Gaijin revert maps change now!

Game Discussion General Discussion
23

That’s as true an elaboration as it is depressing.

EDIT: just noticed something about Normandy.

Like many of the changed maps, as we know, this was a map that had a lopsidedness problem: the two sides didn’t have access to equally strong positions, one was better off. The obvious solution was to give the other side equally powerful positions, instead the maps were nuked and flattened. Okay. But:

Normandy has also been shortened, in terms of length. There used to be a spot in row 1, * behind* the northwestern spawn, that was completely irrelevant to most games on that map, except for single-cap missions, with the cap being on the beach.

In that occurrence, that was a very good spot. It didn’t provide much cover, just a small bit of terrain to hide your transmission behind, and a couple of bushes. It was 900 metres away from the cap, and allowed you to engage both people pushing A, and people who were at the obelisk (where B normally is). Nice spot for a tank destroyer to go, not overpowered: you’re not invisible, and CAS can easily delete you.

Now, with the map being narrowed, that spot is gone.

I so can’t wait to get a single cap mission on this map with A as the lone cap now. The entire battlefield with A at the center ll basically be 400 metres wide and 600 metres long. “You will play frontal engagements at short range and you will enjoy them”.

Yeah, no, Normandy, American Desert, Middle East, and 38th Parallel are maps where I’ll 1DL most times as a matter of course. At this point just because they’re pushing it so hard on us I instinctively don’t want to even see these maps. Ugh.

1 Like
24

I mean, that’s not a Normandy exclusive problem to be fair.
I have mainly experienced Poland, Maginot, and European Province because they are the few map I still play on, but I’m sure that all reworks were in the same vein.

If you take Poland, it’s still as exploitable as before by the Western side, but by completely butchering the flanks Gaijin made it so the Eastern spawns can no longer counter the powerpositions of the West.

Same for Maginot, by making the crest unplayable, they just made sure that both team’s positions that lock down the Eastern third of the map are impossible to attack.

It also applies to European Province as well, Gaijin did succeed in making it harder to effectively control sections of map, but completely failed at seeing the maps as a whole and focused on what they perceived as a problematic position without considering why it was used at all. The South flank of Poland was the key needed by the East team to actually reclaim it’s South spawn, and now the efficient way of playing on Poland is to bite the crewlock when you don’t get the West side…

25

I said it elsewhere but I’ll say it again It feels like they took X + Mozdok, used morph, and called it a day, they all look the same now, no distinct features like they had before. Typical way of making it worse, and even worse it’s not just the maps.

1 Like
26

After the last changes now I downloaded WoT and started that again after i think 6 years, all the tanks still there.
Did I enjoy it? no.
Thats why i started War Thunder in the first place. it was brilliant back then. Everything was there that WoT did not have.
I LOVED the Maps. Things started to go downhill about 3 Years ago.
I think now there is no decent Tank game anymore.

If Gaijin ogles over to WoT and envy the money they make… they will never be another WoT and take their Customers by making another WoT.
This was a decent game. i am really at a loss what to play now, i spent about hours everyday in this game.

2 Likes
27

Eastern Europe was made way better. It is no longer just a flat valley.

28

We already got a lot of ex-wot, that’s what started this trend in the first place. Now war thunder is becoming more popular, which means more casuals who play this game like it’s COD.

1 Like
29

there are 61 map “regions” in this game, You have listed 5. even Fire arc is just pseudo long range because all of the fighting (unless you want to suicide for A) is usually done close quarters in the village.

Even though yes, there are a few more dedicated “long range maps” than the 5 you posted. (theres ~11+ a few large versions of smaller maps such as Ardennes) The simple fact is that the Matchmaker is heavily biased towards smaller, close range maps. Even on most of those “long range maps” you have to push into small knife fight areas if you want to actually cap. Hilariously, Mozdok of all maps is practically one of the only maps where that isn’t the case.

of those 11 I counted, two of them I haven’t even played on in OVER A YEAR. those two being Red desert and Pradesh. Surroundings of Volo (which honestly is one of the best maps in the game) I think I saw once 6ish months ago but once every 6 months is roughly the frequency I see it.

Even the infamously long range fulda is more of a mid range-close quarters affair now.

I accept that most players prefer close range, but acting like the map selection isn’t HEAVILY biased towards those city maps and forces people like me into hateful gameplay is pretty unfair.

and then when you consider that in the last couple of patches, many of those maps which maybe had a couple of somewhat workable sniper spots on otherwise heavily close quarters focused maps, have now had many of those sniper spots removed, what do you expect players that prefer sniping to think?

Yes maps like Fields of Poland needed changing. But the desired change was not to turn the map into yet another close quarters snorefest. But thats all they have done with many of these changes.

