Introducing Balanced Tank Warfare Centric Maps to Rank 6

[Laviduce 1,779]

This suggestion deals with the introduction of new maps at rank 6 in arcade battles (AB), realistic battles (RB) and simulator battles (SB). I would like to see the introduction of tank-warfare centric maps that feature:

 

1) a standard minimum size of 3km x 3km maps size in all battle types (AB, RB and SB). Arcade maps should not be smaller than RB/SB at rank 6 !

 

2) realistic topography (for the most part) with a balanced design.

 

3) a new capture system.

 

4) Introduction of user made maps in the official map roation at rank 6.

 

Point No.1)

 

ARGUMENT: Battles would take much longer , increasing queue times because tankers would just be busy for many minutes driving around before encountering the enemy or reaching a capture point.

 

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Given the mobility of rank 6 vehicles, a typical rank 6 vehicle could travers a 3km x 3km map diagonally in about 6 minutes at 40 km/h. Given that capture points(or zones) would be closer than than, considerable less time would be required to achive an objective or encounter enemies. With typical engagment ranges of up to 3000m for modern tanks, the time-to-engagement would still be fairly short.

 

Point No.2)

 

ARGUMENT: Realistic topography and a balanced design is boring.

 

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Realistic topography on a properly sized map (3+ km x 3+ km) can be fairly varied. It can feature hills, fields, roads, houses and other objects while giving the tanker the opportunity to engage in close-quarter combat (0-1000m) and/or long range combat (1000-3000m) from various locations given the size of the map.

 

 

Point No.3)

 

ARGUMENT: The current capture system will not allow for larger maps without increasing the battle times and queue times significantly.

 

COUNTER-ARGUMENT:  The capture system could be adjusted to include capture zones and certain capure areas. Even if the old system of capture points is kept , even the furthest would not be much more than a 4-5 minute drive away.

 

Point No.4)

 

ARGUMENT: User made maps are boring and not visually appealing

COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Some user made maps (see example in video) can feature various terrain features and can still be appealing due to improved and varied mission objectives. If well made user-made maps got accepted into the official rotation at rank 6, the freed manpower at Gaijin could be used to improve other aspects of the game.

 

User made map example:

 

 

A) Current examples of tank-warfare friendly maps that should be available at their full size in all battle modes (AB, RB  and SB) at rank 6:

 

Maginot Line  - balanced design - Capture point C features close quarter combat exclusively. Caapture point B feature close quarter combat to a lesser a extent. Capture point A feautres a more short to midrange approach. The movement of vehicles is not restricted for the most part.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Sands of Sinai - balanced design - Capture point A features close quarter combat exclusively. Capture point B feature close quarter combat to a lesser a extent. Capture point C features a more short to midrange approach. The movement of vehicles is not restricted for the most part.

 

Spoiler

 

Mozdok - although not particularly large, this map still is superior to the vast majority of currently available maps. The movement of vehicles is not restricted for the most part.

 

Spoiler

 

B) Current examples of tank-warfare unfriendly maps that should be removed from rank 6 in all battle modes (AB, RB  and SB)

 

38th-Parallel/Korea - a map that is too small and cramped in general, that more or less forces close-quarter combat (A and B) and restricts the movement of vehicles in general.

 

Spoiler

 

Finland - a map that is just too small and obstructed with awful terrain - It forces close-quarter combat at two out of the three capture points (C and B)

 

Spoiler

 

Middle East - a map that is just too small and obstructed with awful terrain - It forces close-quarter combat at all capture points and restricts the movement of rank 6 vehicles due to its small and restricted size.

 

Spoiler

 

Italy - a medium sized map that, although larger than most, still forces close quarter combat at all its capture points. It is a good example of an unbalanced map design that emphasize close-quarter combat.

 

Spoiler

 

American Desert - a small map that forces close quarter combat at all capture points.  Another good example of an unbalanced map design that is just too small for rank 6.

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Disclaimer: Please not that i am an arcade player  with an interest in tank-technology and tank-warfare. I do enjoy close-quarter combat at times but as of right now with the excpetion of 2 or 3 maps there are only close-quarter maps available. The recent releases (i.e. Italy, American Desert, Vietnam) are all cluttered close-quarter combat maps that have little or nothing to do with modern tank-warfare. I am of the opinion that tank maps at rank 6 should be large enough (3+ km x 3+ km) and varied enough (along the lines of the Maginot line map). Map rotation would not be such an issue for many if the map design reflected a balanced approach along the lines of the Maginot Line  and Sands of Sinai maps. Also, at rank 6 maps should not be shrunk down for arcade battles, given the fact that the vehicles are even faster.

