That WW2 map should be for WW2 vehicles.
2 Likes
agreed
1 Like
So I had to come back just to mention this. While I mentioned Carpathians, it actually is a good map and not much complaints with it from me.
The only complaint I have is in this screenshot, where they cut off part of the side of the map and added a timer. It forces you into the wide open field if you choose to flank that way. Overall this is a fine map so this issue here would be my only complaint on Carpathians. I agree with you here.
I just wish it wasn’t an instant timer, but rather a warning, then a timer.
Other than that, it’s a great map now that there’s multiple spawns
1 Like
Ideally there should be a well balanced mix of maps ranging from CQB maps to very large maps, however I think to do this they need to implement a better way to “ban” maps (ie, more than 1 ban) because to tell you the truth some people simply do not find fun in giant open deathfield maps and some people also on the other fence do not have fun with cluster**** boxing matches.
3 Likes
I mean one ban is enough to nuke the map selection. Stona, gave a good example of this. If you have a full squad on both sides and they banned a single map between each member. That would be eight maps gone from the selection.
1 Like
Yes. You must have good reaction, know where to aim, constantly check the sounds and map. Close range is more skill dependent
Btw, how can you talk about skill, having 0.7 on every tank?
So rework the system to only allow the host in squads to ban maps and then give users 3-4 bans
This has nothing to do with squads really, just the raw number of players in a match. With only one ban per player, there’s already potential for thirty-two maps to be banned from a 16v16 match.
Giving people “only” three or four bans bumps this up to potentially ninety-six or one hundred twenty-eight maps being banned in a single lobby.
What is the solution for half the maps being unenjoyable for the playerbase then?
Well, putting aside hyperbolic blanket statements like this, it’s the same solution as in every single video game ever created: Not liking a map is a personal issue, you can either play it anyway or quit the match.
Outside of this, mechanics to give actually useful, big picture data to the devs can be used for cases where there is a more universal or widespread view (read: not vocal minority) of a given map, taken in through feedback such as the Like/Dislike system, and general player data (quit rates, uneven match results for a certain side, etc).
I’d argue we’d be better off selecting the maps we want to search for, instead of banning maps. This way players can directly dictate how long their queue times will be (pick more maps for faster queue) while at the same time creating an enjoyable experiece for everyone.
1 Like
It isn’t really hyperbolic. I’m not saying literally everybody hates half the maps, but an EXTREMELY COMMON complaint is either “why are maps so small these should be huge” and “why are these maps so god damn huge I don’t want to drive 3km to get killed”
so yeah. either way you view it, a seemingly large percent of the community has a strong preference for one playstyle or the other, and they are pretty much polar opposites.
This isn’t healthy for the game. It creates one death leavers or worse, people who leave before they even spawn.
Within the specific way WT’s matchmaking is set up, this is often true. There are other solutions to this, such as filling those empty slots with new players (disable the ability to block joining matches in progress). This runs into the potential issue of joining in progress on a lopsided match, which in turn brings us to gameplay mechanics which enourage snowballs (especially Ground RB).
There is also the issue that the game punishes you for wanting to not play bad maps/matchups by crew locking you for 10 minutes
Which is a sensible mechanic to discourage qutting, seeing as we’ve just established how it’s harmful to the other players in the lobby.
Sure, but you also told me thats the solution to not enjoying half the game’s maps because of how polarized they are
So the question has to be why? Why does Warthunder give the same maps to top tier and low tier or WW2? Is it a mechanics issue ? Have they no choice in the matter? Unless you can find out why Gaijin give the same maps to all tiers then you are stuck in trying to solve the issue on this forum.
Why after 12 years and what must be millions taken in revenue does Gajin still throw out the same old maps for all tiers? It makes one wonder how much reinvestment of profits is actually put into the game.
So why do Modern tanks play in WW2 settings and WW2 in the 70s and 80s?
We can all see this post and we see this post time after time, month after month so why nothing from Gaijin about it?
How many on here are actually happy about top tier maps? maybe we are presuming everyone is upset when they are fine? Is that the case?
2 Likes
Well, I don’t know what to say to this. But I do know that as of right now reading this comment, 22 people liked my post, so at least we know 22 other people here share my opinion. Now there’s no way that could show a representation either way. But it could lead to a clue. As in, some of the comments I’ve seen which go against my opinion or request, has very few likes. Nowhere near the 22 my post has.
As you’ve said, there’s many other posts similar to mine, which I personally have not looked up yet. But the fact it’s a constant complaint from different people allegedly, that should cue a sign that it’s an issue.
I actually like most of the maps as far as design and set up, I just think they should be larger, more expansive or at least revert the changes back to the ones they’ve reduced in size. I love Poland and Ardennes and the new big Tunisia sands, I they’re great for top tier. That’s examples of what I’m referring to. My complaint about Poland is I almost never have the old summer one with more trees on it along with the newer more open fields or winter map.
To me Poland incorporates everything all in one, left to right, front to back. I’d say Poland would probably be my favorite. Sometimes I stay out and flank or snipe, sometimes I go into town and brawl, it’s a good choice and combination.
And disregarding just this forum here where only a select few speak and are possibly heard, like someone else said in battle I constantly hear players not liking the cut off maps and smaller maps and the ones which spawn us right into CQC like right away. And I agree. Especially for some of us on console who apparently often load in later than most other people and are often loading in the first time after many others have already died once and some of the enemy is already near our spawn. Apparently that’s a thing with console for some reason, and yes it happens to me a lot. The loading circle just sits there over and over trying to load me in. And with some new map setups having the spawns really close to each other and such a small map just makes it not likeable.
As far as the companies revenue put back into the game, I have no idea. Maybe they figure they have enough maps as is. Maybe the map creators are out of creativity and can’t think of any other maps to add or change. Maybe the company is putting the efforts more towards vehicles and just leaving the maps as they are instead of adding more. I will say that I do love the different weather effects and variations, and the detail. The clouds, rain, trees moving, dust, it all is looking more real now. The detail in the game is great. They’re just choosing to mess with these maps and limit gameplay, in some cases.
3 Likes
Clearly reading isn’t your best quality. I’m not 0.7 every tank.