The last update just ruined even more maps like Jungle, Normandy or Pararell 38.
Is stupid how maps are chopped and reduced more and more just like the poor Maginot and his stupid and horrible small version.
Dont we have enough with basically you add the same stupid rat urban mazes since 4 or 5 years ago ??
Why the old maps the only good maps for play at distance combat are destroyed removing the sniping zones and just converting those maps in another stupid CQC maps???
31 Likes
Where??? maybe is the same place where community vote for artillery orange smoke or volushitrics ???
What majority??? only can see people complaining about those changes in the forum.
Again, please show me.
Most of the spots removed dont affected spawn points. Sad is how most of the players are idiots can avoid snipers area and miserable fail in take shots at distance over 100 meters.
10 Likes
If anything it’s easier to spawn camp not harder me and 3 other of my squadron members where being spawntrapped by a pzbtl Leo 2 from 2km on fields of Poland earlier and we couldn’t shoot him back because he was behind a rock the maps do indeed need reverted to their original state they used to be fun now they are trash they ruined Normandy dare I say the best map in the game and they ruined it
3 Likes
I’m not sure where you’ve been if you don’t know that we voted on this.
Seriously, how have you not heard of the roadmap? We voted for the roadmap. I shouldn’t need to explain that to you if you play this game regularly.
The majority of players dislike those 3. Japan made Bush players untouchable and is otherwise an unfun experience. Standard Normandy allowed enemies at the C point to shoot into the other side’s spawn. Fields of Normandy allowed you to camp behind the enemy spawn completely unannounced. Fields of Poland is the most hated map in the game. That is a well-known fact and everywhere you go, it’s easy to find people complaining about it. Even 5 years ago, it was highly disliked.
And when did you make a statement about Artillery Smoke? That’s Universally liked by the majority and get over Volumetric, it was added nearly half a decade ago.
If you use your head for a second and pay attention to what happens in this game, it’s not hard to find all these things I’ve listed. I shouldn’t need to explain to you what the Roadmap is nor the dislike map button or map ban button.
1 Like
Poland is fundamentally broken. Nothing realistic can be done to help that map. Nothing. The guy you’re siding with even complained about the added cover which would be required for your issue.
They still ruined the best map in the game Normandy
4 Likes
And we voted for new maps, not reworking the maps. There’s a difference.
5 Likes
We voted for them to be fixed, not broken even more
8 Likes
Trash CQC map like these that why i turn into CAS main it easier to look where to drop the bomb and get multiple kills if most of players who don’t know how tanks game play work and want CQC cluster F then they ask to get bomb
3 Likes
Not all player concerns are born equal. I’m sure people would rather not have to learn weak spots at armour-centric BRs, too. I agree with most of the roadmap, but the CQC-ification of maps is a dumbing down. Yes, it’s undoubtedly what the majority wants. I still think it shouldn’t be indulged and players shouldn’t be coddled, and if that puts me in the minority, that’s just life.
That said, the constant narrowing of maps was a trend long before the roadmap.
There is a balance issue - almost no map makes it competitive to spawn in a sniper-oriented vehicle. I still do it, but competitively I’d be better off playing something else. Maybe the community doesn’t really care about that, which makes me ask why they don’t just ask for removing said vehicles from the game; maybe the proposed “solution” is that players that prefer sniping over knife fights shouldn’t play the game at all. All those are certainly valid thoughts. No surprise that they leave the players in question feeling a little aggrieved, though… ;)
2 Likes
The road map dont said nothing about “JUST” erase sniping positions.
Again, show us where.
Just stop, nobody like this change and nobody wanted it.
So for you a decade is 6 years ???
4 Likes
I explained every bit that I just said.
Map Upvotes and downvotes exist and so do map bans. That’s why Volokalamsk was removed for so long. It was widely disliked.
If you read the roadmap, reworking SEVERAL maps is indeed on there. Use your eyes and stop restating it when I’ve already proven you both wrong.
Very few people have issues with Artillery spotting smoke. If they do, it’s likely from how it can block your view. Even then, most people hate the Artillery mechanic, so I don’t see why you think people hate having it nerfed. And if you don’t believe that statement, you’re very out of touch with this community.
And lastly, I said “Nearly half a decade”, not a decade. It’s literally written in front of you on your screen. Use your eyes and stop repeating yourself over and over. I have better things to do than babysit you.
