Maps, Map design Feedback

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

2 hours ago, palmatius100 said:

I agree with this idea a lot, however 1. the time ahould be maybe lowered to 30s for each stage and 2. br 9.0 must be created because seeing Maus or Jagdtiger against ATGMs really hurt the top tier gameplay. Anyway, this is my feedback, thanks for reading and continue to please our emperor by improving the game. 

Not trying to derail this thread, but the reason for 1-2min per stage is to give the Matchmaker a chance to find matches at your tier first and then only up/downtier you if nothing is available. I think we'd all rather wait longer than get full uptiers all day long. And I agree about expanding tank BRs, but to 10.0 alongside aircraft (jet BRs are overcompressed).

 

Back on Topic, However:

It really puzzles me as to why a plane clearly unfit for a particular RB Air map often gets saddled with that map. What is a B3 Duck going to do even remotely well on Norway? 

 

Basically for RB Air and Tanks we need a map filter, and Japan needs more common maps than Saipain/NG/Zhengzhou. What about the Battle of the Java Sea and the Battle of the Coral Sea, in addition to The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot?

 

And also, perhaps the devs could look into modifying Air RB by making everything worth ticket losses and remove the "hostile team has lost all its vehicles" ticket bleed? Instead just increase ticket losses for aircraft kills so that such a bleed isn't needed. The reason is to make ground pounders and bombers more worthwhile and worth protecting. If they kill enough enemy ground forces or minibases (the # of which would scale with total bomb load on a team for the bombers), suddenly its not necessary to kill off the entire enemy team to win. 

 

It's hard to stay 100% on-topic when many of the game's problems are interconnected. In tanks for example, map design and uptiering are extremely connected. Larger maps with varying spawn locations for different tank classes (and uptiered tanks) would help make uptiers less frustrating when they do happen.

Edited December 27, 2016 by MH4UAstragon

[Dezzantibus 471]

Here I'm referring to AB GF.

 

Ash River I preferred by far the old version. Whichever spawn point I started from I thought I had a reasonable chance of a good game, but now the southern points are too subject to spawn sniping and to camping. I rarely see anyone going to take the southern cap point. The North East spawn point I've only spawned there a couple of times but in fairly awkward positions.

 

Hurtgen forest I liked for the variety of terrain, but now has been changed into another urban map. Cap point C was fine where it was in the gorge. It allowed for different gameplay in the same map. Now all the river portion of the map is useless.

 

In Mozdok, conquest mode, the one where spawn points are almost exposed to each other and the cap point is in the valley between them. I get the strong impression that it's a question of who gets there first. After that it's extremely difficult to take the cap point. Also if one team gets a slight edge over the other it can pin the other team in its spawn point with very little chance of recovery. It's not fun to have to sit in your spawn point because if you dare to show your face there are six snipers waiting for you from any given directions. All the while the cap point sits there draining points. No point in trying for a dash as there is not much in the way of cover and the whole enemy team is looking at you.

 

If I can think of more I'll be back.

 

[Sir_Campalot 259]

3 hours ago, Davenprof said:

I suggest for the Ash River map and the Eastern Europe map they put the old maps back into rotation, as I thought both were well balanced as they were.  BUT - they could ALSO have the new versions in rotation - so that way everyone is happy.  Those who wanted a new map setup on the old maps get those sometimes, and those who like the old setup get those sometimes.  Everyone wins. 

 

Just wondering Davenprof what you thought of Ash River today? I've not played the "bridge side" yet on the changed map.  Today although you guys on that side capped B quickly we seemed to have the advantage once we secured A and could shoot you guys from the hill. Dunno I reckon it doesn't "feel" as balanced as it did.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Sir_Campalot

[Fliegel 1,660]

I wish there would be more Kursk or Mozdok but I also enjoy small map like Fields of Normandy

 

I just dislike how most maps are obviously artificial, made for purpose of the game. Lots of rocks for cover, passages,  sniper/camping places... For RB and SB some more natural look would be nice. I know what has been said about WW mode but that is distant future now and not sure what can I expect.

 

And this is bigger than just disliking the map. It spoils the game to me and makes me skip the map (not even spawn). It is like doing 18th century living history reenactment at sport paintball playground. I feel like a clown there. So I rather wait, even for an hour, every time*

 

I also have hard time believing that big maps are not wanted. I think that a lot of people want maps like B0ris (check at WT live, he also did the sound mod recently fixed) did.

 

 

*That is also why I'm so often on the forum. I've just wrote this as I get a crew lock after I left Frozen Pass.

