Jump to content

New Maps

Maps tanks gameplay opinion

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Poll: New Maps? (24 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 100 battle in order to participate this poll.

Would you want a wider variety of maps, or some new replacement maps

  1. Yes (24 votes [100.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 100.00%

  2. No (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Hide poll

mayorofwon #1 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 03:13


  • Players
  • 11750 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
I really feel like we need a newer set of maps, not entirely, but a good 10 or so more maps would really provide a fresh feel to the game. We've had a majority of the 32(ish) maps for over 5 years now. I know it takes time and can be difficult, but i miss some of the older maps. How do y'all feel about the map situation, and do you have any suggested map ideas (i.e. Iwo Jima, No man's land inspired map, Berlin, Market Garden)

I_LOVE_DENIAL #2 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 03:17

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 41028 battles
  • 638
  • Member since:
We sure do need more maps and game as been out for 10 years let's be honest there should be more than 32 maps by now so they are deffinatly lacking on maps maybe put a hold on premium tank for a year and focus on maps lol since it seems all they are pushing are prem tanks 

_Tsavo_ #3 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 03:27


  • Beta Testers
  • 47924 battles
  • 20,806
  • Member since:

I think everyone would welcome new maps, and a return of most of the removed maps. 


Dragon's ridge, Stalingrad, Hidden village, Komarin, Northwest, Pearl River (to return), Port, Sacred Valley, Severogogogorsk, South Coast, Swamp, Windstorm.   Would love to see these return.   Variety good. 


Unfortunately, making maps, updating maps, and balancing maps requires spending ducats with no return.   Premium tanks, while requiring ducats to model, balance, etc, can be sold for oodles and oodles of monies. 


Guess which one they're always gonna prioritize? 

KaiserWilhelmShatner #4 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 03:44


  • Players
  • 17399 battles
  • 5,180
  • Member since:
Sadly maps dont bring in money.  Tier VIII premium tanks do.

stevezaxx #5 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 04:01


  • Players
  • 41175 battles
  • 1,379
  • [COD] COD
  • Member since:
Find a way for "new maps" to make money for wg and they will beat a path to your door!

Christojojo #6 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 04:22


  • Beta Testers
  • 36171 battles
  • 3,197
  • Member since:

View Poststevezaxx, on Feb 26 2020 - 22:01, said:

Find a way for "new maps" to make money for wg and they will beat a path to your door!


A premium test server that gives premium members first looks at things might help.  (and here comes the nay sayers)

dunniteowl #7 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 16:13


  • -Players-
  • 31544 battles
  • 9,754
  • Member since:

I'm going to disagree that maps 'don't bring in money.'


Just look at how many people are getting turned off with the major complaint being, "Game is stale, the same maps over and over, closing wallet..." sort of posts we get.


The real issue is that WG does not see a DIRECT return on their investment of time.  However, more maps and a greater variety of map types WOULD serve to entertain and thus RETAIN players longer.  This would mean, in an INDIRECT (think SPGs) way, that maps would have a way of retaining and keeping a revenue stream.  The more maps folks have to play on, the more likely they are to NOT feel like the game is stale and boring, thus keeping their interest longer in playing the game.  The longer someone plays, the more likely they are to invest a few dollars here and there and pay for stuff.


Happy players spend more as they feel that the money is a worthwhile expense in the form of playing the game as a form of 'value added' entertainment.


In the industries I worked in, keeping people happy did NOT enter into the equation.  However we were trained to look at costs and expenses in a manner that fostered an appreciation of indirect values.  There are Necessary Costs: the things you MUST spend money on to produce your product (staff, equipment, supplies, etc).  You cannot do without those costs to do what you do.  Sometimes this part of the cost equation could be trimmed, but not that often and definitely not severely, or your product suffers. 


Then you have: Value added costs.  These are the things that you spend money on that Improve the product as a competitive consideration OR as a cost that attracts more customers to your product.  You look at these value added costs as something you can do that serves to bring more customers to your door or to retain customer loyalty by having a superior product.  If you cut back on these expenses, you have to weigh that against the potential lost revenue in terms of losing customer satisfaction or loyalty.  Without these value added costs, you could lose market share, customers or the appearance of being 'there' for your customer base -- all of which will potentially negatively impact your bottom line.