I can understand your frustration if CQC maps were everywhere, but that’s not close to true. Fire Arc, Maginot, European Province (Large), Fields of Normandy, and Fields of Poland are still very open, and you can still have your long-range combat. What this really sounds like from the other replies is the complaints of people who can’t spawn camp and effectively farm kills by doing so.
Use one reply and stop spamming the thread.
The map rewords were all on the roadmap that we voted for. There was no “new map” vote. It was a rework. Stop lying through your teeth. As they sit now, they’re absolutely better than how they started.
Here’s your proof for the blind who don’t read things they vote on.
Just because there are less bushes for you to hide in like a gremlin outside of someone’s spawn, doesn’t mean it’s a bad map.
I have no problem getting up close and personal. Even in vehicles that shouldn’t really be doing that. One of my best games pre-update was at Frozen Pass with the Jagdtiger, full uptier, spent mostly fighting at the church and around the B cap. Eight kills, one cap, we won. I’m nothing special - pretty average player I’d say - but I don’t need to camp, to make kills. Maybe other people do, but I can only speak for myself.
War Thunder’s map rotation should be like, say, the Formula One calendar. Radically different tracks that benefit or disadvantage different car design philosophies. The reason for it, is that in any complex competitive field, the more skills you test, the better. Broadening our skill set makes us better players. Instead, we have maps that are more and more one-dimensional.
I disagree that CQC is not already an absolutely overwhelming feature of map selection. I’m going to quote myself from another post rather than type it all out again.
As far as I can tell, there are seven maps with the size required to provide actual long range options in Ground RB (thus excluding the sim, enlarged version of some maps): Fulda, Maginot, Red Desert, Fields of Poland, Surroundings of Volokolamsk, European Province, and Fire Arc.
That’s seven out of, I think, fifty-tree- A fifty-fourth map is coming in this update, Test Site 2217, and it looks to be another urban close-quarters map, though we can’t be sure until we actually play it, naturally.
Out of those numerous smaller maps, as many as thirty-five are under 2x2km, total. If you actually consider just the playable area, it drops to below 1.5x1.5km.
This, in and of itself, is already bad. The game has thousands of vehicles with different strengths and weaknesses. Purely going by these numbers alone, vehicles that specialise in sniping and struggle in close quarters are inherently penalised. This is, of course, on top of the additional issue that the game is built around capping points, which already makes long-range specialists more situational.
But this is only the beginning, because this is a whole onion of bad, and there are many more layers left to peel.
First of all, while those may be seven maps out of fifty-four, the map rotation system does not feature maps equally. I don’t know if there are global data available on this, but I can report my individual experience at least. I get Seversk, Hurtgen Forest, Alaska, Sweden, Golden Quarry and (small) Ardennes with embarrassing frequency. I can’t even remember the last time I got Volokolamsk.
The numerical preponderance of short-range maps is thus augmented by their preponderance in matchmaker selection. This penalises the performance of vehicles that do poorly in knife-fights even more.
The next layer of this ugly onion is map design. Even the “sniping” maps are not, in fact, built around sniping, or say, the effective utilisation of gun depression. Ultimately all of these maps still require you to get very up close and personal if you want to win, because of how they’re broken up. For example, even the infamous Fire Arc - the key to that map is the B point, which of course is inside a tiny cramped village whose control is usually decided by knife-fights and corner peeking.
Such maps are also frequently altered to further “streamline” the fighting towards the cramped areas, too. Meaning that the open areas simply become long drives on the way to the objective, where you’ll be slugging it at under 300 metres once more.
And even on the small maps, it sounds like whenever sniping-oriented players adapt and find locations where they can minimise the weaknesses of, say, turretless tank destroyers, those positions are immediately taken away.
Look at what happened to Jungle. The spot behind the F-row rocks, south of C, was my go-to when playing something like the Jagdtiger. There was no guarantee you’d get there uncontested. Even if you did get there, you could be flanked and be in a tough spot reacting, since turning right could expose your left side to people down on the road or up the opposite hill. It was also a prime bombing spot for CAS. In other words, it was not overpowered. Sometimes it didn’t work. Other times, I nearly get a nuke staying up there.