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Fliegel

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

5 hours ago, Fliegel said:

 

 

I just dislike how most maps are obviously artificial, made for purpose of the game. Lots of rocks for cover, passages,  sniper/camping places... For RB and SB some more natural look would be nice. I know what has been said about WW mode but that is distant future now and not sure what can I expect.

 

 

 

 

 

Not that far in the future friend wwm, but ofc most maps need this kind of  "Lots of rocks for cover, passages,  sniper/camping places" otherwise progression and advancement would be what none existent and needs to cater for game play style users have ,  some maps are based on real locations .

 

if maps were open fields for miles to see , that's all you will see  , some guy 6k out to the left  and it takes 20min 30min to track him down, players will just start leaving game session out of boredom and frustration that some guy with maybe one kill being sneaky is just miles away from anything.

 

Not only that but do you want to travel for say 10min  before even being in a position to maybe se enemy.. your progression in game will SLOW dramatically  

 

mpas have standard avanus to force players down a certain route yes , but also you can choose many other locations to go , custom game exploring a map is very very good tip  

 

Kur and Moz is about as big as you want to get

 

 

Bigger maps sound good on paper , but you will find in each game you may see 1 or 2 other players , is this kind of what you guys want ? 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

5 hours ago, Sir_Campalot said:

 

Just wondering Davenprof what you thought of Ash River today? I've not played the "bridge side" yet on the changed map.  Today although you guys on that side capped B quickly we seemed to have the advantage once we secured A and could shoot you guys from the hill. Dunno I reckon it doesn't "feel" as balanced as it did.

 

 

 

 

 

Many maps we try to force team play , if A ontop is being caped well thats the team's fault for not even caring about it knowing what will come next , yes a rain down from above there.  Teamwork is essential part of this game , many users still need to acknowledge this as its more important now then ever , gone are the lone wolf days clutching a game  (apart from me i will destroy you all on any map ) 

 

A lot of in game play are (your own fault)   to put it bluntly , and many of you see this day in day out 

[CABALLER0 213]

I always wondered, why design maps at all? I mean, why not use the actual geography of the actual places? 

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

5 minutes ago, buck1ea said:

I always wondered, why design maps at all? I mean, why not use the actual geography of the actual places? 

 

maps need to be adjusted like they are for balance , real locations can be extremely one sided , sometimes there is red tape in the way as well  (policies/politics )  wwm will be closer to real locations then what we see and know in game to date.

 

Am i saying there is no issue with current configurations = no , is there room for adjustments , absolutely.  Many maps have been adjusted over the last year , new cover , new additions and buildings and forest.  it takes a little time to make these adjustments    

[Godman_82 9,389]

I wanted to say something smart, but @Necrons31467 said it all I think, great job

 

I just want to add one thing - tanks were not fighting on the streets unless they really had to. They did not enter closed spaces like factories, ports until it was checked by infantry and safe. Maps like Novorossyjsk or this new one are making this game Quake Thunder (or CS:WT if You like), and if this should ever happen, let it stay in AB. I want more Mozdoks, Kursks, Polands (but with some modifications to spawns and bases location) in Realistic Battles.

 

And @Hunternz, since You are active here, please check my msg I sent You few days ago, thanks! :P

[Steve8066 560]

10 hours ago, Necrons31467 said:

 

 

 

I will use Necrons pic as its easier than doing another......Ive only played this new version from the West a couple of times and my major gripe is that Cap point C blocks the main road towatds B which creates a bottleneck with everyone playing dodgems trying to get through. Ideally I would prefer C moving back to where it was but appreciate it might be too hidden to balance out with A so can it be moved slightly South so that it clears the road? That way its still in the general position it currently is but it would clear the main road.

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

5 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

I wanted to say something smart, but @Necrons31467 said it all I think, great job

 

And @Hunternz, since You are active here, please check my msg I sent You few days ago, thanks! :P

 

Yes i too really like his post and will address some of the things he has mentioned there.

 

 

what message let me look , sorry for the lateness 

[Godman_82 9,389]

Oh, oh, and one more thing. Simple and maybe irrelevant, but still a part of map designs - a SPAWN disaster Where everyone spawns "about here", and almost everytime some guy is just spawned in my way. Why not 'mark' every spawn point with some symbol that would be removed after 1-2 minutes?

In other words - remove this:

 

[AlanHR 5,261]

Or maybe just disable object clipping like planes have when they are taking off so you can just pass through tanks on spawn.

