Maps, Map design Feedback

[Dezzantibus 471]

2 minutes ago, palmatius100 said:

Yesterday, when i saw the new el alamein and hurgen i realy wanted to cry. Maps are not interesring anymore. there is now ton of spawncamping, at it hapens relitively early in the battle now. also, hurtgen is now limited to city combat, much less opportunities in el alamein as well. why do these changes for RB and SB? i get AB, but other 2 modes are suposed to be realistic to some extent. 

 

I play in AB and I liked the old Hurgen a lot. Not so much this new one.

[Tivoru 4,927]

7 hours ago, Tupoun said:

 

I find this discussion very interesting with valid points. What I fear though as I read it - most people are experienced players talking about maps regarding RB. Open realistic maps are not suitable for AB. If you have big red label above your tank and well trained crews, you can snipe new players/guys with not so experienced crews pretty easily. If those changes should take the direction of vast open areas, it would harm AB. I still think most maps should have two slightly different variants - one smaller with more cover for AB, the other changed according the needs of RB. Talking about tanks of course. I can see it when I play some Mozdok maps - I take a position and take the low level players nice and easy with IS-2, they have problems to aim, I don't - well trained crew at my side (and in AB you don't need so much skill, just the calm to aim). Also the other valid argument for RB vastness - heavy tanks are clumsy in the towns, not so in AB. Players usually know, who is where and can adjust, which can't be done in RB. I love town maps in AB with heavies.

AB maps are always smaller cutoff of RB/SB maps. So if we will get maps like Mozdok, with open fields, but with something like town, river or something else on center/edge of map. That part will be still playable on AB.

[LordMustang 7,405]

Yeah, but I want my pre-1.65 maps back in RB. Please, this ruins so many flanking tactics and map usage.

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

11 minutes ago, LordMustang said:

Yeah, but I want my pre-1.65 maps back in RB. Please, this ruins so many flanking tactics and map usage.

Many people want but for me it seems that gaijin is trying to attract WoT and other games arcade players with the expense of players that play WT for RB and SB modes. 

[Schindibee 2,862]

What I’d find an interesting map would be a proper river crossing map (actually a bit like has been discussed above already...).

We have several maps with rivers in game already (Eastern Europe as the most prominent one), but they are crossable via several bridges, or fordable if the river isn’t too deep.

In reality, bridges across big rivers are rare and therefore highly valuable landmarks, with tremendous strategic importance – so it would only be logical to include such a map into the WT map library, no?  = )

A map where the main objective would be such a heavily battled over bridge could be exciting – maybe not as long a bridge like at Remagen or Arnheim, but shorter ones leading over unfordable rivers.

I could envision the bridge itself forming a single cap point, cap points to be on the other respective sides, so both sides would have to cross the river to gain access to the cap points of the enemy.

Of course crossing a bridge would be very dangerous, if not protected from the river banks, so such a scenario could lead to some very interesting battles. A bit like Eastern Europe, but more focused and condensed / less cluttered, with only one point where to cross.

It would actually be possible to create such bridge-maps based on existing ground forces maps. Here, e.g. White Fortress springs to mind, where the ground map area would need to be shifted somewhat to not center on the fortress, but the river running past it.

Another possibility would be to shift the useable area on the Berlin Map to include the city part north of the river spree, with one team starting close to the Reichstag, the other team north of the river, with e.g. only the Moltke Bridge connecting the two sides.

Even Kursk, Mozdok, etc. could be shifted around to focus on a river crossing...

[Naik_NL@psn 1,316]

4 hours ago, Dezzantibus said:

there is a thread elsewhere on the AB GF section that laments people going for sniping points and ignoring objectives. I see this happening more and more frequently. In one particular game (Ash River) nobody was trying to capture the southern cap. Seeing everyone hanging around behind rocks around the cap point I tried to make a rich for it and hide behind the big rock on the cap point itself, I thought that with an almost spaded M24 I had a fairly good chance due to the speed.

This is the drawback of having that little circle on the ground. Everybody knows once you get in there you will be sniped so they'll hang back in the hope of sniping one other. 