 

 

TL,DR:

 

I want the introduction of  3+ km x 3+ km tank warfare centric maps that feature a balanced design (i.e. Maginot line, Sands of Sinai) at rank 6 for all battle modes. At rank 6 AB maps should not be any any smaller than RB and SB maps.   Are you for or against this proposal? Please explain your answer.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Laviduce
Had to add another relevant question and correct some mistakes.

[leroyonly 4,310]

Open for discussion. 

[Laviduce 1,779]

1 hour ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. 

Thank you very much !

[Vince_Grant 360]

I support this, but why only rank 6? I´d say from rank 4 the maps should be bigger. Sands of Sinai is a good map for vehicles around BR 6.0 and up.

[Laviduce 1,779]

49 minutes ago, Vince_Grant said:

I support this, but why only rank 6? I´d say from rank 4 the maps should be bigger. Sands of Sinai is a good map for vehicles around BR 6.0 and up.

I did not want to push for too many things at first. Rank 6 seemed to be the most severly affected by the current set of maps, given the abilities of the vehicles.  I agree with you that ground forces need  larger, balanced maps starting around rank 4.

Edited January 3, 2019 by Laviduce

[TovarishToNy 208]

You could add Vietnam on your B list where it feels like the map was designed for infantry combat rather than tank warfare.

 

WWII era city maps e.g. Berlin, Rhine, Normandy, Stalingrad, etc should also be mentioned where it feels silly to drive cold war tanks as if the war never ended.

[LuftMaus 6,185]

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

 

1) a standard minimum size of 3km x 3km maps size in all battle types (AB, RB and SB). Arcade maps should not be smaller than RB/SB at rank 6 !

RB sure,SB - rarely play, big maps are good IMO, AB i dont play so i dont speak  

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

2) realistic topography (for the most part) with a balanced design.

+1

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

3) a new capture system.

or get rid of it :P

 

3kmx3km kinda small, would like see 10x10 km maps :P

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

Maginot Line

nice for ww,  not bad for modern tanks

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

Sands of Sinai - balanced design - Capture point A features close quarter combat exclusively. Capture point B feature close quarter combat to a lesser a extent. Capture point C features a more short to midrange approach. The movement of vehicles is not restricted for the most part.

bit too small for moderna tanks, u get the hills u can easily snipe C point

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

Mozdok - although not particularly large, this map still is superior to the vast majority of currently available maps. The movement of vehicles is not restricted for the most part.

way too small

On 28/12/2018 at 15:20, Laviduce said:

 

B) Current examples of tank-warfare unfriendly maps that should be removed from rank 6 in all battle modes (AB, RB  and SB)

forgot about Rhine,Berlin and small Poland and vietnam ofc which is terribad

[SilkMonger 3,068]

You put up a poll about map size, but I'm going to bet not that many players could tell you what the current map sizes are, to be able to answer your poll with authority. 

You ask about maps featuring "realistic topography", but I don't know what your definition of that is.

Gaijin could have a contest for user-created maps, with winners getting prizes/rewards in GEs if their map gets picked up.

[Dominator48 408]

+1 with the comment, that it should be introduced for ALL ranks. Even pre-war tanks.

 

If you want the finest example at current state -> Fulda Gap.

[TovarishToNy 208]

On 24/01/2019 at 21:38, Dominator48 said:

+1 with the comment, that it should be introduced for ALL ranks. Even pre-war tanks.

 

If you want the finest example at current state -> Fulda Gap.

Conquest Fulda that with the cap not in the castle is the best example I could say where it forces players to fight on the fields and it was fun with modern MBTs with a variety of options like either snipe or rush to cover and flank.

[kamikazi21358 998]

There should be an option for “I would like the minimum map size to be 5x5km at high tier” (at least in RB/SB).

