We could assume that anyone who leaves the battle prematurely within a narrow time frame of, say, 1-2 minutes is not happy with the map.
Subjectively speaking, I tend to notice players who leave early on open maps. On city maps, many throw up to 6 tanks into the battle. But that’s just my guess or observation.
I have no idea … I’m just a bit frustrated that I now have to think about what to do with the new situation while others do what they always do. Drive straight ahead and die …
Absolutely, they could of course just ignore it.
They could, they can and they are.
These days I’m fine with anything that does not get you shot 10s after spawning by enemy players who are still within their own spawn. (I consider driving for 10s not being outside of your own spawn zone). This excludes getting hit by someone from 2km away - good shot on their side. Like Poland, where you can get a the one or the other rusher from over the lake.
What I truely like is when I can shoot someone from 2km away and still have a few hunderd meters to move and relocate. When a map has different ways to approche an objective, is not artificially plastered with hills and depressions, is not blocked by death zones or rocks because someone is too cheap to think about the design, when a map is not narrowed down to 3 lanes or less like World of Tanks maps and when a map still offers cover for tanks from other tanks and planes. When a map is not entirely city or when a map has not been changed to the extent that spawnkilling creates the battles with the longest combat distances.
I like a map where more than a chalk circle at some random position decides the battle, where things can pop up and offer alternative random chalk circles like supply drops or something…
1 Like
Maybe maybe not, since we don’t have access to the data ourselves, we can’t really evaluate whether they’re ignoring it.
I’m inclined to doubt that they’re ignoring it, for the simple reason that they don’t have any monetary incentive here to do so. Unlike for example parts and FPE which obviously everyone hates (but makes money), there’s not like “premium maps” or anything in this game, so pretty much the only reason to do a map change is if they actually legitimately think it’s more fun for players in general to do so. If there were premium maps etc. I’d be much closer to your level of skepticism.
But anyway, that’s no proof, just psychological/economic principles.
(I shouldn’t give them ideas about premium maps)
I’m pretty sure that they know what players do in every map, as anyone can see by the server replays but also and mostly by the changes they make to maps. They have been removing all the good spots in every map, spots from where you can “control” a big part of the map and where you get more kills/score/RP/SL. Removing these spots for no apparent reason only shows they know how and from where players score in the game. I’m not talking about spots where you can target enemy spawn cause those, curiously, are not removed and still remain in many maps.
I am against limiting maps by BR because so many of the decent maps have been locked out of high tier, and it makes the map rotation very stale. Ideally it would just get rarer to get low tier maps the higher you go.
Another issue I have with larger maps is that lots are mid at best. Fields of Poland and European Province are easily the worst, while Ardennes is pretty good. They also get very stale when one or two sniping spots can lock down a huge area of a map without giving the other team a chance to fight back.
Is it fun to play Frozen pass at 9.3 every once in a while? Yes, but it isn’t fun when its all you get.
4 Likes
I think that’s a bit tin-foil, there. They would if anything make more revenue from a couple of godlike players killing everyone, than they would from everyone getting a 1-2 kills spread out due to lack of control from god players.
-
God player getting all the resources = Okay sure that person doesn’t pay for GE, but once she’s not paying anyway, giving OVERKILL resources doesn’t make her pay even less than 0. Meanwhile, the other 15 other people do need to pay. Wallets correlate to numbers of humans who want to progress in game, not tank kills.
-
Everyone spreading out the kills (even if fewer overall) = There is no “overkill” anymore, and everyone gets a little bit of relief on their wallet, which is probably significantly worse for Gaijin overall.
1 Like
Maybe maybe not, since we don’t have access to the data ourselves, we can’t really evaluate whether they’re ignoring it.
What kind of data do you think they’re looking at that would result in deleting half the map being the best option?
I’m inclined to doubt that they’re ignoring it, for the simple reason that they don’t have any monetary incentive here to do so.
That can be said for many things, it’s usually incompetence and/or indifference, it doesn’t benefit them either to have ground forces be subjected to CAS abuse for the last decade, nor does spawncamping help their bank account.
the only reason to do a map change is if they actually legitimately think it’s more fun for players in general to do so
Yet I haven’t seen anyone positively respond to the map changes nor see anyone ask for those changes.
We all know where those places are without having access to any sort of data.
1 Like
98% of people never going to that half of the map. And the 2% who do just slaughtering everyone else who then 1-death-leave indicating frustration. And then when you query people who do that 10 times, them reliably not logging in as much anymore versus control players. (slowly losing interest in the game)
Not saying any of that is true, just a (hyperbolic) example of the type of data that if I saw as an analyst, I would suggest removing half of the map for.
The new arctic maps have done that really well, they allow for long range combat and give players the opportunity to move around.
I think that was what the D point originally was, and it would be great to see a modern version of it return.
I havent seen a single “good spot” removed from the game nor have I ever been killed from a single spot on a map. Typically this is assoaicted to bad players not paying attention. Hurtgen Forest is a good example, you can completely dominate and control the game from the North…this isnt a unique spot, its just that players never bother to go North because they lemming to the caps.