 

Maybe a different game mode might help:

 

At game start you will be presented not only with capping points on the map, but the enemies half of the map will be drawn red on the map. Once every minute the 'frontline' on the map will update according to the positions of all vehicles on the map. Has no one crossed the line no changes, has anyone penetrated enemy territory the frontline will update. As it's not updated in real time it won't give away any actual positions and the ticket balance will shift according to conquered territory in addition to the situation of the capping points. 

 

This is to bring more mobility to the map in general opposed to the focus on single point(s) as is the situation at the moment. 

[Bat_the_Judge 982]

1 hour ago, Schindibee said:

What I’d find an interesting map would be a proper river crossing map (actually a bit like has been discussed above already...).

 

 

We have several maps with rivers in game already (Eastern Europe as the most prominent one), but they are crossable via several bridges, or fordable if the river isn’t too deep.

 

 

In reality, bridges across big rivers are rare and therefore highly valuable landmarks, with tremendous strategic importance – so it would only be logical to include such a map into the WT map library, no?  = )

 

 

A map where the main objective would be such a heavily battled over bridge could be exciting – maybe not as long a bridge like at Remagen or Arnheim, but shorter ones leading over unfordable rivers.

 

 

I could envision the bridge itself forming a single cap point, cap points to be on the other respective sides, so both sides would have to cross the river to gain access to the cap points of the enemy.

 

 

Of course crossing a bridge would be very dangerous, if not protected from the river banks, so such a scenario could lead to some very interesting battles. A bit like Eastern Europe, but more focused and condensed / less cluttered, with only one point where to cross.

 

 

It would actually be possible to create such bridge-maps based on existing ground forces maps. Here, e.g. White Fortress springs to mind, where the ground map area would need to be shifted somewhat to not center on the fortress, but the river running past it.

 

 

Another possibility would be to shift the useable area on the Berlin Map to include the city part north of the river spree, with one team starting close to the Reichstag, the other team north of the river, with e.g. only the Moltke Bridge connecting the two sides.

 

 

Even Kursk, Mozdok, etc. could be shifted around to focus on a river crossing...

 

 

IMO this is a fantastyc idea that can bring more variety to tank battles. And there is a perfect map that can be used to test this. In Air map Korea there is that location near the middle woth long bridges and city that is used for crossing the river objective in the Air RB. This new tank map would be very interesting together with crossing the river gamemode it would definitely bring variety to game. 

 

+1 to your idea

[AtomicPope 3,953]

I understand that many of the reasons for the map designs are due to concerns about MM, queue time, and keeping them playable on lower spec machines, and that large maps are uncommon because of the longer match times. Despite what I brought up most of the maps aren't all bad, it just feels likethey could be much better with(sometimes even small) tweaks. Except for Frozen Pass. I hate that map

 

9 hours ago, Hunternz said:

 

correct this is why we predominantly try to cater for all round functionality of a map , its a very hard task to accomplish and everyone should know and   take this into consideration , we cater for one type and good bye war thunder 

 

The approach devs took to Volokolamsk is good for that IMO, have a large map and then subdivide it into smaller submaps to play in. There's real small map versions, larger ones and the largest one for Sim/occasionally RB. That offers the most variety and diverse gameplay and doesn't even require new maps. From what I've seen most tank maps have a much bigger area designed to be ready for Gf matches, but many just utilize a small part of it.

 

Also I think what Gaijin did with Normandy is good, the original map was quite large, but instead of simply cutting it down and leave the rest of the map unused, like they did with others, they turned it into two versions - Operation Neptune and Fields of Normandy. Operation Neptune gives an option for urban combat but you can also flank and drive around merrily in the hinterland, have some longer range engagements there or snipe into the city from the hills. Fields of Normandy gives the option for faster, longer range combat but there's still plenty of soft cover to hide in, or hard cover in the form of houses sprinkled throughout the map.  Both Normandy maps also show that you can have realistic terrain without so many huge rocks and small steep hills that still offers plenty of ways to go hulldown or conceal your vehicle.

 

 

[Alabama-Shrimp@psn 735]

(sorry I didn't take note of their user name) the official person that's commenting on blue says that map balance is a formula yet how can this be working when some maps are now a roll over? 

