Jump to content


Map sizes need to be made bigger


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

VsUK #1 Posted 13 January 2018 - 06:12 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
With the influx of light tanks with spotting abilities covering a lot of the map from. Some maps are stupidly small for them. Maps like Ensk, Himmelsdorf, LakeVille & Malinovka. On Lakeville just recently, we managed to move 2 squares bottom of the map before we we're all detected & lost 3 tanks within the first 15-20 seconds of the game. These maps are just way too small for the tanks being deployed, mainly fast moving lights you cant detect even if they rammed you. I love the grand battle maps, big & plenty of room to move. All maps should be like this or at least 1.5x bigger then they already are. 

Also, some maps should really be arty free, like Himmelsdorf. We had 3 t10 arty this morning on that map. Ridiculous!

shousee #2 Posted 13 January 2018 - 06:26 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5239 battles
  • 89
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012
Agreed, this would make mobile TDs and HTs better and it would stop this idiotic Super heavy Type5, Maus and Badger meta

Edited by shousee, 13 January 2018 - 06:26 PM.


VsUK #3 Posted 13 January 2018 - 06:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
I think it's mainly the maps I've mentioned. Way too small. Some Lights can spot you within 10 seconds of spawn. Now, if your an arty on Ensk map & you spawn in the centre. Your dead before you cam turn & move away. 
I now find myself grinding T8 premiums to fund my T10 tanks purely to play  grand battles, because I'm really enjoying those battles regardless of the outcome. 

TEMELJNI #4 Posted 13 January 2018 - 07:50 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 22258 battles
  • 127
  • [L_T_D] L_T_D
  • Member since:
    08-11-2014
The map size is designed for fluid gameplay. Something WG nailed pretty good. You might whine about size of the maps but majority of players want dynamic gameplay and no more than 5-7 minutes spent on a map. 

Imagine being a maus driver and going to a position to brawl that is 2km away from your spawn location. You would break the keyboard, set pc ablaze, commit sudoku and all that while doing facepalm and facedesk repetitively. 

gav00 #5 Posted 13 January 2018 - 07:51 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7208 battles
  • 468
  • Member since:
    10-13-2013

View PostTEMELJNI, on 13 January 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

The map size is designed for fluid gameplay. Something WG nailed pretty good. You might whine about size of the maps but majority of players want dynamic gameplay and no more than 5-7 minutes spent on a map. 

Imagine being a maus driver and going to a position to brawl that is 2km away from your spawn location. You would break the keyboard, set pc ablaze, commit sudoku and all that while doing facepalm and facedesk repetitively. 

 

I would rather travel to find the enemy, than have the enemy scout spot everything at our spawn point before the heavy vehicles have had a chance to move.

Aikl #6 Posted 13 January 2018 - 08:05 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25142 battles
  • 4,172
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

Huh, a rather sensible post from OP?

 

Sounds like it would require too much actual map design to leave light tanks somewhat useful while taking away the 'spot tanks heading to positions' thing. A lot of it is maps becoming incredibly stale after several years (apart from Klondike we haven't gotten a new one in close to one and a half year; Paris is very questionably a 'new map' given the likeness to Pilsen), but designing maps well is not something Wargaming does. There's a reason why Northwest was removed instead of rebalanced, for instance. Many of the removed maps were interesting, though can't argue they were particularly good. Sometimes 'interesting' does work as a partial substitute for quality, however.


 In the end it's probably because some players prefer cramped and lazily designed maps, though. Not too sure if WG's doing themselves a favour by catering to parts of the playerbase instead of trying to figure out what changes they can make that overall cause the least annoyance...



Liviguy #7 Posted 13 January 2018 - 08:37 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12461 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    01-12-2016
I agree about the map sizes being too small and consequently offering little variation in strategy, tactics, gameplay. But the worst thing in the game are bad players, especially at higher tiers. A couple of bad players in your team can quickly ruin the game for the rest of the team, and yet they are allowed to constantly die within 1-2 minutes and move on to the next battle and ruin that one,

Derethim #8 Posted 13 January 2018 - 08:46 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16668 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostTEMELJNI, on 13 January 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

The map size is designed for fluid gameplay. Something WG nailed pretty good. You might whine about size of the maps but majority of players want dynamic gameplay and no more than 5-7 minutes spent on a map. 