 

Rank 6+ has 580-1500 HP engined main battle tanks with stabilised 90-125mm guns, high velocity ammunition and CE ammunition penetrating hundreds of mm of armour at any range, optical and laser rangefinders, 2-6km ranged ATGMs, 8km ranged ATGMs from helicopter support, RADAR and 8km ranged SAM SPAAG units, future SAM units and jets sure to follow, and this isn’t with even FCS, IR, NV, and other equipment not in game yet.

 

In Realistic and Simulator at least, I don’t think any map at any tier, rank 1-7, should be under 3x3km under any circumstances.  This isn’t WoT, bigger maps like Maginot for example allow all ranges of combat from short range, to medium, to long range (discarding high tier, no map is long range at high tier).

 

But honestly, I think maps should be 4x4km for rank 4-5, and rank 6+ should be 5x5km minimum.  Even 5x5km, side to side is within firing range of tanks with direct line of sight.  Many maps literally can shoot into the spawn from the other side.

 

 

 

As for ranges, I would like something more complex than ‘CQC maps’ and ‘long range maps’ IMO.  Maybe a mix of 3 different classifications of maps:

 

 

>CQC is 800m or less [varies by tier, ~800-1000m for rank 6, rank 1-3 would be like ~400-500m, etc.] , maybe 1/5 maps in RB are these CQC maps (but they should still be big regardless, I can literally reach spawn in 1 minute flat at high tier on Ruhr and stuff).

 

 

>Medium range and mix range.  3/5 maps in RB could be this, maps where you either

 

• engage frequently at medium range [~800m-2,500m for rank 6 (2,500m was the standard combat range of many tanks like the Abrams, APFSDS penetration for example was always measured at 2km later), say Rank III for example would be like 600m-1,200m] , so maps for mid tier could be like Fields of Normandy, while high tier would be like many European maps (Fields of Poland, Eastern Europe [though these are not big enough imo, the fact that you have to backtrack to not get shot because of these ranges, and getting into position to fire on the enemy spawn is easy, I think the spawns should be moved back to make it 5x5km.  I’m using these as examples to show relative combat ranges], Maginot at high tier is mostly mid range, Kursk should have it’s spawns moved back but at high tier it would be mid range (Rank 4 or less it would defiantly be long range though), etc.  Essentially, not CQC, but not like 3km+ ranges.

 

• various ranges of combat.  Example at mid tier would be Maginot: CQC to the west, medium range to the middle, long range (at least to rank 1-4) to the right.  Various ranges of combat, another example would be Vietnam (mid to the north, mid to long middle, CQC in town). Or Sands of Sinai, CQC east, CQC and mid middle, long range west.  High tier (8.0+) there is almost no long range maps, the closest thing to a long range map would be the biggest version of El Alamein — is it would be the only rank 6 mixed range map, since combat ranges mid and north range from 100m-1000m, while south and firing north to south can exceed 2500m+.

These maps are generally more fair in my experience, since different nations do have different preferences in ranges.  Some nations do horrible in CQC and better at longer ranges, while others are the opposite.  Or just ok at both.  These maps allow players to choose their range, instead of “lets play Italy 6 times in a row” or whatever.

 

 

> 1/5 maps (RB) could be long range maps, true long range maps.  So like Kursk at mid tier.  Tank country.  High tier there are none, but assumably this would contain maps like Desert Storm like maps, and maps that do have opportunities for less than long range hopefully (not 100% of the map should be long range), but maps where tanks at mid tier for example can frequently engage 1,200m-2,000m, or even farther, while Simulator would have 2,500-6,000m engagements.

 

 

So for example:

 

1/5 maps would be like

CQC — I think these should all be at minimum 3x3km, but just for distance of combat as a reference; American Desert (Rank 1-5, town would be a small part of the map if full sized for rank 6-7), Ruhr (Rank 1-7), Middle East (Rank 2-7), Stalingrad (Rank 3-7), Normandy Town (Rank 1-7), Italy (Rank 1-7), etc.

 

3/5 maps would be

Mixed and Medium ranges

Medium: Fields of Normandy (Rank 1-3), large version of Fields of Normandy (Rank 4-5), Fulda (Rank 1-6), Maginot (Rank 5-7), Kursk (Rank 6-7), Wallonia (Rank 1-5), Eastern Province (Rank 4-6), Fields of Poland (Rank 1-6), Surrounding of Volokolamsk (Rank 6-7), Hürtgen Forest (Rank 1-5), Stalingrad (Rank 1-2), etc.