 

People are coming up with loads of good ideas and from it I get the impression that we don't necessarily want maps that are 'easy' we want ones where we don't feel cheated, as in easily spawn camped fromong rang, placed too near a spawn or just some random open spot. 

Why not make the caps something significant and worth taking? A repair point, air strike or some such. 

[AlanHR 5,261]

I cannot comment about AB since I don't play it, but small maps in general are not good for RB as its transition stage towards SB. People should get knowledge of big maps (with friendly markers help) so when they switch to SB (no friendly markers) they will have general knowledge where your team usually goes. Now when people switch to SB they are literally lost on big maps and become easy prey for experienced players. This brings frustration and some people don't play it any more. Which extends SB queue times with lower player numbers.

[Tupoun 690]

4 hours ago, AtomicPope said:

 

Also I think what Gaijin did with Normandy is good, the original map was quite large, but instead of simply cutting it down and leave the rest of the map unused, like they did with others, they turned it into two versions - Operation Neptune and Fields of Normandy. Operation Neptune gives an option for urban combat but you can also flank and drive around merrily in the hinterland, have some longer range engagements there or snipe into the city from the hills. Fields of Normandy gives the option for faster, longer range combat but there's still plenty of soft cover to hide in, or hard cover in the form of houses sprinkled throughout the map.  Both Normandy maps also show that you can have realistic terrain without so many huge rocks and small steep hills that still offers plenty of ways to go hulldown or conceal your vehicle.

 

 

Agree. Normandy is very good map - town for close combat and enough space to go around and snipe for SPGs or nicely flank the adversary. This's exactly that kind of map, where you can use close combat brawlers as well as medium and long range snipers, fast light tanks and slow heavies. Perfect for SPGs with no turret like SU-85, perfect for nimble SPGs like my Hellcat, everybody can find it's play style here. And the map looks generally very good (the only thing I don't like are the empty yards inside the building rings - but that's utter nonsense).

 

Talking from AB perspective.

[Tupoun 690]

4 hours ago, KH_Alan said:

I cannot comment about AB since I don't play it, but small maps in general are not good for RB as its transition stage towards SB. People should get knowledge of big maps (with friendly markers help) so when they switch to SB (no friendly markers) they will have general knowledge where your team usually goes. Now when people switch to SB they are literally lost on big maps and become easy prey for experienced players. This brings frustration and some people don't play it any more. Which extends SB queue times with lower player numbers.

 

I agree. I play only AB and as AB player I do prefer smaller maps, with cities - I want fast paced battle with lots of kills, based on my awareness and quick reactions. I can imagine, that if I played RB, I'd like to have more time and space to get to some position, thus I'd prefer larger maps with more options as the safety feature - the larger distances give me better chance for enemy to make a mistake or not being punished for mine. I'm not good at spotting things, thus I know my limits and don't play RB - but love to watch it on YouTube though.

 

I also love planes but can't thin in 3D, thus I play tanks and just love to watch it on ... yeah, YouTube.

[esapekkis 2,659]

It has now been a whole year from the las time Simulator pilots could see and attack ships (since EC started). Could you please add some ships to EC maps too (and maybe even a pacific map?), since I really love using torpedoes.

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

Maybe one could experiment with placing tank spawn points in/near clusters of AI ground units on air battles maps.

 

I advocate one tries this on a smallish air map like Sicily. Two tank combat regions each roughly Kursk-size with advancing bot tank columns and fortifications. 

 

There are already plenty of houses on the side with the AI tanks to protect a spawn zone. Maybe plunk down a few more behind the pillboxes for the other team? 

 

Seriously, someone needs to figure out how to do this and make a multiplayer user mission. Of course to make things fairer:

 

1. Remove the "Hostile Team Has Lost All It's Vehicles" Ticket Bleed.

 

2. In exchange for #1, ticket loss for player aircraft and tank kills would be greatly increased. Thus a 32v32 match of half planes and tanks would end via tickets being empty if all players die.

 

3. Each side would have three hardened AI ground units for every player controlled one. Soft targets would bleed small ticket amounts and hardened ones would bleed more. Six soft targets = three hard targets = one player ticketwise. 

 

4. AI ground units would be upgraded based on tier. For simplicity the AI models in air forces would be used. SPAAG would only work vs the AI tanks at near point blank range. 

