You asked if i want to fix a spawn camping problem. I don’t see any spawncamping problems if the spawn sniping is optional.
Then why did you bring up shooting into spawn.
Here are the long range maps currently in-game:
Sands of Sinai, Red Desert, Surroundings of Volokalamsk, Fire Arc, Pradesh, Maginot Line, Euro Province, Fields of Poland, and of course large Tunisia; 8 rather massive maps in the context of tanks.
We need reward multipliers for map size; that’s the solution you get to convince players to like large maps. Gotta support large maps.
Because you mentioned that not firing 5 seconds after spawning doesn’t cater to most people, so i said that the big tunisia allows you to join the battle quickly while allowing long range sniping.
Aren’t the rewards increased based on battle duration?
Hence why I brought up that this is a problem with the way spawns work in this game and then you responded with something unrelated.
Yes, but that requires players being active.
I don’t see how there is a problem with spawn camping if your spawn can’t be camped. you optionally choose to drive up the hill to join the sniping fight, you’re not at your spawn anymore even if it is close and you have the option to leave your spawn safely if you don’t want to join the fight.
I don’t see how there is a problem with spawn camping if your spawn can’t be camped.
But it can? If you spawn south side on large tunisia and sit on the side of the large hill that is only on your side you can camp the opposing spawn easily with little risk.
Which wouldn’t be an issue if you had spawn zones rather than spawn points.
I’ll have to double check that then.
- Pradesh caters to mid-short range skirmishes and cas, with the only real long range sight lines being almost in the other sides’ spawn.
- Red Desert is essentially the same.
- Shockingly also applicable to fields of Poland, except the hills and terrain limit engagement ranges even further.
- Maginot Line is a medium range map at best, with only 1 variant of it even vaguely coming close to a decently ranged option. But even then, the ranges are under 800m, unless by some miracle they’ve actually made it longer instead of cutting it down.
- Surroundings of Volokalamsk ends up in short range brawls over the points, unless by some miracle they changed it.
- Sands of Tunisia was already highlighted, and it is actually fairly average in the context of tanks.
2 Likes
i don’t think any of the maps you listed have even close to the average engagements ranges as the large Tunisia (note: average).
just because there is a possibility to have long range engagements does not mean that it is a long range map. i would personally categorize long range maps as maps where you are ALMOST forced to shoot at at least 2-3km (maybe even 3-4km) ranges as default.
how people feel about those types of maps is an entirely different question.
2 Likes
Average engagement is dictated by the players on those maps; Of course post 1.5km is obviously long-range for modern tanks.
Dunno why anyone would attack those of us that support large and diverse map selection.
Only the fastest route was unsafe, as it should be. You were able to get out of your spawn safely from the left side of north spawn and actually advance rather near the C point. I don’t see that as spawn camping. Fastest routes shouldn’t be the safest routes. You take the fastest route you also take up a risk.
1 Like
not really, to some degree yes, that why i wrote “forced” as a prerequisite.
nope, that was me. some words in there were less than nice and thus against community guidelines, i flagged Fluffy’s pot as well for the same reason.
no no, your initial post is very much interpreted as “here are many large maps, we don’t need more since we have many”. i know that’s not what you ment, but that is what people are going to read it as.
not only that but as i stated, those are not really long range maps since almost all players will choose to sneak closer if they can, thus those maps will become closer in engagement ranges.
i repeat: to make a map long range, you almost have to force players to make those engagements at those longer ranges.
2 Likes
If people add meaning where there is none that’s their line of thinking, not mine.
If that was my line of thinking that’d be in my post.
I’m indifferent about adding maps, especially since I want some existing maps removed/replaced; Most of which are smaller maps.
honestly, if you read his posts as if he is autistic (NOT used in a derogatory sense here, i have no idea if he actually is autistic or not) its way easier to see what he actually means instead of what he writes which more often than not is not what he wants to convey.
1 Like
Yes, I am a high functioning autist.
I write things literally and directly, and do my best to follow the exact rules of the English language as taught by college professors and teachers prior.
I’ve never changed my statements intended meaning; and I never attacked anyone wishing for game improvements.
Yall can go create your own post for discussing your autism disorders.
4 Likes
not really, its what humans do. Everyone has subtext to their messages, how people interpret that subtext is very much based on context clues and since you often write differently to what you mean (both as mistakes and lack of understanding of specific contextual lingo and slang) people are going to read your texts as if they are malicious to their idea.
it would do you a lot of good to be overly clear on what you actually mean, take some extra time and think through you message before you send. you write A LOT of messages very fast here on the forum, i doubt you look at them 2-3 times to make sure they are correct before you hit send.
i sort of guessed as much, my wife is as well.
that’s good, but you still lack the subtext as well as the dual meaning of some sentences you write.
many things can be interpreted in two or more ways no matter how grammatically correct they are, try to add to your texts to show without a shadow of a doubt what you mean. see if it lessens the general hate against you on the forum.
thing is, if he wrote one thing (A) and is called out on that but what he actually ment was different (B). he is going to think that the person is questioning (B) and not the (A) he actually wrote. that is where 95% of his issues lie, he cant se the perspective the other person has and thinks he is being attacked for the meaning (B) and not the message (A). This VERY much makes it look like he is defending (A) when in fact he is not. this generally devolves into name-calling from both sides (to the point where his automatic pavlovian response now also is name-calling since it happens so much).
The thing is that it very often looks like you do. since you defend your opinion and sentiment and not what you accidentally wrote instead. so people see you write sentence (A) (when you mean (B) ) and call you out on (A), when your response then is “i’ve always had the opinion (B)!” people are 98% likely to think you changed your mind when in reality you just can’t communicate your thoughts well enough in a way where people understand what you mean. not that you write poorly, its just that you write for the wrong audience.
this is dangerous… stop this. there is absolutely no indication that he is lying. this is entirely your interpretation.
that might be true, but if that happens in the future, DONT ENGAGE!
at this point you are just as much to blame.