[MaybeMaybeNot 1,759]

Just now, Godman_82 said:

Oh, oh, and one more thing. Simple and maybe irrelevant, but still a part of map designs - a SPAWN disaster Where everyone spawns "about here", and almost everytime some guy is just spawned in my way. Why not 'mark' every spawn point with some symbol that would be removed after 1-2 minutes?

In other words - remove this:

 

 

Usually your unique in game ID (for lack of better words)  will spawn you in same location on map on either spawn spot 1 or 2  chosen .  late comers do tend to spawn right in the way 1 out of maybe 5 games it happens to me and yes annoying ..fixable hmmm maybe .. but not as easy as 1,2,3 fixed 

Just now, KH_Alan said:

Or maybe just disable object clipping like planes have when they are taking off so you can just pass through tanks on spawn.

 

is oneway yes , the whole spawn system for GF would need redoing in a nutshell kind of 

[Godman_82 9,389]

Just now, Hunternz said:

 

Usually your unique in game ID (for lack of better words)  will spawn you in same location on map on either spawn spot 1 or 2  chosen .  late comers do tend to spawn right in the way 1 out of maybe 5 games it happens to me and yes annoying ..fixable hmmm maybe .. but not as easy as 1,2,3 fixed 

If every single spawn point (I mean exact point of one tank spawning) is precisely set on the map, even marking it with big X on the ground would do, so I know that in this place someone can spawn right now, so I better drive around it..

[CptNeckbeard 385]

I would love to see more maps in warthunder that are actually "tankcountry" most of the maps we have right now are to CQB heavy and not suited for tank combat at all. Sure this is not a simulator and i enjoy a knifefight myself once in a while but it seems a little pointless to recreate tanks as realisticly as possible to put them in a environment they never where designed for.

 

So my suggenstions are more open maps with less artificial cover. I like Kursk and Mozdok (it could be better without all these rocks) a lot and would love to have some more maps like this in the rotation. Maps where one actually has to use tank tactics would be great, where e.g. some tanks provide cover in a hulldown position while others cross a rolling hillside and have to crest the hills with minimum exposure.

 

Other than that i strongly agree with necrons post.

 

 

[Tupoun 690]

Hi,

 

my five cents - maps for AB:

 

- if possible, please use different version of certain maps for different game modes (AB/RB playstyle is different, spawn points as well), I think it should not take so much time to make 2 versions of the same map for different game style.

- I consider changes in map design published in 1.65 a huge step back, especially for AB. I thought 1.63 were quite balanced, this is the first time I feel it's a move in a very wrong direction (still talking AB tank battles).

 

White Rock Fortress:

 

- spawn system: if the new player doesn't know, he can choose the spawn point, they all spawn in 1 place, get to C (or the opposite side A) and suddenly you have hordes of tanks near the enemy spawn. Respawn there - they get slaughtered,

- spawns are unprotected - you can snipe them from across the map. Consider taking accurate vehicles (Flak 37, Pz IV F2 etc. and sniping Shermans, T-34). Please take into account that AB is, where new players usually begin their experience:

 

 

I can snipe the C and the spawn - hard to run away from the spawn in protection time, especially for new players.

 

 

I just spawned in - T-34 started to snipe me, If I were new player, I'd not know what is going on, had now chance to counter attack wit new tank/crew low tier tank inaccuracy. Exact spawns, I did not move a bit in both cases:

 

 

Berlin:

 

- southern spawn is terribly open. With changes in 1.65 the problem even worsened. Look at the pictures - still AB tank battles talk. You see literally people spawn in, figure out ... "Hey ... southern spawn" and in seconds their tanks exploding, as they are leaving. I love Berlin, I don't mind it - but southern spawn is unfair (AB).

- generally low number of houses. I can imagine it could be different for RB and AB - different spawns, directions of attack and capping. 2 versions of the same map - one for AB the other for RB would come in handy and it should not take too much time/work, just house here and there or - remove this, lower this part of terrain ...

