Map Survey (Ground Battles)

[kamikazi21358]

"Operation HEAT" is starting not long after this post was created, so I imagine a considerable portion of people are going to start spamming battles.

Perfect opportunity: I am trying to mass-collect data on the War Thunder map matchmaker, for a suggestion related to map rotation and size.

Obviously not required, but all I am simply requesting is a list of maps that you were placed on in the course of your playing. It takes about 3 seconds to write down, it takes literally less time to write than the time it takes for the game to load.


Example:

"Realistic Battles, 5.7 Germany"

[Domination] Berlin
[Domination] Karelia
[Conquest #1] Second Battle of El Alamein
[Conquest #2] Mozdok
[Battle] Finland
[Domination] Finland

(etc.)
(Picture example of the datasheet: https://gyazo.com/4223df1ac6ff59cb0464704ed2613cd5)


All gamemodes, Arcade, Realistic, and Simulator are accepted, and the battle rating and nation is politely requested.


Whoever submits information will have their name attached to it, and will get credit in contribution on the suggestion, if it is completed.
> Your Steam name will be used
> Unless you list and request your War Thunder name
> Or request anonymity or something.


If you wish to leave information on the battles, you can just post a comment with the battle(s) you had (map and battle type, like domination: sands of sinai for example), with the battle rating and nation (nation is less important as I imagine it doesn't effect maps chosen, but just in case I am saving it), and I will go though and save it.




So you know what the suggestion is, this is an incomplete summary:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Summary

The 1-3-1 rule is a suggestion, primarily for Realistic and Simulator maps, that is intended to categorize maps based on their average playstyle, and have them appear in the matchmaker depending on this.

My personal suggestion is for one of five maps, in Realistic Battles, is to be a long range map, three out of five maps to be mixed range maps and medium range maps, and one of five maps to be close quarters maps such as cities and such. This is what I based the name of the suggestion off of: 1-3-1.

This is a suggestion as an attempt for gameplay, for all players and nations, in an attempt to be balanced, fun, and for Realistic and Simulator Battles, Realistic as well.

The Rule

Maps would receive three or four designations.

Close Range

Medium Range

Mixed Range

Long Range

These wouldn’t necessarily mean that these would be limited to these ranges. However, this would be based on the typical, average range of this map. For example, Kursk would be a long range map, on average, as typical combat ranges are 800 meters to over a thousand, up to 1,700 meters or even farther. However, this is most of the map, but not the entire, as some smaller locations like the town exist for close range. Or for Close range, for example Port Novorossiysk, as is mostly a city, does have opportunities for medium range combat, on both sides, however it would be classified more to close range as a good portion of the combat takes place under 500 meters.

But these maps would get these designations, and it would determine “how often” approximately, they will be in the matchmaker. When a game starts and a map is selected, there is a 20% chance it will be a long range oriented map, a 20% chance it is a short range oriented map, and a 60% chance it will accommodate all ranges (mixed), or it will be mostly medium-range oriented (300-1,200m standard distances for example, combat you might see on Fields of Normandy).


These map classifications would change depending on battle rating. For example, Sands of Sinai would be a long range map for Rank I-IV, as most of the map is suited for medium to long range combat. However, at higher ranks, Rank V-VI, Sands of Sinai would instead be classified as a “medium ranged map”, as rangefinders, high velocity ammunition, high powered engines, and more effectively reduce the size of a map. Because of this as well, unfortunately, there would be no long range maps at high tier, as there are none now, until they are added – as for example, the combat range of an Abrams is considered to be well over 2,500 meters, which for some maps, is almost double the distance between its borders.
Another example of a range change would be Maginot. At most tiers, it is the perfect mixed ranged map: the West often accommodates extreme close range combat, the East accommodates mostly longer ranged combat, and the middle I find to be mostly medium range, with some close range inside the point itself. So at most ranks, it would be a mixed ranged map, however at Rank I itself, it could possibly be classified as a long range map.

To add, the chances could potentially be changed per game mode.

For example, Arcade could have a higher chance for shorter ranged maps, and a lower chance for longer range.

While Simulator is the opposite, with shorter range being less common, and longer ranged maps being more often to please the Simulator-oriented playerbase.

The same can be for Realistic, however I suggest “1-3-1” because I believe it would be in the interest in balance and for everybody: Mixed ranged and Medium ranged maps would be common, which benefits almost everyone and would be the most balanced maps, long range would be less common but there, about 1/5 maps, and would keep the realistic aspect and I believe can be enjoyable for most players if not spammed, while the same applies to close quarters combat as they can be enjoyable if not spammed as well. I believe it is possibly the best combination for balance, fun, and realism for Realistic Battles, that is why I chose “1-3-1”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ultimately, it will be about map type in the matchmaker, categorization of the map styles, an attempt to prevent maps being overused repeatedly, and a more standardized map sizes for certain gamemodes and tiers (example: Simulator battles shouldn't have maps under 2km x 2km, high tier Realistic should favour maps 3-4km x 3-4km for the MBTs, etc.).



If I post a draft of this, and someone who contributed did not like the suggestion, they can request the maps that they played not contribute to the suggestion.