Imagine being a maus driver and going to a position to brawl that is 2km away from your spawn location. You would break the keyboard, set pc ablaze, commit sudoku and all that while doing facepalm and facedesk repetitively. 

Sorry dude, but I disagree completely with you. Especially city maps should be AT LEAST 1200x1200, because of the corridors clogging up like toilets in a mess hall after the cooks left the lid on the sauerkraut open for too long.



Desyatnik_Pansy #9 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:00 PM

    Bartender

  • Player
  • 14576 battles
  • 25,477
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Certain maps like Sacred Valley for example just need to be expanded enough that all the mountains and whatnot are out of the map border, as Sacred Valley is more like a 800x800 Map than a 1000x1000 One. With the HD Maps and the removal of the "fog of war" thing, I can't see why that couldn't be done for a number of maps. Speaking of which, I'd love to see Overlord redone with that change. Move the beach out of bounds (but clearly visible for the "omgwerefightingatNormandy" group) and expand the right flank some more. That's got nothing to do with this thread directly, but I just wanted to say that while I was on the subject of the HD Maps.



Pansenmann #10 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33397 battles
  • 12,166
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

I want dragon ridge back! :izmena:

 

if possible three times the size for gangba.. grandbattles.



Derethim #11 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:21 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16668 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 13 January 2018 - 09:00 PM, said:

Certain maps like Sacred Valley for example just need to be expanded enough that all the mountains and whatnot are out of the map border, as Sacred Valley is more like a 800x800 Map than a 1000x1000 One. With the HD Maps and the removal of the "fog of war" thing, I can't see why that couldn't be done for a number of maps. Speaking of which, I'd love to see Overlord redone with that change. Move the beach out of bounds (but clearly visible for the "omgwerefightingatNormandy" group) and expand the right flank some more. That's got nothing to do with this thread directly, but I just wanted to say that while I was on the subject of the HD Maps.

 

Actually, the beach is great for getting rid of stupid on your team :trollface:

shousee #12 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:36 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 5239 battles
  • 89
  • Member since:
    11-29-2012

View PostTEMELJNI, on 13 January 2018 - 07:50 PM, said:

The map size is designed for fluid gameplay. Something WG nailed pretty good. You might whine about size of the maps but majority of players want dynamic gameplay and no more than 5-7 minutes spent on a map. 

Imagine being a maus driver and going to a position to brawl that is 2km away from your spawn location. You would break the keyboard, set pc ablaze, commit sudoku and all that while doing facepalm and facedesk repetitively. 

 

Go play WoT: Blitz roflmao. 5-7mins, noone wants that only you, stupid roflstomps that are no fun at all. Maps are made either for SPG and scouts and camping TD or for HTs

TheComfyChair #13 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 6204 battles
  • 574
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    03-20-2017
I find it rather annoying when you start a battle and less than a minute into the game 4 of your team are dead due to being spotted so early. I might be slightly exaggerating but some of the smaller maps leave little option as to which side you have to navigate to or you get spotted quickly and get battered like a spam fritter.... mmm spam fritter.

Xandania #14 Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34820 battles
  • 799
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

View PostTEMELJNI, on 13 January 2018 - 06:50 PM, said:

 [...] commit sudoku and all that while doing facepalm and facedesk repetitively. 