2 Likes
30

Arguably that sort of thing shouldn’t be in our hands anyway. It’s a “referee” thing, not a “competitor” thing. Player want and ask for lots of stuff (example, no uptiers, ever! Or, tank only mode!). Competition should be varied. We expect players to adapt to facing different tanks at different BRs. Be familiar with different ammo types. Shot drop and velocity. Know crew locations inside enemy vehicles. Memorise weak spots. Be able to fly and/or use SPAA.

… Why should maps be any different?

Give us maps that run the gamut of possibilities. Test our adaptability (and our lineups) across different terrains and ranges. Give them all equal representation in map rotation. The end.

31

The thing I find the most amusing is that people are trying to ask for ‘big maps’ and at the same time to not allow ‘spawncamping’, so gaijin either creates or modifies current maps so the distance of real fights is like on any urban maps making big maps just a driving simulator for most part.

2 Likes
32

Yeah. Most WT players will readily say “yeah the maps suck” and then completely disagree as to why in their opinion they suck. It’s a funny thing.

33

I’d personally rather have a longer cue time over playing Aral Sea, Jungle, Finland, and Vietnam.

1 Like
34

My point wasn’t to list all the maps, it was to give examples. And also, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what Maps we consider enjoyable. If I had more map bans, Volo would be one of them.

Yes, perhaps it is preference, but I fail to see how being forced to drive in the open to capture a point where someone can sit anywhere across the map in a bush and kill you is fun. Not to mention that even with APFSDS, all it takes to dodge a known shell is to move slightly.

I understand that others can have different taste, but I only ever hear complaints about long range maps while I never hear anything bad about maps such as Advance to the Rhine.

I personally think that we need an interim solution. Iberian Castle has both long range combat and CQC, and while you can argue most people go to the city, that’s because almost no one actually enjoys distant combat.

Long range maps have some massive flaws that won’t be addressed by map design alone. For instance, the IKV-91 has a LRF and, in a down tier, can see 6.7 tanks. Would it be fair for a Pershing, Tiger 2, or something similar to fight on a long-range map with that vehicle? The answer is no. It cannot touch that tank if it sits 2 kilometers away.

Some other examples of this issue are how LRF modifications are often the last ones you unlock on top tier tanks. Should a stock Abrams, Leopard, or T series tank fight on a map spanning 5 kilometers in distance with little to no cover against spaded enemies using thermals leaving no way to grind the stock tank’s modifications? On top of that, large open maps also incentivize more CAS spam, and it makes using ordinance vastly easier from much farther ranges.

35

Yes we do have a disagreement. and thats fine, but the game shouldn’t be so heavily biased in favour of one demographics presence. it should be varied so everyone can enjoy what they like. Field of Poland was actually one of the maps I enjoy the most but the reason for that is that Fields of poland was “one of the only maps that you would actually regularly see where you can do long range” which made me like it rather than it actually being a good map.

Of course its a preference. I fail to see how having to crawl through a city having to constantly check 3 different angles at every god damn intersection is fun, having no control over which corners enemy tanks map pop out from. I vehemently avoid city or close quarters areas on any and every map that allows me to. I have barely ever gone into the town on even the small version of poland lol.

I see plenty of complaints about close quarters maps on the forums. The difference is there are so many city maps that complaining about just one isn’t really relevant because they are all the same as far as gameplay is concerned. My reasons for disliking advance to the Rhine are no different from my reasons for disliking Sweden, or Alaska, or Sun city.

I banned Iberian castle after like a week of it being released because I hated it so much.

This is true for every vehicle, and BR range though. different tanks have different modifications and strengths and weaknesses. an IKV-91 is severely disadvantaged in a city map because being forced to fight in a city takes away all its strengths. Same with most Japanese tanks between rank 4 and 6 to be honest. Why should the map type that favours the Russian and the German tanks most be the most common map type?

there needs to be a fair balance between short, medium, and long range maps. and the map rotation needs to do its best to fairly rotate between them all. Neither of which is currently the case

2 Likes
36

an IKV-91 is severely disadvantaged in a city map because being forced to fight in a city takes away all its strengths.

This is not remotely true. The IVK-91 is barely any different than a Leopard 1. In fact, dare I say, it’s a Super Leopard 1.

There is nothing you can do to make me believe that an IKV-91 sitting hull down across the map fighting King Tigers and Pershing tanks is fair. It’s so bad that an IKV-91 on European Province can sit in the lower right spawn and shoot 6.7 heavies in their top left and bottom left spawns instantly without worrying about missing and while sitting in cover. If we’re going to have more open maps, don’t make playing other vehicles unbearable. Sitting hull down with a LRF against 6.7-7.7 who can’t do anything to you because of the sheer range and firepower you have isn’t a “strength”, it’s bad balance.