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Tupoun

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

From CQC some nations benefit at a lot while others do not. most of the higher tier german tanks were created with sniping in mind, accurate high damage high penitration guns with thick frontal armor. its all advantages they havr, yet at CQC they become very weak, their guns are not special, armor is also near useless, since it is very easy to outflank them, while they cant do the same to enemies due to size and worser mobility. most of current maps (except kursk mozdok and the OLD hurtgen forest) support only playing mobile medium and light tanks as flankers (and spaas). playing heavys is pretty sad because you always ge outlfanked. not even talking about tds that are utterly useless in current maps. Also tanks with long reload suffer, because if they shoot, they might score a kill, howeve for next 20s they are just fish in the barrel. at long range maps they would be better because of the fact that their guns are usually very good and that they usually have armor to bounce shots, and it is extremly hard to hit their weakpoints. also on bigger maps fast tanks would be equally competitive. i would also like to say that the poimt of RB and SB is having realism, not only tank characteristics, but also the overall flow of the battle being realistic, which is what many players expect from RB and SB, and a lot of them dont get what they expect because of current map designs. For AB the current maps are definitely very good however not for RB and SB. i hope that everyone understands my points. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by palmatius100

[Fliegel 1,660]

3 hours ago, Hunternz said:

 

...

Bigger maps sound good on paper , but you will find in each game you may see 1 or 2 other players , is this kind of what you guys want ? 

 

Just few things

 

1. I din't want to sound like I want a battle over a salt lake. Even in open terrain, there are things like ditch next to the road, fields are convex, few trees there, a lone house near... etc. Fields of Normandy map is a good example (though too tiny). I engage at 200-600 m in Kursk.

 

2.  A realistic terrain is faster to move than map full of obstacles and climbing. What is purpose of those waves and bumps? People care of fields usually flatter them. And in game it only slows down and making driving a bit painful. 

And I think that RB or SB players do not need instant action. 10 minutes to see an enemy is, on the road, about 5km. That is five times bigger than new Factory map edge! And probably not needed. But 10 minutes to cross the map? Doesn't sound too bad.

A guy hiding somewhere will lose to capture points.

 

3. Still rather 1-2 players on big nice map, than 30 in the Jungle. But my point was I believe natural map would attract people, not make them leave. How many people mention "Kursk and Mozdok" and not only here. Still those are the only map of this kind.

 

 

Edit: Rephrase and add last sentence to point 2

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Fliegel

[Tupoun 690]

27 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

Oh, oh, and one more thing. Simple and maybe irrelevant, but still a part of map designs - a SPAWN disaster Where everyone spawns "about here", and almost everytime some guy is just spawned in my way. Why not 'mark' every spawn point with some symbol that would be removed after 1-2 minutes?

 

I concur. Most rages in AB come from this. You spawn in - take up speed and suddenly another tank appears in your way. You bump into it, he starts to push you and people get mad. I literally hate the way tanks being spawned in the game.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Tupoun

[PL_Andrev 7,386]

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

if maps were open fields for miles to see , that's all you will see  , some guy 6k out to the left  and it takes 20min 30min to track him down, players will just start leaving game session out of boredom and frustration that some guy with maybe one kill being sneaky is just miles away from anything.

 

You're right. This is main reason why Al-Elemain map is completely unplayable for me. This maps is quite big, included terrain differences... but is too big: when one capture point is fallen nobody go to help due huge distance. Second problem that some points are attacked by 1-2 tanks only, because rest of team is spawned at 2nd spawn point and is attacking another zones.

But problem is not involved with map size, zone distances, but with parallel capturing zones: teams cannot create "panzer-glocke" and secure point by points cooperated with themselves.

 

Some similar feedbacks were given several month ago and no special changes were made.
Example: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/212131-best-map-for-tanks-features/

 

The general problems with map are:

- extremely small, tunneled maps (Karelia is the worst GF map in my opinion, included camping  balconies),

- huge ground level differences (Ash River) where camping is "suggested" mode,

- kid-sandbox map style (not hilly but "waved") like Kuban map,

 

Last desert map (Sinai) were very good welcomed by community because all of "features" above are not included there.

 

1 hour ago, Hunternz said:

Not only that but do you want to travel for say 10min  before even being in a position to maybe se enemy.. your progression in game will SLOW dramatically

 

Not, if Gaijin use "moving spawn" idea, details here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/322045-ractangle-maps-moving-spawns-system/

Please notice that this idea have few additional positive features:

• fast contact with enemy,
• changeable battle theater (if some zones are already captured),
• team cooperate together, not as single units "somewhere",
• no spawn camping (spawns are moving on when zones are capturing too),
• light-tank game sense (fast capturing next point),

Of course this idea has no sense at some "tunelled micro maps", but big open maps like Kursk, Mozdok, El-Alamein, Hurtgen Forrest, Sinai, etc. will be nice welcomed:

  

 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2016 by PL_Andrev

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

10 minutes ago, PL_Andrev said:

 

You're right. This is main reason why Al-Elemain map is completely unplayable for me. This maps is quite big, included terrain differences... but is too big: when one capture point is fallen nobody go to help due huge distance. Second problem that some points are attacked by 1-2 tanks only, because rest of team is spawned at 2nd spawn point and is attacking another zones.

