Literally anything is better than these maps. A random google map street is better. Dust 2 is better.
I swear they dont even test the maps in terms of gameplay, they just put them in without any thought. Not only that but the points to capture are actually randomly placed and make absolutely no sense strategically.
Before anyone says that its rEEalisticc, no. It is a game and the gameplay is more important. Other parts of the game are not realistic why should the maps be? If you want reEalistic gameplay uninstall after being destroyed once (more reealism)

What, you don't like every single map being a 2-3km laser range snipe fest?

>Leave bush for split second
>LASER WARNING LASER WARNING LASER WARNING

I wish there were more city maps or that the ones that we did have actually showed up more often.

Return to rank three brother, it's harder to notice how bad they are in lower BRs.

Maps designed for WW2 tanks played by modern MBTs is the problem.

Most maps are ok up until BR 6.3-6.7 I'd say. The vehicles are relatively slow and the ballistics of the guns can offer a balanced challenge.

Past that, and you end up with laser go karts that guarantee a kill a few seconds after spawn.

It seems that planes now get bigger bombs as well, and the capture point always gets smaller (bomb friendly if you will). Capturing the point gives you no significant number of points, and the only thing that it serves is getting you killed.

That being said, please do keep in mind that dying soon (which can be helped by "bad" map design) is what encourages people to jump into another match, and that is what keeps the match maker happy.

The issue is that they make maps in mind for multiple BRs. The map might be made in mind for vehicles at 5.0-6.7, but you can find it at top tier. So you have a map built for slow, heavy tanks, but can be used by fast MBTs with IR and laser range finders.

They also for some reason do not actually like paying their staff/contractors to tweak maps. It is why tanks have such bad traction, they could not be physically bothered to just add barriers to stop players from climbing mountains. Not that you can't still

Originally posted by RollClassic:

What, you don't like every single map being a 2-3km laser range snipe fest?

>Leave bush for split second
>LASER WARNING LASER WARNING LASER WARNING

I wish there were more city maps or that the ones that we did have actually showed up more often.

Very much hate city maps, close range urban combat is the last place tanks want to be. I literally go out of my way to first spawn artillery and derp tanks to level destructible terrain around cap points wherever it exists like the entire village around B on 38th parallel. The only reason any military would ever fight in a city without doing the same is it being a war crime to do the logical thing

Also once again we see someone subscribe to the slippery slope fallacy with the OP likening wanting some measure of realism to wanting to play a mil sim/training simulator. You can choose the level of realism to portray and I for one am all for tanks fighting in terrain they might actually be deployed in. At the very least if we must have urban combat make the buildings universally destructible. Toppling a building to render a street impassable should be a thing

They gave up on destructible environments pretty quick.

Originally posted by Eftwyrd:

Post

There's no infantry. I'm currently maining Italy (Previously Germany, then Japan, not Italy and next is maybe France but I'm not sure) and the last place any of my vehicles want to be until 7.7 is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ camping back sniping. Half of my vehicle options starting at like 4.7 are light tanks, armored cars, rocket launchers mounted onto the top of an old Fiat 500 etc etc etc.

I also have no armor whatsoever on any vehicle, in my entire tech tree. The Ariete gets no turret armor compared to other MBT unless you're using the WAR addon, and even then it has no armor because of the BR the WAR version is at.

All that said. My little funny cars? They're amazing in cities. I can be a rat, poke my little double barrel over some rubble with my engine off and wait for somebody to show me a spot I can pen etc etc. It's the most fun way to play anyways. A lot better than sitting in a bush using binocs to see over it because everybody has thermals and if you drive outside of the bush at all every single person in the map can see you.

Mid BRs stopped being fun too, it's dominated by premium soviet vehicles like KV-1E, T-34E and the German KV-1. Or the occasional T14 but at least the T14 has no pen and is mostly played by W holders.

Originally posted by Big Floppa:

I cannot comprehend how the maps can be this bad

If you think you can do better, apply to work for them.

I'm curious to see what kind of a "good" map can go outside from the mind of such intelligent guy like you.

Every map is not perfect, because perfection doesn't exist at all.

And a "good" map is pretty subjective.


For now, they are quite balanced.
And sometimes one team will have a little advantage by the sun position.
And sometimes one team will, then, have a little disadvantage.
But your ego should survive.

Oh, a team is intelligent enough to flank other team & begin to "spawnkill"?
Soluce : being more intelligent & prevent the ennemy to flank you.

Oh, a team is harrassing with CAS?
Soluce : taking the fingers out from the chocolate hole & begin to learn to use a tool named SPAA.

Oh, the ennemy team can shot us "Spawn to Spawn"?
Soluce : why not doing the same? If they can see you, you can see them.

You will meet a high variety of maps in War Thunder.
Snow ones, Desert ones, Forest ones.
And also Urban ones.

You will find daylight ones.
Others early in the morning or late in the afternoon/early evening.
Others in night conditions.

And you know what?
When you play a map & you seem to meet some difficulties... THE OTHER TEAM HAS THE SAME DIFFICULTIES !!
Yep.
What a new.

And of course, you will meet maps in which you will be more efficient, more "at ease" than other maps.
LIKE EVERYONE !

Originally posted by RollClassic:

Originally posted by Eftwyrd:

Post

There's no infantry. I'm currently maining Italy (Previously Germany, then Japan, not Italy and next is maybe France but I'm not sure) and the last place any of my vehicles want to be until 7.7 is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ camping back sniping. Half of my vehicle options starting at like 4.7 are light tanks, armored cars, rocket launchers mounted onto the top of an old Fiat 500 etc etc etc.

