW carts playable?

At the same time doesn’t change the fact that wt is already a game where, by FPS logics, promotes small camping a lot and punishes rushing the camper.

By the extra 50m that won’t even compensate for spawn positions?
By roaring the engine for everyone to hear you?
By shortening the time from respawn to frontline, cancelling out the effort?

273

Because its a fact. I dont assume, i see that ingame.

The post isnt about a magic world future where devs suddenly make better maps, its about the current state of the game. Plus, there is basicaly no way to create a big map in tank shooter game that doesnt have empty spaces between points of interests, without creating bottlenecks that are as much bad for big maps as empty spaces

Because it causes matches where you dont do anything and leave

On the start of the match? I may misunderstand you, but, again, on big map you basicaly have single spawn as second one either will be camped on the spawn or will not make it in time to the point of interest. So on that first spawn, at the start of the match, you pick a route, and current map design doesnt allow you to change routes mid-game without becoming a turkey in moorhuhn. Your team cant give you scout info for at least several minutes until they get to the points. So you either lucky to pick a route where there will be a fight or not lucky and spend 10-15 minutes by driving emptyhanded.

Related in basic terms. Big maps DO have more empty spaces (both procentially and physically) than small maps. Between small maps there are differences in amounts of empty spaces for sure, but same can be said between big maps also. But without a doubt any big map has more empty space as it is just, like, bigger. So more emptiness more camping through half the map.

Light armor heavy cannon TDs are fine camping streets and/or routes on small maps too. Of coruse on some better than on others, thats no doubt, but certainly thats much more frustrating for active player to get killed on that huge garbage map that doest allow him any movevent, but does allow his light armor big cannon TDs to camp his spawn.
Them missile carriers are… Well depends. Some play good enough on small maps too (M113s, Wiesels, IT-1s ect), some are just garbage and dont look good on big maps either (Zachlam, Type 60 ATM, ect).

Yes, attica is pretty bad map entirely

I dont know about TOWs, but im pretty sure with my AFT09 and IT-1 that it is not only possible but even fun to play on small maps.

Thats right! The mechatic of oneshot is basically promoting passive gameplay. So big maps being EVEN MORE focused on that is HUGELY a red flag.

By being a sneaky bastard all around the map, and not ending up in the only bushed up location on the entire huge map (hello big european province)

Exactly! Letting both get such players more kills and be able to counter such players.

1 Like
274

Please don’t post ChatGPT generated responses in a discussion thread. If you have an argument to make, make it yourself.

6 Likes
275

I guess you haven’t played many maps then.

Well so what? You sound like you want an underground railroad to your destination.

Sounds like you should be playing Arcade…

276

Either that or the big maps ingame are garbage, yes.

So, in the game that is a tank shooter with oneshots, having places that favour camping with huge distances without a chance of return fire is a red flag.

I like arcade, its fun to play sometimes.
But then i can play small RB maps and get same level of tactical mobility :3

1 Like
277

Big maps are only “garbage” because of the game’s insistence of retaining the system of spawns in one area and objectives in another. We could have far larger maps without the “5+ minute drive only to be one-shot and then told to do it again” complaint if we simply took a page from one of the best shooters to ever be made: OG Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Make current spawns into caps, and make current caps into spawns for the controlling team. Give every team one spawn under control by default and have the rest be neutral, exactly like OG SWBF2 maps did. To prevent “we won by building a rampart of our own dead” scenarios, give people a 2-minute timer upon death for using the spawn zone they picked previously. That way a person cannot infinitely spawn on top of a “command post” (borrowing the SWBF2 name for lack of a better one) to prevent its capture by the opposing team.

This allows maps to get much larger while eliminating the “mind-numbing drive back to action only to be killed by a bush” that makes people hate large maps. Now the front line actually moves.

This also solves much of the spawn camping problems, and opens up new tactical flexibility - if you clear a flank, you can now capture the enemy team’s rear-most spawn zone to shut down their reinforcements. Some maps quite literally demand you spawn-camp even when you may not want to in order to keep the cap zones secure (Japan is a perfect example). And, once their rear spawns are taken, now your team has encircled theirs.

We have tons of giant maps modeled in the game already - we just need objective design to be able to use them well. Make big maps actually fun for most people, and community opinion will shift over time. This solves countless issues in the game such as SPAAGs running hog-wild in cities, the excessive barrel-sniping making armor less useful than it should be, and helps solve CAS problems because tanks are no longer fish in a barrel waiting to be bombed.

