At the moment there are only few maps in the game that are suitable for high tier gameplay. Some of the better ones are Sorroundings of Volokolamsk, Red Desert and Fulda. Those maps are very rarely played, even when favourised in battle settings.
Most of the vehicles in top or higher BR have effective combat ranges that exceed map diameters by far.
The recent changes to some maps are ridiculous. The change that Normandy-map went under describe the problem very good.
28.6% of the map is not usuable anymore. The east spawning team even spawns in a red zone and players are forced to move north to prevent dying from just spawning south.
A big part of war thunder gameplay is map control. Players that complain about “spawncampers” are often players that do not care for map control at all. They ignore map pings, dont check the map for gaps in their frontline and let enemies pass next to them without even noticing.
If Gaijin proceeds to change the game in the favour of aforementioned players this is what future maps will look like:
Please stop making maps even smaller. Consider that if you make maps smaller, less vehicles can be effectivly used on them.
Me and my community (everyone I played with since 2015) were constantly hoping for bigger maps to improve tactical variety and range of vehicles that can be used on them. Volokolamsk is our favourite map and I would really like to see more of this kind in War Thunder.
But making maps smaller increases the weight of the problem you describe. The bigger the maps the more important becomes team spacing. if everybody sits in just one cluster, and they lose some duels, like you say, they are easily at the other teams spawn in no time if you look at maps like Aral Sea or Advance to the Rhine for example.
This is because people ban and dislike those maps, same reason you rarely see pradesh. Unfortunately the same doesnt seem to have happened to fields of poland or european province
There is only one “Sorroundings of Volokolamsk” map and 20 Maps with urban CQC areas. THIS is the reason good tank maps are rare, not because people banned or disliked them.
The map choice is just very urban-CQC-focussed.
Good in your opinon, and also no it isnt, it definitely is because people ban or dislike them. is it really so difficult for you to undesrtand that you are in the minority in liking maps like red desert or volo, and are in the minority in wanting massive maps? The majority of players vote with the dislikes/likes in game, not by creating posts or commenting on the forums.
People also prefer to shoot without having to worry about weak spots, or to survive shots without angling. Should we dumb down the damage model to make them happy?
We expect players to learn their tanks. No reason not to expect them to learn maps as well.
Alternatively, if CQC is all we’re gonna play from now on, just remove turretless open topped SPGs and sniper focused vehicles from the game. After all, you clearly don’t think they deserve to have maps that play to their strengths, and they should always play at a handicap. So just remove them, right?
Perpetuating the fallacy that, if a map isnt massive, it is only cqc. Most maps in the game have positions on them where vehicles that have to play from range can play. When you talk about massive maps, you dont really want massive maps particularly, you want maps that are much more open with lots of very long sight lines, for long range engagements. I am personally happy for such maps to an extent, so long as you can get to the capture points without having to run in the open in front of all these sight lines, and flank the power positions. But for maps like european province and pradesh and fields of poland, the power positions are incredibly powerful and uncounterable with anything other than cas, and to get from your spawn to any of the cap points, you have to run in the complete open, across the sight lines from these uncounterable power positions.
People are quick to forget tanks are given maximum engagement ranges, but not minimum.
& that most engagements range from 100 - 1600 meters IRL.
Obviously a lot of engagements range further than 1600 as well.
Smaller maps would make sense for early tanks, with weak and short-ranged armament, but otherwise useful for close quarters.
I have theory - most players select smaller maps as their liked ones, because they think that this will make the battles shorter, and basically allow them to get to the next battle faster. Perhaps, it is a way to shorten the grind, in their view?
Personally, I do want larger maps, with scenarios and mission specific objectives, not the same team deathmatch slugfest that we have always…
But, it’s simple enough to understand what to do for most folks, so… I feel these small maps are going to stay. And, possibly, be more and more frequent.
Several of the problems you forget to mention is that often times the objectives are clustered into one area thus you have between 30-60% unused map, e.g. in Normandy conquest the objectives are A at the beach, B at the Plaza and C on the hill church; if you´d move A to the Plaza/Beach area, B to the church on the hill and C to the hangar G3/4 you would use all of the map.
Then you´d also have spacing, as much as I agree with your point that you always have this giant mob the next problem is that these maps are not built for these gokart speeds at which some of them rush by. If you´re playing since 2015 you remember the balancepatch regarding the hellcat which was basically the same problem. But they didnt nerf the maps itself but the tank that was causing the issue.
With the current maps there is always one tank class the profits on all of them and has no issue whatsoever. In all of the maps they get into the spot first and survive more shots than they should while being the most braindead and forgiving class to play; that being wheeled light tanks/vehicles or extremely mobile and speedy tanks. Prime example on Normandy, by the time you get up to C with a normal MBT there is already a Centauro, FIat, M1128, R90 or Class 3P being at that point before being capped.
In short yes we need big maps BUT they should also look at the balance between tanks-(classes) to make the maps work in correlation to the mapobjectives.
Just return to hanger and watch YouTube until you’re off crew lock. If enough people start doing that maybe it will break the matchmaker and they will actually do something about their trash maps.
But you have serious problems in some vehicles if forced to engage in CQC. For example AMX-32 and AMX-40. They have thermal vision on their gunner sight, but the gunner sight is zoomed in so hard that you can hardly use it to detect enemy in short range. Also some important tactics are not possible on small maps that certain vehicles (especially NATO MBTs) where initially designed for. Such are for example delaying the enemy in a way that you shoot and then move to a position in your rear to let the enemy come to your position and have another chance to hit them while THEY are on the move and you are stable. All that is a major disadvantage and the “map improvements” Gaijin does lateley are only making the variety of playstyles that are possible on maps thinner.
CQC Map on 9.0 onward are not suitable for high tier game play and should be remove (and I mean all of it) it makes high tier gameplay unfun and look stupid af if most of wallet warrior have a problem map with their high tier premium with laser rangefinder have problem, they shouldn’t even play high tier at the begin with
wanna play small map They can throw those garbage of the map into AB mode not RB that stand for “realistic.”
an only way i enjoy the small map is when i use CAS because it easy I know where to look at