 

I had to laugh a bit here :)

 

Spoiler

 

@OP

let's wait and see what the new engine brings - some maps look promising. And given the upcoming change, noone would invest in the current old maps. Completely different thing for the new ones though - and I would indeed like to see bigger (and more diverse) maps



VsUK #15 Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:48 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012
I really miss Province, Port & especially Pearl river. You had a possibility of 3 routs to take & plenty of room to flank if players weren't paying attention. To me, it appears that WG are making maps that are basically blunt force trauma. Removing maps where you can out move your enemy to flank them & forcing upon us maps where you can only meat head on. It's boring & is purely done out of greed & not game play. Because I find better game play on Grand battle maps & the maps they removed. Good for WG income, bad for the game. I've even offered to make maps for WG. They use sim tools as we use at work. I've wrote to WG, Emailed & even called them to offer this for free. They simply said they don't accept work from 3rd party sources. That to me just sounds like an excuse more than anything. I've made hundreds of maps for strategy gaming over the years. Can anyone remember a really primitive game called Wargasm? It was one if not the first tank sim battle game of its kind. Anyways, I work for Mr Kenwright who made it for Infogrames, which is part of Atari. So I have the tools & skill to make maps & for free. WG just don't want to know. 

I think this is why they're removing weak spots under the illusion of HD tank skins & so called balancing. They're doing away with tactic play & just forcing us to play head on battles where flanking & outmanoeuvring is a thing of the past.

Edited by VsUK, 13 January 2018 - 10:50 PM.


Desyatnik_Pansy #16 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:07 PM

    Bartender

  • Player
  • 14576 battles
  • 25,477
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

View PostVsUK, on 13 January 2018 - 09:48 PM, said:

I really miss Province, Port & especially Pearl river.

 

Can't agree with you on that. It was probably the best sealclubbing map, slap on Binocs and you spotted pretty much everything on the other side instantly and since newbs knew no better, that's half of the team gone in seconds. Get someone on the other team doing the same and next thing you know, not a minute into the game and half of the people in the battle are dead, leaving either arta, the newbs who found the nearest wall and hugged it and then the sealclubbers themselves. :P



VsUK #17 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:16 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14288 battles
  • 1,301
  • Member since:
    06-19-2012

View PostDesyatnik_Pansy, on 13 January 2018 - 10:07 PM, said:

 

Can't agree with you on that. It was probably the best sealclubbing map, slap on Binocs and you spotted pretty much everything on the other side instantly and since newbs knew no better, that's half of the team gone in seconds. Get someone on the other team doing the same and next thing you know, not a minute into the game and half of the people in the battle are dead, leaving either arta, the newbs who found the nearest wall and hugged it and then the sealclubbers themselves. :P

 

Well I have to admit, I've not played Province for a long time. I think it was in a T4 tank when they limited the map to low tiers. But I still liked the map, was different & a good credit grind map.

_Sentinel_ #18 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:47 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 14131 battles
  • 269
  • Member since:
    05-08-2011

It's not just the map sizes. The grand battles maps are several times bigger and they're still corridor fests with big TDs just camping the area around the spawns.

 

At WG HQ:

-What can we do with that huge map?

-Well split it into even more corridors!


Edited by _Sentinel_, 13 January 2018 - 11:48 PM.


Homer_J #19 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:56 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27234 battles
  • 28,115
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostVsUK, on 13 January 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

All maps should be like this or at least 1.5x bigger then they already are.

 

View PostVsUK, on 13 January 2018 - 09:48 PM, said:

I really miss Province, Port

Two of the smallest maps :facepalm:



Derethim #20 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16668 battles
  • 1,728
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

View Post_Sentinel_, on 13 January 2018 - 11:47 PM, said:

It's not just the map sizes. The grand battles maps are several times bigger and they're still corridor fests with big TDs just camping the area around the spawns.

 

At WG HQ:

-What can we do with that huge map?

-Well split it into even more corridors!

Are you out of your mind? It's 30 players, not 15. That's a big difference. And it's still maybe a bigger Prokhorovka. A 30v30 would need a 3000x3000 map with big attention to detail and Nebelburg is the exact opposite - mostly open field with few huge corridors. A 1400x1400 Ensk (example) with 15 people, not 30, would make it better. That's more than double of it's current size while keeping the player count.


Edited by Derethim, 14 January 2018 - 12:26 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users