278

Thats actuallty a brilliant point, but with three downsides:

  1. battlefront logic of spawning implies LIMITLESS spawns, which is not the case in WT
  2. battlefront doesnt have oneshots, even snipers dont kill yoy that easilly there.
  3. it still doesnt change the fact that maps now are just empty fields, so spawning at empty space would kill you in an instant in WT

So its not ony “respawn logic” but the core gameplay of the game.
Also i just thought of that: battlefront logic implies that people still would barge to CQC to fight, so whats the point of huge map if all action would still take place on capture point bottlenecks?

Im all for the limitless spawn gamemode but it would require some work to be done with maps and core gameplay.

Altho i can see your point, you still miss to notice that neither OG nor modern Battlefront have big maps. Like, actually big. YOu can run through the entire map from spawn to spawn in two minutes.
Battlefields, on the other hand, have some examples of HUGE maps, but they still are smaller than current big maps of WT. And the SIM BATTLE MODE tank maps are just twice bigger than biggest battlefield maps.

1 Like
279

The forced close quarter maps are absolutely horrible imo.

We are using modern tanks that can fire accurately 2km away in close quarter corner peaking layouts which realistically would only be used in that environment with infantry support.

Eastern Europe, Maginot Line are good map designs, because you have the long rage area of the map or the close quarters if you wish to play like that. Tunisia map Large is also an excellent.

Some close quarters maps, like Breslau, can still be very interesting, because they provide long range corridors.

On the other hand, Sweden for example is an awful map, that barely provides any vertical cover as well and multiple flanking routes at most positions.

5 Likes
280

This is what I hoped to upend with this idea - a typical [Domination] map with 2 spawns per side and 3 caps now becomes 7 objectives that serve both roles for the team controlling them. The point isn’t to remove CQC entirely - it’s to segregate it in its own “lane” like original (large-size) Maginot Line did, where CQC is only one of the three objectives. If you took large Maginot and applied the OGBF2 logic I propose to it, you get five open caps, one semi-CQC cap, and one CQC cap.

OG SWBF2 didn’t literally have limitless spawns, teams did have a total respawn pool. And while we both remember it fondly, it did have some problems - the ability to spawn again the literal millisecond you died meant it was impossible to win any match via any means other than deathmatch. Naval EC uses objectives not much different than OG SWBF2 (it’s funny enough where I was reminded of Command Posts), and you see the same problem - a single player who is stubborn enough can prevent an entire team from capturing a port town objective via an endless “rampart of his own dead.”

I don’t personally mind one-tap kills - if I’m going to die because I messed up, just get it over with and don’t make me suffer thinking I might be able to survive when I won’t due to barrel damage stupidity.

We need more open space on maps with at most gently rolling terrain, akin to the open section of Sands of Sinai - there is some degree of hard cover, but it’s not obnoxious Fields of Normandy/Poland hedgerows or [Insert Random Urban Map] #8492. Tanks are supposed to engage at longer ranges, because urban combat should be near-suicidal with all the places an infantryman with a bazooka could hide.

As I have not played the Battlefield series, are those “huge” maps still truly huge even from a tank perspective without the fantasy mobility buffs or HP bar nonsense Battlefield loves to use? If so, and provided said maps are not claustrophobic CQC nonsense like War Thunder’s, sure, why not add some of those in?

My ideal is large Maginot, even in the lowest BR ranges, and maps significantly larger than Red Desert would be what we see in high tiers. To prevent excessive complaints of “AFK drive via YouTube for 10min only to come back and see tank dead,” maps that size would not be limited to 7 “command posts,” but perhaps many more. Naval EC shows you can add as many caps as you want to the game engine.

1 Like
281

well du, you use the tank that realistically takes 5 crewmen and has limited view and play it 3rd person. Huge maps bring the “one shot one kill” problem to the boiling point of “drive to get killed from that one exact pixel on the screen which you have NO WAY of competing with while moving”.

Eastern Europe isnt even a big map. And european province is just as garbage. I
worst thing about it is that you belive what you said.
Designes of those maps only work like that until maybe rank 5. Even there there are many problems with this, as the rangefinders start to appear, and L7-ish cannons do favour your camping. But anything further is complete mess :/
On european province, its basically IMPOSSIBLE to move to the “cqc” center city of the map from your spawn if its not your first spawn. And its HARD to get there if it IS your first spawn.
Maginot is just impossible to win back if you lost the center of the map with first spawn, as your spawns gets supressed with fire with basically any center or edge part of the map.