 

5. Completely flat regions would be slightly reworked into smooth, rolling low hills, because spawn to spawn sniping would kill the mode. 

 

6. To provide appropriate cover, small, shallow ditches and patches of forest like Fields of Normandy would be used. There would NOT be hedge rows like that map has, though. 

 

7. Different tank classes would get different spawn points on the map. Heavies, Armored Medium Tanks (T-44s, Panther IIs, Centurions, and similar stuff), and Armored TDs that are at their tier (Jagdpanther, Ferdinand, SU-85M, Tortoise, T28, T95) would spawn in a couple places near the center of the spawn zone. Uptiered tanks, Light TDs, SPAAG loading Armored Target Belts, Light Tanks, Medium Tanks (T-34s, Shermans, Pershings, Pattons, etc), Open SPGs (Scorpions, Marders, Dicker Max, Sturer Emil, Nashorn, etc) would have spawn zones near the sides of the spawn strip on the map. Basically if something needs to flank to be effective, give it the opporitunity to reach the good sniping spots before the Tiger IIH/T29/T-44-100/Centurion horde gets there. 

 

 

[nleon 12]

Map of Korea has been done really well!
The developers have made a great job

[John_Q_ 1,535]

15 hours ago, Hunternz said:

 

The m18 your first shot needs to be gunner /loader   full stop , granted they turn up at cap points firsts but they dont last long there , T34s are not far behind (BR arrangement )  to combat them . many players try to oneshot the m18 its just not going to be a thing to 100% effectively do this.     No AT won't happen , player awareness and knowledge of said tank is your compensation , this is the dynamic in game tank knowledge is key to your success , knowing repair time of said tank also improves your game  effectiveness , take out gunner loader , back off asses surroundings take a shot at any other tank advancement and then re concentrate on the m18  

 

war thunder is not a FPS  .. we have many publishings to allow you to know each tank's strengths and weakness  , this is key to this game 

 

 

 

My friend Hunter, you did nt get what I am trying to say man.. The lack of infantry-type threats is a problem for ground forces modes. What I mean is that you have unarmored vehicles cruising through ruins and urban areas undisturbed. That s a massive distortion of reality. For an open turreted vehicle like the m18 or the zsu 57, it would mean certain suicide. That s why I talked about adding AI artillery bots like those in Kursk. Anyway, my question is towards the dev QA session you talked about in one of your posts here.

[Iron_physik 3,485]

 

Knife fighting in Br 7.3 is not fun...

pls change it back to a bigger size, this is even smaller than a few days ago...

[MH4UAstragon 9,581]

32 minutes ago, Iron_physik said:

 

Knife fighting in Br 7.3 is not fun...

pls change it back to a bigger size, this is even smaller than a few days ago...

Oh my god that map is terrible. Well I know exactly when I'll just exit the match without even trying and play a different nation.

 

Or maybe setting up camp overlooking the battle zone.

[barendd 343]

On the Ash River map the one side was closed off but somehow tanks still get up there which is now completely unbalanced. 

 

If a section of a map is closed you don't expect to get shot from there. Unfortunately this is now the case on this map. It sucks to say the least. 

[Fog_of_War 1,043]

13 hours ago, esapekkis said:

It has now been a whole year from the las time Simulator pilots could see and attack ships (since EC started). Could you please add some ships to EC maps too (and maybe even a pacific map?), since I really love using torpedoes.

Or at least adding ships to current Sicily EC map whould be good - massive formation of ships should self-protect area from lone torpedo-bomber but can be good target for half a team.

This formation even can be new battle task - the same as triggered by timer ground battles. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Fog_of_War

[Sir_Campalot 259]

White Rock Fort on Arcade. Why would you give A to one side? A used to be a really interesting objective and could go for either side. I have no idea what Gaiijin are up to these days. I can only speculate that they have had a change in management who have no idea about playing the game.

 

It's getting very boring Gaijin. Sort your crap out. If you've made changes to your team then you have to look at that. The game works when players are happy. Listen to us.

 

[Serpiko82 7,875]

Although this is a very minor issue, and aesthetic only, I'd like to mention it in the official maps discussion thread: SNOWY WEATHER in ground maps looks totally unnatural. It looks more like being inside one of those glass balls rather than under real snow.