But problem is not involved with map size, zone distances, but with parallel capturing zones: teams cannot create "panzer-glocke" and secure point by points cooperated with themselves.

 

Some similar feedbacks were given several month ago and no special changes were made.
Example: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/212131-best-map-for-tanks-features/

 

The general problems with map are:

- extremely small, tunneled maps (Karelia is the worst GF map in my opinion, included camping  balconies),

- huge ground level differences (Ash River) where camping is "suggested" mode,

- kid-sandbox map style (not hilly but "waved") like Kuban map,

 

Last desert map (Sinai) were very good welcomed by community because all of "features" above are not included there.

 

 

Not, if Gaijin use "moving spawn" idea, details here: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/322045-ractangle-maps-moving-spawns-system/

Please notice that this idea have few additional positive features:

• fast contact with enemy,
• changeable battle theater (if some zones are already captured),
• team cooperate together, not as single units "somewhere",
• no spawn camping (spawns are moving on when zones are capturing too),
• light-tank game sense (fast capturing next point),

Of course this idea has no sense at some "tunelled micro maps", but big open maps like Kursk, Mozdok, El-Alamein, Hurtgen Forrest, Sinai, etc. will be nice welcomed:

  

 

 

 

Well 1st what game modes are you talking about? I personally would dislike this idea, because when spawns are being changed closer and closer to enemy team, close quarter battles are made, and this thing is the biggest issue for a lot of RB and SB players. Also this would be bisased towards some nations. Nations like germany really have no fast tanks, while ussr just take out their trucks and capture all the zones. 

[Dezzantibus 471]

2 hours ago, Hunternz said:

Many maps we try to force team play , if A ontop is being caped well thats the team's fault for not even caring about it knowing what will come next , yes a rain down from above there.  Teamwork is essential part of this game , many users still need to acknowledge this as its more important now then ever , gone are the lone wolf days clutching a game  (apart from me i will destroy you all on any map ) 

 

A lot of in game play are (your own fault)   to put it bluntly , and many of you see this day in day out 

 

I understand that, but if players aren't team playing then those who try will also stop, and maybe bail on those maps that they start hating because "unplayable". 

 

Again, I'm talking about AB, it's probably going to be different for RB and SB.

I can't team play by myself if everybody sits behind the rocks sniping at each other, if you see what I mean, so, no, I disagree, it's not always the players' fault, or at least not all players. 

 

If spawn points are exposed then people will either bail and stop playing that map, or not use those spawn points and select the others.

 

Another thing: if dominance of point A gives line of sight to point B then to capture point B you necessarily have to hold point A?

[Godman_82 9,389]

And one more thing - the location of the spawn point should be somehow distant from any other important parts (like bases, cap points), because sometime taking up the base is at the same time a bit spawn camping. The spawn point should be located in the area where enemy players has nothing to do except spawn camping. Then we would have only deliberate spawn camping, not occasional/coincidence spawn camping.

 

Like on Poland, when You push bottom flank through woods, and one side is quickly killing enemies (or not meeting any enemies), and soon You reach the enemy spawn. It's kinda problematic, because what else can You do? You can go forward, pass the spawn point and try to round the enemies, but You are risking the clash with immortal just-spawned tank, or shot in the back. You can go back and try another flank or center, but if You are slow tank, it is not good idea either. So You are stuck where You are, and do You want it or not - You are spawn camping.

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

16 minutes ago, Godman_82 said:

And one more thing - the location of the spawn point should be somehow distant from any other important parts (like bases, cap points), because sometime taking up the base is at the same time a bit spawn camping. The spawn point should be located in the area where enemy players has nothing to do except spawn camping. Then we would have only deliberate spawn camping, not occasional/coincidence spawn camping.

 

Like on Poland, when You push bottom flank through woods, and one side is quickly killing enemies (or not meeting any enemies), and soon You reach the enemy spawn. It's kinda problematic, because what else can You do? You can go forward, pass the spawn point and try to round the enemies, but You are risking the clash with immortal just-spawned tank, or shot in the back. You can go back and try another flank or center, but if You are slow tank, it is not good idea either. So You are stuck where You are, and do You want it or not - You are spawn camping.

I totally agree with it, however some players just start constantly whining that it takes very long time to get to battle and gaijin is forced to make smaller maps, which in turn makes many RB and SB players very unhappy. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by palmatius100