1 Like
282

Maginot never did that tho. Big Maginot, like basically ever y big WT map, did and does still suffer from the “first encounter” problem. Those who win the first encounter end up spawncamping other side. Big maps with fixed spawns do now allow you to encounter anyhow. And still the “open” side of the map would be a disaster no one wants to move until the game is basicaly won, as there are nothing to do but to wait until you get destroyed with someone who would appear with only a turret.

Tho i see how that can be changed, but it would require significant changes in the game mode as whole.

Yes, but one person did have a limitless spawns inside that pool. There was no one to say “you cant have more than 20 spawns”.

Well not exactly. The capture points were (and still are in the remakes) most important part of the win. Ive yet to see any BF or SWBF game won by kills with lost capture points. As capture points provide vantage points for the shooters and attract more kills.

I dont mind them too, but i also do embrace it as its a core part of the game, which balance is based on. And thus why i have questions about said big maps being needed as they do swing the balance weights to the camping, which kills dynamics and ruins the experience of the game.

No we dont. We already had that at the game: 1) fire arc got reworked, as it was impossible to play other than on super heavy tanks with small weakspots AKA tiger 2 and Ferdinand (others suffered), and even on lower tiers there were said balance problems.But then they let top tier tanks there… Short answer is it didnt work. And it was utterly the map you say is needed :/
2) every “fields” map and even maginot got reworked to add more terrain curves with the SAME problem appearance
3) Mozdok which had basically two hills and a straight road inbetween got removed

Game doesnt favour flat big maps. Especially on top tier.

Well the “panzerstorm” of battlefield 5 required you to move maybe 3 to 5 minutes to travel from the most left cap to most right cap on a tank, depending on the speed of said tank.
Its PRETTY big for that game, tho its still less than WT maps.

1 Like
283

Would be nice if we could at least like or dislike more than 3 Maps respectively when they’re already set on adding Maps in which Tanks suffer the most. But we can’t even get that

284

In my opinion, the map sizes should be adjusted to match the combat rating. In addition, the selection of maps should be adjusted (smaller maps should be removed—for example, the Rhine crossing is no longer included once the combat rating reaches 9.0).

285

In my opinion, I do generally prefer a larger map, as a lot of them allow for a greater range of positions and flexibility including those that’d suit MBTs with less gun depression (USSR, China), but I can work with almost anything other than Fire arc’s northern spawn.

286

The tendency of people to camp is something that does not need to be fought against so much - considering many nations’ entire design philosophy was essentially defensive camping.

Correct, this is where WT and OGSWBF2 will naturally differ.

In my experience it actually was, but maybe that’s because I usually play on singleplayer where the AI is twitchy-fast like that.

All nations benefit from having more room to move - the key is to have long sight lines with just enough terrain roll to enable flanking maneuvers around where the campers tend to sit. Sands of Sinai and Large Maginot do strike a fairly good balance here in my experience, but I focus on midtiers because top tier IMHO will always be a mess regardless of what snail does unless we all get 10x10km behemoths.

Kursk’s problem was that it was for the most part completely flat - it didn’t even have much in the way of mild terrain roll to give people any cover whatsoever save for the artificially raised railway lines.

Also, their change of the water level in the lower part of the map took away what used to be a good flanking route around the camping problem. Then meanwhile they took the worse of all solutions to try and stop the camping - clogging the map with bushes.

IMHO, giving Kursk a light terrain roll like Mozdok has, removing nearly all or all the shrubbery and small trees, and lowering the river level to re-open the riverbank flank route would be “good enough” of a compromise. The wooden village areas would be fine enough for people wanting to sumo-wrestle without the added shrubbery making people double-blind.

The entire game breaks anywhere near top tier, so as far as I’m concerned it isn’t worth discussing. Between darts flying around at up to 2 km/sec, varying forms of steel rain from suborbital CAS, helicopters having overbearing DIRCM, and the mockery of “balans” being “either the SAM or the A(T)GM will outrange the other,” I don’t think it’s fixable…

Interesting to note, thanks.

287

I get the feeling this is a placeebo.
I have Berlin, Attica and Stalingrad on “dislike” and get them all the time.

2 Likes
288

I wouldn’t be suprised if that System actually does nothing

1 Like
289

My fav map is Rhine, Poland, and European whatever not the big one oh and Ardennes.
For big maps Sun City and Big Desert map forgot what its called.