Mixed: Vietnam (Rank 3-5), Maginot (Rank 1-5), Sands of Sinai (Rank 2-5), El Alamein [large] (Rank 6-7), Sand of Tunisia (Rank 6-7), etc.

 

1/5 maps

Long range: Sands of Tunisia (Rank 3-5), Kursk (Rank 1-4), Sands of Sinai (Rank 1-3), Maginot (Rank 1), Fulda (Rank 1), etc.

 

 

 

As for the small maps, some like 38th parallel can stay in arcade, they’re unrealistic anyways and can’t really be expanded.  However, the even sadder thing about high tier: this shouldn’t be a problem.

 

American Desert feels like a restrictive WoT arena?

Whoever decides where the map borders and stuff obviously exclusively plays Arcade.

[Laviduce 1,779]

Please vote and leave some feedback ! Thanks ! ;3

[Laviduce 1,779]

Bump... please vote.

[Untergangsmelder 549]

clear vote,

 

We rank 6 -5 RB/SB  players pay the game and get 6 years old 1 km * 1 km maps in RB ......sad sad sad sad.
How much money does a map designer cost in Moscow? How many million euros/dollars/Rubels do you have to invest in the game to be heard?

 

They advertise with realism and give us maps which looks like made for 9 years old Hello Kitty players  . 

 

 

The map design looks the same as in crossout ,  I am very confused . Does anyone know the difference between fictional and real vehicles (gameplay)  ? 

Gaijin really need  User Players Maps we dont want more crossout inspiered maps in a game that advertise with realism .

[Guinespsj 1,003]

Larger maps in top tier, yes please! For that realistic topography, I really would love to see this kind of map, it could actually provide proper example of Finnish nature. Current Finland map and its terrain, is right from fantasy world:

 

Spoiler

 

 

[smaddeus 54]

100% we need larger maps, but 3km minimum though(?)...yeeea, maybe, maybe not, seems too small as well, since you have to take in mind the fact, that there has to be a safe distance from spawns, reducing the battlefield area more. 3x3 would work in urban environment maps, and i mean full urban warfare, not half field half small town. But the average engagement distance on open field maps should be at least 1,5-2km, not ~<500m like it is now.

 

Currently game simply needs 6 new Tier/Rank 6-7 maps that are simply 5x5 - 6x6 or 7x7km, both city and open field maps. By open field I don't mean flat surface at all, but having mounds, hills, and steppe type of land engagements, as well as various types of forest areas with dirt roads, such as Eastern European birch forests and other types of European forests, such as coniferous forests that are typical for Norther/Eastern Europe, that's just an example, but the idea is to fight in such type of forest lands, not the ones that are currently in the game. Maybe I got a bit detailed about it, but I don't see why that can't be done. And city/urban maps would be great too for a chance, and I mean full urban warfare, not some half open field with small town next to it.

 

On 03/04/2019 at 18:45, kamikazi21358 said:

There should be an option for “I would like the minimum map size to be 5x5km at high tier” (at least in RB/SB).

As for the small maps, some like 38th parallel can stay in arcade, they’re unrealistic anyways and can’t really be expanded.  However, the even sadder thing about high tier: this shouldn’t be a problem.

 

American Desert feels like a restrictive WoT arena?

 

Whoever decides where the map borders and stuff obviously exclusively plays Arcade.

 

First: No offense, but get your English straight, hard to understand what you are trying to imply in some places because of unfinished sentences. Reread/proofread what you have written next time.

 

Second: Asking for "options" to pick and choose in-game is too much to ask and wont work efficiently. We all like having options to choose, but not always it works realistically. That sort of feature would be quite a nuisance for us and devs, because everyone will pick their fav map size, thus waiting time will become longer respectively, much longer, because not everyone will pick the same size you picked. This isn't Battlefield game where you could option out for 32x32, or 64x64, or whatever was the smallest engagement / player size, but in that game there wasn't tiers where players get divided into, game simply threw in bunch of random players and that's it. in WT this wont work because match maker has to separate, for example, tier 3 vehicle from tier 4 vehicles, so that the game is fair for obvious reasons, then it looks for players that are in same tier vehicles to make the required minimum number of players to start the match.