Now, that spot is sealed off. That is one fewer map where it makes sense for me to spawn in a JT first. Note, I’m not saying you can’t do well with it on Jungle, but that if you’re minmaxing, you’d always rather spawn in something else first, which is why now Jungle is a map I greet by spawning in a LeKPanzer first.
This is a balance problem. You can’t just handwave it away…
People like what they like, and it’s fine. I’m happy for people who like brawling to get brawling maps. But the lopsidedness is really bothersome, especially because every new map they add is invariably small. We’ve had Golden Quarry, which I don’t think I need to expand on, and Iberian Castle, which is imho a very good map and has at least one place where it is possible to have 900m-engagements, but is on the whole an urban map, won or lost by fighting in the town itself.
Sometimes it feels very disheartening, because there’s no acknowledgement whatsoever that this is an issue.
And I play WW2 almost exclusively. Can’t imagine what it’s like in top tier…
5 Likes
The small maps are a disaster, they make the game boring and the only thing that is encouraged is that people kill each other in less than 5 minutes, and if you add that to the people who leave the game when they lose the tank, it becomes 7-minute games lost due to total massacre, and that for me is not fun, since on maps like these it is not unusual to see that the vast majority of players who go to CQC die in 4 minutes and immediately afterward it is already defending the respawn and losing hopelessly, that’s why I always try to flank and thus be able to control some area of the map, although many times I tend to be alone since my team is annihilated. For all that I think that bigger maps should be made, much bigger, well balanced, with clear areas, other areas with unevenness to be able to flank, small CQC areas and everything possible so that there are no permanent sniper positions, that a sniper position has some area where you can flank and take it, let’s see how it would be a real combat. But apparently there is no desire to make well-made and entertaining maps, they are just increasingly smaller maps in which it doesn’t matter what attack you use, you always go to the same place, you take an IS-4M, a Leopard 1 or a BTR-80A and you go to the same points on the map, all because they are simply small and poorly made.
I don’t know why the developers make these maps, but it is because the majority of players want it, it is clear that the majority of players love 5-minute games lost by massacre, there are tastes for everything in this world.
5 Likes
Look, if you want less CQC, I can understand it. Some people aren’t fond of it, but I personally do enjoy it. Instead of complaining about the maps not all fitting your taste, what I suggest is asking Gaijin for more map bans and votes on what you do and don’t like in the map rotation.
I have no problem with CQC on its own, just with its overabundance. I would enjoy it much more if I didn’t feel like it was being shoved in my face all the time, you know? It’s not like I want it to be excised from the game. We have some CQC maps that are absolutely god tier, like Advance To The Rhine, a map that never fails to entertain me because it is so simple and yet so tactical. One of the cleverest they’ve done. Fighting in close quarters is one of the player skills being tested that I was referring to earlier. It just shouldn’t take over the whole thing, that’s what makes the current map rotation one-dimensional.
They’ll never do this, since it risks prolonging queue times.
More votes are always welcome. Maybe if we got the chance to put “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” on every single map, it would give Gaijin a better idea of how players feel about this, but of course, it’s a complex issue. “Thumbs down” on Seversk is not because I never want to see it again, but because I get it every single day, multiple times a day. “Thumbs down” on large Ardennes, on the other hand, is because I’m never happy to see that map.
Still… at the end of the day, I think map rotation choices should be taken out of players’ hands, to a degree. War Thunder is a competitive game. We don’t vote on which enemy vehicles we’re going to face at a given BR, or which ammo types are allowed into the match, and maps should be no different. The only fair approach imho would be to have a balanced pool of maps, where every map type is more or less equally represented, and then don’t weigh the matchmaker; give all an equal chance of showing up in the rotation. The end.
(Keeping into account BR-specific map filters of course)
1 Like
If you factor in variations, you get around 250 maps where long range combat is not an option and it’s more often down to size before even factoring design, and 19 where it is a sensible option but they are not necessarily good maps either. The rest I classify as “You can but why would you ?”. Out of those 19, 7 are provided by Maginot alone.
These numbers are somewhat affected by what I play and how it needs to be played, but you get an idea of what the ratio looks like. You also need to factor in the so called map filter making it so you don’t have equal probability to get any given map, and my chances of getting a map I’m actually down to play ends up at 1-20.
1 Like
Small maps are changing and getting worst that’s all. I don’t see any point of flattening murican desert, eastern europe or normandy…
2 Likes