 

A) Snow appears to be falling too slowly in spite of its density and size of the flakes, like floating inside fluid instead than falling through air. In this sense, it would be enough to speed up a bit the fall of snowflakes, maybe about 1.5x to 2.0 the current speed. 

 

B) even more important, it's plain nonsense to see such relatively dense snow falling from CLEAR sky. There must be a way to link the processes generating weather and clouds in a match so that, if it's snowing, the sky MUST be overcast (or at least clouds must cover the most of it). 

[PL_Andrev 7,386]

Quote

In the mission “Convoy” we use the already familiar SP (Spawn Points) system: (...) if a player acts effectively on the battlefield destroying or damaging enemy ships or convoy vessels, he gains SP to spend on heavier ships or attack aircraft. Light boats do not require RP to respawn.

 

Same story as for planes event for GF AB: if you're hero you have access to planes or... better units which allow you make the game more unballnaced highly.

 

IMHO convoy ships should transport "spawn points" and players should consume them to next respawn as ship or plane (BR limits only).

In this solution, both teams (teams, not single players) are focused:

• to kill enemy convoy (to make transported spawn points lost for enemy team by sink enemy transport ships),
• to safe ally convoy (to safe more respawns for ally team), *

BTW. Mission "Convoy" means that at the ocean the two convoys meet together, for both sides.

 I expected rewards as % ratio for killed / saved targets of ONE convoy to help / stop them to reach zone point, but not TWO enemy convoys. 

 

* same idea I presented in my vision of enduring confrontation battles at World War (see my signature):

1. supply transport carry supply units on airfield / ground bases / ports,
2. supply units are consumed by players to attack or defense territory,
3. leaders provide supply chains to provide domination on battlefields,
4. players (playing planes) try to cut-off the supply lines by destroying ongoing supply units or attack bases to bomb / destroy collected supply units,

[_Kolonel_Klink_ 390]

I have some gripes and some suggestions concerning map design & gameplay. I only play tank sim so my comments reflect that game mode.

 

 

1) Spawn points.

 

Do not show the enemy team's spawn points on the mini map. They only act as a magnet for players looking to flank around and spawn kill.

 

Make spawn points dynamic. With variations in each instance, the enemy team will never know exactly where you are coming from. This should make players more cautious in their approach. It will lead to better usage of available ground, meaning maps will not become stale. As a feature of dynamic spawn points, should a player locate an enemy spawn point and sit there watching it, the spawn should be relocated.

 

For "Battle" mode - move the objectives further away from the spawn points. This change would mean teams must ADVANCE to their own point and DEFEND it from the enemy team. Right now, maps like "Fields of Normandy" have spawns directly North or directly South of the objectives, no matter which team you are on. Effectively, players can choose to completely ignore them and focus on getting kills. This change requires that some maps be made larger or swapped out for their larger versions.

 

One dynamic spawn point per team. The idea here is to promote players sticking together, rather than going lone wolf when teamplay is needed. Of course, fast vehicles such as the M18 should still flank around / lonewolf as necessary.

 

 

 

2) Objectives

 

A small painted circle on the ground is not very realistic. Some maps have tertiary objectives like destroying the AI commander, or capturing a supply point. These types of secondary objectives are far more realistic and I would like to see more of them.

 

Break mode. Only a handful of maps have this mode available. I think it is a very good game mode where the painted circles on the ground actually work as an objective. This mode should be made available on more maps. I like it because you get nearly full use of all areas on the map, compared to domination and battle modes. It's similar to the "rush" game mode in the Battlefield series of first person shooter games.

 

There are no purely offensive/defensive game modes. I think it would be great to have some maps/modes where one team is purely offensive and the other is purely defensive. Perhaps even some "historic" battles for certain places, within reason, to maintain a fair balance.

 

 

 

3) Maps.

 

Abandoned Factory - Haven't had enough matches on it to comment about improvements or exploits, but I like it so far (only had domination games on it)

 

Advance to the Rhine - A good urban combat map.