Edited August 6, 2020 by smaddeus

[Solarmod 1,203]

Personally I like the idea for larger maps for higher tiers, but with arcade, the larger the map, the less fun I usually find it to be. I usually have to play like a cheapo to get by in larger maps at high tiers.

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 06/08/2020 at 14:07, smaddeus said:

First: No offense, but get your English straight, hard to understand what you are trying to imply in some places because of unfinished sentences. Reread/proofread what you have written next time.

I always do, this is over a year old though so I do not remember the context of how it was written however.  But I don’t understand what was ‘unfinished’, everything linked makes sense to me.

 

On 06/08/2020 at 14:07, smaddeus said:

Second: Asking for "options" to pick and choose in-game is too much to ask and wont work efficiently. We all like having options to choose, but not always it works realistically. That sort of feature would be quite a nuisance for us and devs, because everyone will pick their fav map size, thus waiting time will become longer respectively, much longer, because not everyone will pick the same size you picked. This isn't Battlefield game where you could option out for 32x32, or 64x64, or whatever was the smallest engagement / player size, but in that game there wasn't tiers where players get divided into, game simply threw in bunch of random players and that's it. in WT this wont work because match maker has to separate, for example, tier 3 vehicle from tier 4 vehicles, so that the game is fair for obvious reasons, then it looks for players that are in same tier vehicles to make the required minimum number of players to start the match.

I don’t remember why I said this at the time.  But I agree, I don’t know if I meant this in the context as I explain below, or if I for some reason meant this at the time, but it shouldn’t be an option.

 

My best guess is I meant “it should be an option,” as in it should be an option as in the gamemodes.  If people want small arcade maps, that should be fine — we have a gamemode for it, it is called Arcade.  Realistic Battles should have a minimum size, depending on the tier [like, in my opinion, say 2-2.5km for rank 1, maybe 3x3km for rank 2-4, 4x4km for rank 5, 5x5 for rank 5+]?  We have three gamemodes, there should be noticeable differences in the maps of the three gamemodes; right now, there is some, but it’s kind of small overall, especially compared to the ‘capabilities’ of the vehicles in question.  Even more so now, as the time of this post, I believe IR was not available, and even more powerful vehicles have been added [with small World of Tanks-like urban maps].
 

Which regarding Urban maps, which are fine in Arcade, I do think they should be in RB/SB, but not at the rate they are.  But even ignoring this, just because it is a CQC urban map does not mean it should be a small map.  Larger urban maps could allow for more avenues of approach and less restrictive battle area, battles can last longer, and prevents vehicles from just reaching the other side of the map in just 45 or so seconds.

 

So I believe arcade should have small maps, it should be oriented for quicker combat.  But I believe War Thunder could be a game that appeals to multiple genres, with three gamemodes, it could very well appeal to all sorts of people, who want arcade play styles, maybe want a more realistic game without the difficulty of controls, and maybe even appeal to people who want a simulator-like game.  I don’t feel like that is the case though, it sometimes feels like Arcade, Arcade++, and what Realistic Battles should have been (but with 1st person).

 

So I don’t know if this is what I meant at the time for some reason, but more accurately, yes I believe people should choose to be able to have at minimum 3x3, 5x5km maps or so in ground battles.  But this should be the gamemode itself — like, nobody is queuing in Simulator Battles going “oh boy, I can’t wait to get Middle East again!”  Having progressively larger maps, for both the tiers and the gamemodes, should be borderline common sense I believe; Cold War and Modern MBTs should not have to play on maps that Tier 1 tanks played on, or at least unaltered, nor should Realistic Players should have to fight on maps comparable to Arcade maps, while Simulator Players should have their smallest maps comparable to RB’s biggest.  Appeal to everyone, not to arcade players — and frankly, when it comes to Arcade, I’ve been getting into World of Tanks again, because when it does come to arcade... they do it better, and they’re more balanced.

[Lollipophuhu 378]

To answer to your demand of an explanation about how the caps should be reworked is a lot harder to answer than is expected. I made last a post where i took a couple of the maps and with good quality to introduce for modenr MBT's and on the opposing side what maps need to go on the grounds of fairness towards the opposition in those specific maps, but i left the question about the cap points intentionally open. I believe we should have new methods of winning matches based on ticket bleed, but we can't impliment them, or test them due to the lackluster nature of our current maps we have. It wouldn't give a fair result what could be implimented and what couldn't.