Lastly, there are Non-value added costs.  Some of these get rolled into the Necessary Costs column.  Like the cost or expense of testing your product, making improvements (bug fixes, inspection, development, etc) or 'spiffing' it up.  In this column is where you would review whether or not that cost (for that action, service or feature) can be trimmed, reduced or cut entirely.


Maps, in this case with WG is probably being looked at as a Necessary Cost, though not a Value Added Cost, which, IMO, is a grave error in judgment.  Maps are a Necessary AND (if done properly) a Value Added Cost for WGs bottom line as they serve to be the 'glue' that holds all the rest of the game together.  Without engaging maps, a variety of maps and a sense that WG is as interested in the FUN aspect as the player base is, they WILL, without question, lose people from their player base (which equals losing paying customers to some extent) as the game becomes 'stale' and 'repetitive' from a lack of variety in the maps.


The player base, in this equation do NOT have to be actually or factually correct in their assessment, because they will vote on how they FEEL in this matter.  If you can provide the player base with a satisfactorily diverse set of maps, creating new ones relatively regularly, you will retain more folks who are willing to play on these maps, even with the other 'warts' they might feel make the game less appealing.



So.  Whether or not you agree or disagree that "maps don't bring in the cash," you should consider that keeping the game 'fresh' and 'engaging' via producing new and/or reworked maps regularly is a Value Added Cost (possibly also a Necessary Cost) in the marketing concept of Keeping or Retaining a Loyal Customer Base that provides a steady and reliable revenue stream for the foreseeable future.


No-one comes to the forums and complains that there are not enough premium tanks.  No-one comes to the forums and complains that the Premiums are not strong enough to be playable.  No-one comes to the forums and says Premium Time is too expensive to be worth it.


However, folks DO come to the forums, long time, loyal paying players, and complain about the latest premiums being OP and P2W over the last few years.  Players DO come and complain that WG spends too much time selling the latest shiny Premium, but they're not going to pay for it -- or anything else, until they get a better set of maps.  We see THAT complaint regularly.


Thus, if WG put a bit more time in map making as a thing and added a bit more cost to their expense sheet, they would more than likely appease a very large segment of their paying player base that would 'open those wallets' and maintain a steady and reliable Fan Loyal revenue stream.  In short, I argue that "Maps DO Bring in the Money," to some degree.  More importantly, Maps Keep the Money Coming In by maintaining customer satisfaction and customer loyalty in their product.


Whether or not WG agrees with this assessment is the issue in question.  From my perspective, as a long time war gaming player (not WG, war games in general) the ONE thing that keeps a game fresh is not increasing the variety of units to play, but from the variety and complexity of the playing surfaces that those units get to use.


WG?  You want to keep that revenue stream?  How about using a bit more "glue."  Maps are the Glue that holds this game together.



As a side note:  I have spent a LOT of my game design time (back when I made RPGs, adventure modules and board war games) making maps and studying map design.  I have also done my best (up to about six years ago) in keeping in touch with some of the latest map making methods done via computer programs.  I am very close to being ready to present a 'rough' idea for making maps in this game that I will be presenting soon.  This idea will be based on using some 'old techiques' combined with a new idea for map making as well as map Selection methods that I think, if it's implementable, will go a long way to giving WG the ability to provide a plethora of a variety of map types, terrains and will (again, if it's at all workable) provide those maps for ALL formats or game modes currently in use and may also provide the impetus for a few more new modes of play.


Stay tuned.




Edited by dunniteowl, Feb 27 2020 - 16:17.

TankFullOfBourbon #8 Posted Feb 27 2020 - 19:10


  • Players
  • 32234 battles
  • 6,958
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
WG makes more money making 32 clones of the M4 Sherman than one new map. Guess what tasks WG is focusing their staff on?

WarGanz_87 #9 Posted Feb 28 2020 - 00:31

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 61295 battles
  • 385
  • Member since:

View PostKaiserWilhelmShatner, on Feb 26 2020 - 20:44, said:

Sadly maps don't bring in money quickly for the next quarter's earning report.  Tier VIII premium tanks do.

The underlined. 

New premiums and camo skins for the quick turnover.

New maps to keep the game long term. 

Also tagged with Maps, tanks, gameplay, opinion

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users