 

Ash River - Doesn't belong in simulator, as it is designed towards arcade game mode

 

Battle of Hurtgen Forest - By some glaring oversight, the spawnpoints were made worse in 1.65. All land south of the river is useless on this map, due to the terrain. In fact, any terrain outside the city is awkward and clunky to navigate due to the extreme rises and falls.

 

Berlin - Southern-most parts of the map are out of bounds for some reason. I think that area should be re-worked and used as a spawn point location. Break game mode please!

 

Carpathians - Good for the secondary objectives as it mixes up the gameplay. I don't mind it overall.

 

Eastern Europe - Battle mode is awkward with the east-west spawns and objectives, along with the river running through the centre of the map. I think they would work better as north-south, and makes it more balanced with regards to the location of the sun (one team can be totally blinded by sunrise/sunset with east-west spawns), also the river draws a natural defensive line for either team. Domination mode - the changes in 1.65 mean no more zerg rush to the B point and no more sniping battles before capturing the point. This makes me a sad tanker

 

Fields of Normandy - Needs to be removed from the rotation. The map is too small for simulator. Give us the really big version of Normandy back, and rework the spawn points & objectives.

 

Finland - It's an arcade map but I enjoy it. Break game mode please!

 

Frozen Pass - This map cannot be saved by any method I can see. The eastern side allows complete flanking and spawn killing. Remove it from the simulator rotation.

 

Jungle - A bit too small, still has known exploits to get outside the walled off areas on the southern/eastern/western sides, and everyone plays accordingly if they're smart.

 

Karelia - Another arcade map. 1.65 removed the western spawn points due to spawn to spawn sniping I suspect... I am guilty of this. It needs the Break game mode to save it. Otherwise, remove it from the simulator lineup.

 

Korea - I haven't had enough games to comment on it. Does it have break game mode?

 

Kuban - Some don't like it. I think battle mode needs re-working, but domination and break modes are sufficient.

 

Kursk - Fond memories, back when the objectives were destroying the rocket trucks and infantry-manned artillery. Learning to use the Tiger 2 P/H against IS3's many years ago. It was better then than it is now IMHO. Break game mode please?

 

Normandy - Need the bigger version back with reworked spawns and objectives. Break game mode please!

 

Mozdok - The current iteration for battle mode is sufficient. Not fond of domination on this map though. Break mode please?

 

Poland - Battle mode only makes use of the urban terrain. Again, I think this map would be better with north-south spawn configuration instead of east-west.

 

Port Novorossiysk - The trainyard in the north is an absolute chore to navigate. The map has issues with low framereates. It ends up being another tank knife-fighting exercise.

 

Second Battle of El Alamein - Another big map forced into narrow corridoors. Massive differences in elevation. It takes forever to navigate in a slow tank. It still takes a long time in a fast tank. By the time one team captures the majority of the points in domination, or starts capping the enemy base in battle, the match is already decided. Especially in high tier sim rotation. Break mode!?

 

Sinai - The northern section of the map is interesting but is cut off from exploration. This map, if extended on the Northern side so that the battle zone is a rectangle and not a square, would make a good north-south spawn configuration for this setting. It is a better balanced map than many of the older ones. Again, there is no break mode for this map.

 

Stalingrad - Very dense with buildings, not enough open space. Forces close quarters engagements and spawn camping is common.

 

Tunisia - A good example of a big wide open map with wasted space, because of the severe elevation differences and awkward terrain. Battle mode and domination mode are a chore. This map needs reworking for both modes to be flatter and more wide open with less aggressive changes in elevation. Break mode is missing.

 

Volokolamsk - Poor terrain for tanks, especially the German side. In the larger version (domination), the Allies can capture all three points before the Germans are even half way towards their first objective, this is especially true if fast vehicles like the M18 are available. It needs serious reworking, or remove it from the rotation.

 

White Rock Fortress - It has thankfully been made larger in 1.65, by making the eastern bridge to the castle available. But the fields to the south and west of the castle are still not available to use. The original size from when it was first released is good, with better spawn point and objective placement on that size, it can be made a very good map.

 

[Steve8066 560]

1 hour ago, Sir_Campalot said:

I can only speculate that they have had a change in management who have no idea about playing the game.

 

 

some of the current changes in general and not only to maps, seem to be clearly made by people that dont actally play the game.