Regardless of if you care about this, good luck on this "Operation HEAT"

[Happyguy22]

Цитата допису Mirage:

Don't think I played any air maps but i'll have to check if it was an airmap.

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

Цитата допису Mirage:

Don't think I played any air maps but i'll have to check if it was an airmap.

It’s ok if you can’t find it, but I tried to look and there is no Krymsk named ground map.

It is a airmap. It's part of Operation Unthinkable iirc, and is the Cold War (>7.7) test run map for Russia.

[kamikazi21358]

Цитата допису Mirage:

Apperantly I did a bomb run in arcade with the Do217.

Ok thank you.

Цитата допису Happyguy22:

Цитата допису Mirage:

Don't think I played any air maps but i'll have to check if it was an airmap.

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

It’s ok if you can’t find it, but I tried to look and there is no Krymsk named ground map.

It is a airmap. It's part of Operation Unthinkable iirc, and is the Cold War (>7.7) test run map for Russia.

I think there is also a WW2 version as well, the WW2 is Germany vs Russia and WW3 is Russia vs NATO.

*to be NATO

[Izpak]

From what I played yesterday.

Ground RB 4.7 UK

[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Poland
[Battle] Maginot Line
[Domination] Sands of Sinai


I wish I was making some of this up. I've seen enough sand for a while

[B.D.Godde]

Цитата допису SMASHING:

From what I played yesterday.

Ground RB 4.7 UK

[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Poland
[Battle] Maginot Line
[Domination] Sands of Sinai


I wish I was making some of this up. I've seen enough sand for a while

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLf1JO5bvE

[kamikazi21358]

Цитата допису SMASHING:

From what I played yesterday.

Ground RB 4.7 UK

[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Poland
[Battle] Maginot Line
[Domination] Sands of Sinai


I wish I was making some of this up. I've seen enough sand for a while

Thank you

Apparently Gaijin likes sand

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

Цитата допису Spacekiller_2011:

(Domination) Sands of Sanai
(Domination) Sanai
(Domination) Sands of Sanai
(Battle) Sanai
(Domination) Maigot line
(Domination) Sanai
(Domination) Sanai

That's a lot of sand

[kamikazi21358]

If anyone is interested, there are now 180 recorded maps, thanks to 6 people (+ me)

[kamikazi21358]

Does anyone play arcade? I have like 5 AB battles, just wondering if anyone who comes across this thread has played some AB Battles recently.

[RetroRun]

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

Does anyone play arcade? I have like 5 AB battles, just wondering if anyone who comes across this thread has played some AB Battles recently.

I just hate AB now

[kamikazi21358]

Цитата допису Spacekiller_2011:

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

Does anyone play arcade? I have like 5 AB battles, just wondering if anyone who comes across this thread has played some AB Battles recently.

I just hate AB now

I am not asking for anyone to play AB for this purposes, this is just a general “hey, anyone who may come across this, does anyone play AB? I don’t have much AB information.”

[B.D.Godde]

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

Цитата допису Spacekiller_2011:

I just hate AB now

I am not asking for anyone to play AB for this purposes, this is just a general “hey, anyone who may come across this, does anyone play AB? I don’t have much AB information.”

I can play AB, but it makes me worse at RB

[kamikazi21358]

Цитата допису theGoddes:

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

I am not asking for anyone to play AB for this purposes, this is just a general “hey, anyone who may come across this, does anyone play AB? I don’t have much AB information.”

I can play AB, but it makes me worse at RB

I am not asking for anyone to play AB for this purposes, just asking if anyone who comes across this plays AB because I am lacking AB information. Not not, I think I might know how to get information from somewhere else.

[kamikazi21358]

There are now 212 entaries, mostly Realistic but including multiple Arcade and Simulator recordings as well.

Even after entering new maps, it seems that the average map size of War Thunder does not seem to be changing that much,

the average War Thunder ground forces map is consistent at around 1.9km x 1.9km in size.

[B.D.Godde]

Цитата допису kamikazi21358:

There are now 212 entaries, mostly Realistic but including multiple Arcade and Simulator recordings as well.

Even after entering new maps, it seems that the average map size of War Thunder does not seem to be changing that much,

the average War Thunder ground forces map is consistent at around 1.9km x 1.9km in size.

interesting figure...

[kamikazi21358]

I don’t want to harrass people or bother them if they are simply not interested, but I am asking if anyone has anything else to add, it would be greatly accepted; all BRs and gamemodes.

The problem is next patch, it’ll be harder to get this stuff because of the map filter, which will unhinge the results. So now there is some more urgency to get a good data set for all tiers and such, since probably even as close as a week or two, almost all sources will be unreliable because of the map filters.

[RetroRun]

Well lemme add some more....

Germany 4.0 RB
[Domination] Fluda (I had my fun driving the churchill)
[Domination] Sinai
[Domination] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Italy
[Domination] Italy
[Domination] Maigot Line
[Domination] Port Novar
[Domination] Sinai
[Domination] Poland
[Domination] Fluda

US RB 5.3
[Domination] Italy
[Battle] Italy
[Battle] Sands of Sinai
[Domination] Sinai
[Domination] Sinai
[Domination] Fluda
[Domination] Finland
[Domination] Poland
[Domination] Mozdok
[Domination] Italy
[Domination] Port Novar