And once again, there’s still the problem of having Stock tanks fighting Spaded tanks on a long-distance map. If you’ve played top tier, you’d know that using HEAT-FS alone is already bad enough, but you combine that with the disadvantage of a low velocity round with no thermals and no LRF and you make playing newly obtained vehicles straight up impossible. This game simply was not built for long-range engagements. If you take A point on Fire Arc as an example, all it takes is one team to have someone suicide rush it and the point will rarely ever trade hands because no one is willing to actually push out of spawn to capture the point and play the game. It would not be fun to have a flat plane with three points between spawns with no cover because no one would actually try to get the points, which is the entire point of the main game mode in this game. I could understand Battle, but not any other.

37

It’s an entirely subjective thing but there are 2 categories - close-quarter and open maps. The best maps have a bit of both. I don’t mind either, but this new trend of making open maps effectively close-quarter is a big problem. And the dumbing down of maps, eliminating any high point or sniping opportunity is a huge demotivator for people who have been playing for years and want a bit of variety.

3 Likes
38

Except… The Leopard 1 suffers from city maps too…

Your complaint here frankly has little to do with maps and more to do with tank and BR balance/compression. an IKV at long range is just as annoying to fight as something like an IS-4M in a city map that you can’t flank, let alone something like an Object 279.

Stock tanks suffer no matter what the map is. How fun do you think a Stock tank with stock rounds fighting against front on heavy tanks because map design forces you into lane fighting? At least on an open map you can flank around and get some side shots. This is also true for top tier, I much preferred open maps while grinding with the stock HEATFS on top tier MBTs to city maps because I wasn’t forced to fight the frontal ERA of BVMs and stuff.

Both of those issues are hardly relevant to simple map design because both types cause suffering from different sources.

3 Likes
39

Gaijin have interpreted the desire to not be spawn-sniped within 30 secods of the match starting to be “don’t allow long-range shooting anywhere in the map”.

3 Likes
40

You really don’t listen at all to anything I say.

Firstly, the Leopard 1 does not suffer on City maps. I have around 700 matches in the Leopard 1 variants and never have issues with City maps. Secondly, while it is true that stock tanks suffer on all maps, it is dodging the problem that stock tanks can’t perform at ALL on long-range maps. You’re avoiding the problem by shifting it into something nearly irrelevant to this conversation. The IVK-91 uses HEAT which does the most damage to both the IS-4M and the 279. Yes, the IKV has difficulty in the city, but that’s all light tanks, but that’s also irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Another thing, no maps “force” you into lane fighting. I have nearly 5000 hours and can safely say every map in this game has some flank route including Advance to the Rhine. Stock tanks suffer in general, but once again, that’s not on the topic of making it worst by forcing them into long open fights they can’t cope with at all. At the very minimum, they can do something in a city.

This is also true for top tier, I much preferred open maps while grinding with the stock HEATFS on top tier MBTs to city maps because I wasn’t forced to fight the frontal ERA of BVMs and stuff.

This statement is either a lie or genuine ignorance. The main ERA of a BVM in on the side of their hull. If you prefer grinding past HEAT-FS by firing through the chemically strongest part of the BVM, that’s just weird.

If you’re going to talk to someone, don’t speak down to them and don’t speak with subjective points. I have no issue with more ranged maps being added, but you keep derailing the conversation from the overall CONS of sniper maps.

41

European Province & Fields of Poland are the best large maps in the game now.
Absolutely impressed at the map making team.

1 Like
42

If it is irrelevant that light tanks struggle on city maps, its irrelevant that heavy tanks struggle on open maps.

???

shot 2023.09.24 17.33.05
shot 2023.09.24 17.33.051920×1080 216 KB

Also the BVM is just one tank, Most western tanks are also much more vulnerable to HEAT from the side.

that’s literally what you did. You turned it from a problem with map design into a problem with stock tanks and vehicle balance issues, You argue that long range is a problem when it disadvantages X tank but if short range disadvantages Y tank that’s not relevant. but okay, sure.

If you aren’t going to argue in good faith, there is no point in continuing. Accusing me of talking down on you while you have done exactly that to everyone else in this thread including me is pretty pathetic.

I challenge you to think of one thing. In this game, I get roughly 1 map out of every 6 that is designed in a way I prefer playing on. To be honest the real number is lower due to map rotation being skewed in favour of city maps. You get to play on 4-5 out of every 6 maps that are designed in the way you prefer. What if that was switched? what if it was 5 open maps for every 1 city map? would you be mad? Because that is the whole reason this thread exists and people are mad.

2 Likes