 

Also i'd like to elaborate on the fact of why I believe AB should remain much the same and not include larger maps as most of you have already answered yes to bigger arcade maps. As the name implies, arcade should be exactly what it is now. IT's supposed to be fast pased and action immediatelly, which is why there're many players, almost half, who prefer Aracde to realistic. I think if we'd impliment these changes to it, it would completally change the arcade meta for the worst. All the changes it would really need is to rework the maps a little so that you wouldn't be spawn killed 15s into the match on some locations.

[smaddeus 54]

On 09/08/2020 at 22:27, kamikazi21358 said:

I always do, this is over a year old though so I do not remember the context of how it was written however.  But I don’t understand what was ‘unfinished’, everything linked makes sense to me.

"However, the even sadder thing about high tier: this shouldn’t be a problem. "
For example this line, probably specifically this line only. I don't understand what you meant to say here, because it feels like you wanted to say something, but then you suddenly had a different thought in the head going, and you wrote that instead of what you meant initially, because I see a colon (:) separating two things, and knowing how to use colon the sentence starts to not make sense to me. Maybe you mean it as a quote "this shouldn't be a problem", making it think that you meant that people in top tiers say "this shouldn't be a problem", but it still sounds weird as a sentence.

 

On 09/08/2020 at 22:27, kamikazi21358 said:

it sometimes feels like Arcade, Arcade++, and what Realistic Battles should have been (but with 1st person).

To me it feels more like Realistic Battles in all genres, and AB is watered down RB, because the true arcade is what WoT is, super fast, further away camera point, HP bar instead of fully designed internal modules, though it has modules, but it still works like a ridiculous arcade with RNG % applied, which little exist in WT, or does not exist at all in that regard.

But here AB feels here more realistic in comparison, but AB has elements that distinguishes it from RB. And Simulator battle for ground units at least, imo is only the same RB but with camera above commanders port, in first person, but it still feels like RB, in your logic it's RB+, the only simulating things about SB is plane controls and probably helicopter controls, ground battles need some...more simulation put into it, or I guess that it is simulating enough, it's just that the mechanics carries over to all modes, especially to RB, and there is no real difference for Ground Forces in RB and SB.

  

7 hours ago, Lollipophuhu said:

Also I'd like to elaborate on the fact of why I believe AB should remain much the same and not include larger maps as most of you have already answered yes to bigger arcade maps. As the name implies, arcade should be exactly what it is now. It's supposed to be fast phased and action immediately, which is why there are many players, almost half, who prefer Aracade to realistic. I think if we'd implement these changes to it, it would completely change the arcade meta for the worst. All the changes it would really need is to rework the maps a little so that you wouldn't be spawn killed 15s into the match on some locations.

 

Yup, Arcade wont be arcade with larger maps than what mode provides. I suspect that these Arcade players refuse to move to RB is because it's more expensive to play, basically being afraid of easy SL loss, and that they haven't bothered to adapt to RB battles where enemies aren't visible and you have to be more careful where you drive, where you look, and what you try to do. In Arcade it's nobrainer to play, you see everyone, and everyone sees you, as well as you don't really need to research engine modules to be fast, tanks have high acceleration rate in AB, where in RB it's slower.

Ok, I understand if a player wants to better grind through low tier slow vehicles until the player gets to Tier 4-5 where it speeds up a bit, and Tier 5-6 where it's more pleasing to move around, because it is quite a torture to drive a slow stock vehicle, and some fully unlocked and still being kind of slow, and until you get to the point you either die without doing anything, or doing little, giving the impression that it wasn't worth the time.

Or if it's not vehicle speed related, they might prefer grinding through some tanks in AB because it's cheaper to afford to loose the vehicle, but that's mostly the issue on medium-higher tiers, such as starting from 5th or 6th tier where vehicles are a bit more expensive to grind through, such as Maus being a real pain in the **** to grind. Well, not anymore, only to those who have it. And it's expensive to repair, and has ridiculous match makings quite often. So nobody likes that and moves to AB to grind it instead.