I also have no armor whatsoever on any vehicle, in my entire tech tree. The Ariete gets no turret armor compared to other MBT unless you're using the WAR addon, and even then it has no armor because of the BR the WAR version is at.

All that said. My little funny cars? They're amazing in cities. I can be a rat, poke my little double barrel over some rubble with my engine off and wait for somebody to show me a spot I can pen etc etc. It's the most fun way to play anyways. A lot better than sitting in a bush using binocs to see over it because everybody has thermals and if you drive outside of the bush at all every single person in the map can see you.

Mid BRs stopped being fun too, it's dominated by premium soviet vehicles like KV-1E, T-34E and the German KV-1. Or the occasional T14 but at least the T14 has no pen and is mostly played by W holders.

why do people associate non urban as being a flat open plain with two lines of tanks shooting at the each other like it’s the 1800s? Give as hills we can manoeuvre around, small villages like those in the field portion of maginot line (my favourite map incidentally), a bit of mountainous terrain even like the distinct highland/lowland areas in full sized Sinai and El Alamein, river shallows with plenty of cover like 38th parallel. Maps can be non-urban without being featureless. They should not be without lines of site for sniping because that is literally the purpose of some vehicles but one play style should never be dominant as it is in close quarters urban maps

I can explain why map design "with a hill in the middle" is bad. But I would need to draw diagrams to really show why and that's a lot of effort. I can also give examples of how designing your map to just be various small hills and then flat areas behind the hills is also terrible for a tank on tank game.

Source: WoT since 2009, WT since whenever it came out and was just planes I don't remember the year. Also Armored Warfare when it launched, which honestly probably had some better maps than the other two tank games now that I think back, they still weren't great though.

Originally posted by RollClassic:

I can explain why map design "with a hill in the middle" is bad. But I would need to draw diagrams to really show why and that's a lot of effort. I can also give examples of how designing your map to just be various small hills and then flat areas behind the hills is also terrible for a tank on tank game.

Source: WoT since 2009, WT since whenever it came out and was just planes I don't remember the year. Also Armored Warfare when it launched, which honestly probably had some better maps than the other two tank games now that I think back, they still weren't great though.

And yet the examples of what I’m saying are my favourite maps so draw all the diagrams you want, we already have maps like maginot line which I enjoy immensely even if I hate the cap point in the city. If there are areas which force close combat that’s fine but the objectives all being controlled exclusively by close range brawls goes completely against the design of some tanks or even entire nations

You are still grossly oversimplifying what I am talking about, we all get you don’t like open fields but it doesn’t mean maps should be without them entirely, just so long as maps are not dominated by one play style with sniper lines able to cover all objectives, or inversely snipers being able to cover nothing useful atall

There are tanks that thrive on raw range and depriving them of that being a factor just imbalances the game towards mono play styles which some nations just do better. I would never take Sherman firefly into a city with t34s but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be matched against them, maps just need to have terrain which supports both. Likewise the classic German tiger thrives on long range where a moderately skilled player knows how to angle their hull, maps should have areas which support that without forcing them into close range, though never to the exclusion of having flanking and close range terrain available for those that want it.

‘Sniping’ in urban maps just doesn’t exist, it’s just a variation of camping (which to be clear I have no problem with). They are the definition of short range mono play style with few or no sight lines supporting combat from over a km

Russian tanks don't have depression so we can't have too many of those, so we get flat city maps where they have the advantage, especially because stabilizers bypass their lacking turret rotation speed.

Originally posted by Mirage:

Russian tanks don't have depression so we can't have too many of those, so we get flat city maps where they have the advantage, especially because stabilizers bypass their lacking turret rotation speed.

Don't worry, those of us playing RU tanks hate city maps as well.

Since apparently nobody likes them, how about we just remove them all?

Klol, here's a quick mockup map of a "hill in center" long range map. It also has hills in various other places, rocks, and bushes. Simple, no key, you should be able to tell what is what.

https://i.imgur.com/u6bLnPh.jpg

Looks balanced, looks even, right?

Okay, so in three objective you've got A and C in this situation which are "long range", hills, bushes, trees, you know the usual. What is ACTUALLY going to happen on the map in every single match?

https://i.imgur.com/G9oYA05.jpg

Everybody mad dashes for solid cover with bushes that has the most view, I picked some random "obvious" spots on this 2D map because it's hard to show height without putting more effort in.

Grats, your match is now just staring at 1.5-2km distances waiting to see a white light move out of bushes. Why is this how the game NATURALLY goes? Because using the other 90% of the map except the heavily covered areas is suicidal, only getting worse the higher BR you get because of tech. Thermals, laser ranging, 1500m/s velocity, tow missiles, etc.

Meanwhile in city maps.... You can go anywhere you want and use any road you want because all of them are hard cover, but you have to pay attention to sound and actually play smart instead of just "I wasn't spotted behind the bush so I got a kill, now to move 5 feet back and make sure nobody saw where I fired from whoops got revenge bombed by the guy I killed".

This isn't even getting into the intricacies of balancing a map around gun depression, putting perfect soviet hull down spots around the map, making sure you always put fences around every point so tanks with only HEAT or HE can't fire without revealing their position with MGs first, etc etc etc.

There's a lot that goes into a map, on the other hand Gaijin has made some pretty horrible choices. One of them being the "It's the same map but you spawn 3km away from the objective instead of 1km, which ends in one team taking the center of the map and then having 2km of open fields to spawn camp in.