I would love to throw this question to Gaijin directly but not sure how or where.Is it a suggestion? I assume there is nobody qualified to answer among forum staff.
Gaijin point out that map alteration is made by the player base complaining or player input but where or from whom does this input come form and how is it fed to Gaijins devs?
If they don’t read the forum discussions and map feedback isn’t given as a suggestion then how is it given? Why do they make changes to popular maps and at whose behest do they do it?
Do you believe that criticism on the forum truly goes noticed by Gaijins Devs? Do Gaijin even have anything to do with the making of their own maps? Does anybody know?
Simply create or engage in a discussion threads pertaining to mission design within the designated gGame Discussion Section. For new missions on the dev server or alterations to existing missions, you can utilize the appropriate Section within the Dev Server Subforum. Should your thread attract significant attention, it is highly probable that Gaijin will take notice.
I would love to see an offiziell statement on that matter too.
Because all you read on the forums is users stating they want the opposite of the direction they are going with the map changes
But they also added a brand new variant that has a larger usable/playable area so it isn’t that bad.
Personally, I think that 90% of feedback I see is just bad because people don’t accurately describe the pros and cons. I see so many people complaining about removing an OP spawn camping spot on Mozdok, yet no one complains about the American Desert changes from a while back?
Ultimately, player discourse is merely regarded as “suggestions” by the development team. Such suggestions serve only as advisory input, with the final authority residing with the developers. If Gaijin deems their mission design to be both engaging and suitable, no player input shall be capable of altering their course of action.
People have been begging for modern long range maps for forever, and all we get are maps that you can see into spawns, flanking positions taken away, and map design reduced to straight lanes. Where are the modern battle, like 73 easting or more maps like the previous long range Sinai, to please the people that actually want to use modern vehicles how they are made to be used? Instead we are STILL playing modern vehicles on ww2 maps
To a certain degree: Yes. Afaik the community managers provide the devs with detailed feedback what is discussed in this forum.
From my pov they react very fast if something has a negative impact for gaijin and their business / economy projections. In opposition to that stuff with negative impact for players, it often stays unsolved for years (like RP loss if you start a new game before the “old” match is finished).
From my pov you see immediate action when certain exploits were revealed in the forum and gaijin is able to fix this within 5-7 days. Best example: Some clowns with VTOL aircraft exploited the RP bonus for landing and take-off and did nothing else in infinite loops. Was fixed within days.
Some other stuff got completely unnoticed for years - like the way too high damage on bases with rockets. Other stuff (like killing ai heavy tanks with a single 20 mm HE from the front in Air RB in 2022/2023) took them 8-10 months to notice and fix it.
Imho the main issue of criticism / feedback is that players and gaijin have different goals. Players want to have fun, gaijin wants to earn money.
Imho the current map design (in all modes) is tailored to accelerate player interactions (like in every shooter) and to support new players. You might agree that CQC combat maps reduce the experience advantage of veteran players as it avoids long range “turkey shooting”. Basically the probability to get a cap and use an aircraft allows rather new players to get some kills.
By avoiding too frustrating experiences and occasional kills for rookies gaijin increase the player commitment and allows them to create the illusion that buying a premium would be a suitable way to get more successful.
From my pov this strategy works perfect.
Idk if gaijin has outsourced map design or not - from my pov they either do it by themselves or set the parameters for the design by a 3rd party.
for me,fake input or very questionable inputs, we only see post complaining about how bad the map changes are since they started with it and we never see post complaining about X locations on maps (these which gaijin uses to make these bad changes)
“Use current map discussion” ,even though this one is not about any specific map in Eastern Europe ,always nice to see a thriving discussion shut down : )
There’s also no way to actually give input. Both for past and future changes.
And any feedback they do get is just bad. People can’t see the benefits of any map changes, it is like they are hard wired to think change=bad. They remove a spawncamping spot=bad bc map small. They add a newer and much larger/more usable version of Eastern Europe, well it must be bad because grrr change.
I just can’t think of any to be honest.I appreciate your stance on here but I am struggling.
I liked using the YAG or Flak gun to snipe from good spots but overall they were not brilliant for your stats just a bit of fun with maybe the occasional lucky game with 5 or 6 kills.Hardly game breaking.
The ability to fire across the map in Cargo port was fun if it came off for you.
Firing across the river in Eastern Europe was fun assuming you didn’t get out flanked your self and hunting those who crossed over was also fun and was an alternative to running with the pack all the time.It was all about choice and sometimes it worked and sometimes not.You can’t try to be clever in this game any more and that is a shame.
Removing places is just removing choices as far as I can see. That seems to be an irritating issue in the outside world as well.Just loss of freedom and self expression.
I do agree to a certain degree, but imho the player feedback as a whole ranges from pure rants to rather constructive feedback - whilst the majority is a rant combined with insults. It is therefore more than obvious that such feedback will be ignored.
I see the experienced wt players in the driver seat to convince gaijin that a pinned thread like “Map design feedback for Ground RB” (with structured content and a recommended solution) is a necessity in order to give structured & constructive feedback to the devs - and to bundle the feedback for specific maps for them as currently map feedback has no “home”.
But it looks like that this is way more effort than the average rant thread and more sophisticated feedback (including a solution) is the exception from the standard.
An example from Air RB regarding maps:
You see frequent complains about design flaws in certain Air RB maps. So i contacted stona what to do to get such a map feedback thread to get pinned. Feedback: I may create a regular thread and depending on the traffic (likes & content) they might consider to think about pinning it.
Despite i saw dozens of complains about map flaws in this forum with sometimes high numbers of posts in those threads: Actually just 3 passionate pilots supported this project.
Why should i continue with this thread if there is almost zero support for improving those maps?
I do facepalm when I see a good constructive thread turn to shit and argument after only two interactions.I also see them go off topic so quick.
Maybe that is the translator for you.It does not play out like that on something where language and culture are the same like the Ex British Army forum for example.It’s a shared experience with a common humour.
It is possible that the Gaijn devs are mature enough to cut through the chaff to the wheat and take onboard points made.I am sure much of the stupidity is water off a ducks back.
There is a technical moderator involved in discussion about war Ships and the design of the ammo store rooms. He was very interactive and gave great insight into how and why decisions were made regarding warship design in game and why choices were made concerning damage. Game play versus historical correctness etc.
It was nice to see and made the forum overall seem especially useful rather than just a battle ground for ship nerds.
It is criminal to see so many detailed threads and sensible posts such as yours seemingly ignored and a post demanding pink anime onsies for Japanese crew men get a hundred likes : )
I am still looking for the best ways for the most people to get the message across regarding what is liked and hated in the game regarding maps.
The map Devs seem to be like some hidden God at present ,attended to by only the holiest of priests.
I’m sure Alvis Wisla is putting on his robes as we speak : )
The Big vs Small map debate suffers very badly from this.
I feel people conflate map size with openness/buildings/terrain.
Big map filled with buildings and wrecks and stuff is not gonna feel like a big map despite in sq km qualifying.
Also that open map does not mean “big flat featureless desert”. It should include natural cover in form of hills and whatnot. Second Battle of Al Alamein (lots of hills to sneak around in or use for hulldown) feels much nicer to play compared to Sands of Sinai (the big flat desert variant).
As for forum feedback quality in general,
I tend to trawl the old forums for guides and whatnot with some regularity and I find that things used to be far more civil/technical/history/physics oriented than I find on these new forums these days. I wonder if the chaotic construction of the new forum compared to the old one’s distinct foldering contributes to that.