 

Personally I have played for so long, and I always prefer RB over AB, I do play AB in some grinding situations I mentioned above, but mostly RB. Because of that I have adapted to RB and the maps it has, and the playstyle, and I enjoy the immersion more, because I prefer to be able to hide in bushes or not being constantly visible as AB makes you. Of course it means enemy can play the same game of hide-and-seek, but that way it's better imo, higher chance of survivability and kill gaining. Another thing is modes above AB simply give more SL and RP's, so in such sense, if you do good, you can research and earn faster and more than you would in AB, but if you are doing bad, especially in an expensive vehicle, you'll loose quicker, because of bad repair costs that do not make sense.

 

So again, I agree, Arcade regarding map sized should remain as it is, as well as gameplay style should remain the same, there's literally nothing that should be changed regarding those two things. Only different maps are fine with me, but not larger ones, otherwise it will loose it's principal of being Arcade Battle. If you want all those features for AB, then just move to RB and learn to play it without seeing enemy markers above them, and be more patient about it.

Edited August 11, 2020 by smaddeus

[Laviduce 1,779]

As an AB player I am not interested in high tier battles with tiny close quarter combat maps like Frozen Pass, American Desert, Italy, Alaska, Mini Ardennes, Japan, Korea, Finland, Middle East, White Rock Fortress.  If any of these mini maps come up I just leave the battle. before it begins. If i wanted a first-person-shooter experience I would go play first person shooters.

 

Rank 6 and 7 are in urgent need of proper maps along the lines of Maginot LIne, Eastern Provinces, Fields of Poland, Sands of Sinai. Unfortunately these maps show up not so often.

[JuicyKuuuuki 486]

I ain't gonna type HUGE paragraphs. PLEASE GAIJIN, give us EXTENDED MAPS for RB top tier, especially rank 6 with an increase of tickets or a reduced ticket bleed.

[Laviduce 1,779]

On 10/01/2021 at 23:53, JuicyKuuuuki said:

I ain't gonna type HUGE paragraphs. PLEASE GAIJIN, give us EXTENDED MAPS for RB top tier, especially rank 6 with an increase of tickets or a reduced ticket bleed.

Please GAIJIN, give us EXTENDED MAPS for AB, RB and SB   rank 6 and 7 ! ! !

[BlES 314]

Some maps - like cities or tiny crowded labirynths or medieval castles or japanese shrines - belong to Arcade only because they are utterly unrealistic.. 

 

Playing Realistic or Simulator Battle INSIDE medieval castle..., or on the stairs of japanese temple..., or inside some arfificial labirynth of rocks placed especially to force 50 tons behemots with 5-6 meters long barrels developed to shoot at 2-4km to fight each other at 10-100 meters. Very often literally putting the barrel inside the enemy vehicle point blanc, than fire...

 

In anything other than Arcade it is simply ridiculous.

 

BTW: the sheer amount of gigantic rocks (in reality found only in a few selected places on whole Earth) here used in nearly every single map in huge quantities to artificially force only 2-3 possible routes to meet the enemy at point blank range and to artificially block the line of sight of 90% of the map from every single place except of very few "spots" pre-selected by map creator... yeah...

 

To be fair there are some very good maps, reasonably realistic and very enjoyable like Fulda Gap, Mozdok, Kursk, Hürtgen Forest, Poland and more. 

They are simply relatively rare, dominated by totally arcadish tiny cities, artificial rock labirynths etc.

[TovarishToNy 208]

What about fix the map rotation across the board like stop giving top tier tanks maps designed for lower tiers and actually have dedicated map designs for certain tiers instead of trying to make arcade be arcade or realistic be realistic which the term "realistic" is just pure BS like how is it "realistic" to fight in old WWII maps with MBTs? The game design was already outdated since they started introducing modern tanks where they would've tried to redesign modes for ground battles like a middle point between the two modes without the frustrating parts of either mode like economy and repair costs but I doubt Gaijin is going to care about it.

 

13 hours ago, BlES said:

 

Playing Realistic or Simulator Battle INSIDE medieval castle..., or on the stairs of japanese temple..., or inside some arfificial labirynth of rocks placed especially to force 50 tons behemots with 5-6 meters long barrels developed to shoot at 2-4km to fight each other at 10-100 meters. Very often literally putting the barrel inside the enemy vehicle point blanc, than fire...

 

Those would work on infantry battles not actual tanks so instead of fighting on which modes people should play, they should've call out the stupid decision on map design but problem is Gaijin.