Every player has their “spot” where there go on every map for the most part, people are creatures of habit and if they find mild success in an area of the map, the player continues to go there…
1 Like
But we both know that that is not true in this case, so it doesn’t explain the changes.
a good map: where planes can be seen from afar, flying straight at me but they can’t see me.
not constructively? but based on practical experience.
Not for half the map, no, not that example. Everything I said could be true though for example for “the sniping hills on Jungle” or whatever, specifically, which they then rocked off.
Another more plausible reason to block off half of SOME maps might be data that most people are playing light tanks way more than other types of tanks, for instance, and that like 70% of kills are from “flanky” positions.
So to get people to pay more attention to and have more interest in a wider variety of tanks (to sell more types of premiums, to get them interested in more lines of the tree, to drive more modification sales as they spade those other vehicle types, etc.), make some maps CQC only or Sniping only, to make TDs and heavy tanks more relevant.
In this example, since there is a monetary incentive this time, it may or may not clearly be more fun, but still might be considered.
Unpopular opinion’s
-
Long range maps (Poland(big), Tunisia (Big), and Afghanistan(a rarity))
-
More open maps, not having a random ass rock to just drive behind when you’re in danger, this adds a reason to have decent team mates.
-
Slightly rolling hills, giving a reason to peek out to take an enemy shot, also making ranged engagement more skill taking against more armored targets, and make vehicles with not enough depression to push further.
-
Making maps realistic, like an actual Topographical map, 1:1 to give everything a real feel.
-
Difficult terrain to conquer off-road/highway, this gives a few things, ambushes, armor columns, and a few more realistic places to strike enemies when they aren’t paying attention.
Things that make a map bad.
-
Knife fights, like really, a close range engagement like this hasn’t happened since 73 easting as far as I know.
-
Urban settings, if we are going to get urban maps, make them more realistic to an actual city plan, otherwise, it’s too many corners to have an offensive work
-
Maps that are TOO open, like old large Poland, having no cover, is no fun but also, like in a city too much cover also isn’t fun, it’s a hard balance
-
No one likes having walls of bushes you can’t see through, and therefore can’t engage your enemy (through rules of engagement to ensure a kill) and grasses that get in the way.
These are my things that make a map good, or also, in my eyes, that just means more realistic for realistic tactics. Also seeing a ground mode similar to Air Sim Battles would make large maps a thesible addition.
Here is a very unpopular opinion, add barrel collisions too, and watch chaos ensue, also another reason to add this is a positive ability for tanks with shorter barrels in an urban environment. It also adds a cool new learning curve.
Hopefully this is helpful.
2 Likes
A realistic solution to that would be to block the sniping position or change the landscape, not just delete half the map which is the most lazy and stupid way to deal with it, or actually coating the map in butter was and still is the most stupid thing in a game that pretends to be realistic, yet a tiny slope will stop you.
France didn’t need to build the Maginot Line when they could have just created a little slope.
most people are playing light tanks way more than other types of tanks
The problem doesn’t lie in the map design however, that’s Gaijin’s failure to create a damage model that doesn’t reward the no armor, best armor meta, yet 10 years later we’ve only had hull break and they just gave up on that so now light tanks are the most survivable vehicles in the game with almost zero drawbacks.
So to get people to pay more attention to and have more interest in a wider variety of tanks
Heavy tanks are not any more relevant on these maps than on the other ones, light armor vehicles never relied on armor and generally had above average firepower to ‘‘compensate’’ for their lacking armor.
For how long do you play this game, since 2021? You missed many of the changes to Ground maps that Gaijin made along the years, most changes I’ve seen(if not all) were made in order to stop players from using the maps in their favour. Changes that went to block access to those spots, block the line of sight from them, increase slope to make it impossible to aim your gun due to not enough gun depression, turn destructible objects into indestructible ones, making them out of bounds, etc…
Games are meant to be fun, if you are not having fun you will play less and pay less. I used to play this game daily for hours, many times until the next morning and buy every premium thing as they got released cause I had a lot of fun playing it. Nowadays, not so much, I skip a lot of premium things while on sale and barely play the game, especially after reading this forum. I watch a couple of WT videos and I feel like playing later at night, then I read some of the posts here and I just don’t feel like playing anymore.
But maybe I’m the one who’s wrong cause I play games for fun and not for progress.
Heavy tanks are definitely more relevant on for example , Hurtgen forest south strip only red zone map. If you can’t flank around the whole battle, and have to sit there and snipe across fields for most of it, doing so in a Tiger is a lot more effective than a hellcat…
But anyway, if you think it’s about some sort of damage model stuff instead, then right or wrong, that’s getting off topic then for a map thread. These were just vague examples anyway, you get the idea.
I wasn’t disagreeing that they removed “control spots”, you’re right about that. What I was calling “tin foil” was the implication that the reason is to reduce RP/SL as the motive for that. It would kind of do the opposite, since concentrating all the RP/SL on 1-2 people is actually more lucrative.
I still agree they’re doing what you said, but with a motive of “Because they think it’s more fun for most people” (which drives revenue because people just play fun games more) not to reduce RP/SL.