Do we need bigger maps?

[MATREKUS]

I would say yes, because it would award better (tactical thinking) players. It would bring more immersion and BB and CA would have more meaning. Feel free to vote and add your reasons.

[viceadmiral123]

No. The biggest maps are dull.

I love the smaller maps that low tier ships get.

[Vaderan]

Poll: usefull idea!

Questions (choices and answers): biased!

 

If you want to create a poll, make the questions as neutral as possible. Your choices indicate: if i chose "no" i am stupid and don´t like changes, all maps are small and thats stupid aswell. Or i choose "yes", because this choice already indicates by the style it is made up: hey, i have to vote for "yes", because i am open minded and clever and it sounds resonable.

 

By the way, no matter, i chose "no" for the simple fact, that bigger maps would have a bad impact on overall gameplay. Carriers still hugging the borders, BBs still going for maximum range fights, being anytime out of place when the have to change sides. Less opportunities for CAs and DDs due to longer distances.

The smaller the maps, the more intense the fights...

[Fonfalks]

Problem with bigger maps is game time - i am afraid it would result in many many draws. Even now i often have games where its a draw although one of teams would kill other if only they had more time and it really leaves a bad aftertaste

 

[aboomination]

BB and CA would have more meaning

 

How so?

[OlFson]

Haha, sailing for 10 min, spot the enemy, he gets a lucky roll and you a detonation.

Thank god we have big maps now ... 

[HellsFists]

I would say yes, because it would award better (tactical thinking) players. It would bring more immersion and BB and CA would have more meaning. Feel free to vote and add your reasons.

 

As you have only reached tier 5, you will be pleased to know that there are maps which you have not even come to yet which dwarf the size of the maps you have played so far. 

 

Rest assured, the maps are going to get much much bigger.

 

in answer to your poll, and as i have seen the biggest maps in this game, i have voted No, as they get plenty big enough.

[Karck]

I like big maps, but small maps are good for low and mid tiers. But big maps would need more time, and then you might detonate soon as it starts... Yeah. I like variety of maps! JUST ADD MORE MAPS !

 

But i think they should firs relook current maps, like solomon island domination where tha A and C points favor the other side quite alot. You can cap the other one whitout compromising yourself behind the coast, and opposite team cant for example.

[Userext]

I would say yes, because it would award better (tactical thinking) players. It would bring more immersion and BB and CA would have more meaning. Feel free to vote and add your reasons.

 

You only have 82 battles. You played at most a tier 4 ship. 

 

Biggest map in game is 50x50. I remember that map was so freaking big shimakaze's reload felt fast. And shimakaze has 2.5 min reload if you by some chance understand it.

North, fault line tpye of maps are 36x36. And i guess hot spot is also 36x36 but i not sure about hotspot 

[Hauptbahnhof]

Especially for high tier bigger maps are badly needed, and more interesting maps then having Epic tropical Pacific encounters between Japanese and US among the icebergs 90% of the time...

 

Problem with bigger maps is game time - i am afraid it would result in many many draws. Even now i often have games where its a draw although one of teams would kill other if only they had more time and it really leaves a bad aftertaste

 

 

I would really like bigger maps with 25 and 30min game time instead of high tier games.

[Barkyro]

Bigger maps... well yes but with more playtime otherwise NO!

[Smi2k]

Well, while i would love to have bigger maps, the main issue i have atm on tiers 9 and 10 is the often used up time limit. On Big maps, where the Teams Battleships fight at a distance first while going for a breakthrough somewhere, you often run out of time and thats what i think, will be the biggest problem in bigger maps. Not in the lower Tiers, but in the high Tiers, where Players tend to use their range to snap the enemys HPs down.

 

So, Yes for Bigger Maps, even more open or with more Islands, i dont care, but, if done for higher tiers we need a increase in the timelimit.

[Jackobite]

No thankyou, fine as it is,

fine being, iv already got all the draws I can handle

[Smi2k]

No thankyou, fine as it is,

fine being, iv already got all the draws I can handle

 

Draws should be getting less since the "new" dominations, wich is basicly standard battle camouflaged as domination ;)

[KptStrzyga]

Current maps are as big as BigWorldEngine (oh the irony) allows. 

[Userext]

 

its funny seeing people who only played at most 36x36 asking for bigger maps. 50x50 is really big map. 

[Dirpitz]

We don't need bigger maps we need more game time and less capture the flag crap

[bloomoon11]

Christ no!  The last thing we need is more time before seeing the enemy.

[MATREKUS]

 

As you have only reached tier 5, you will be pleased to know that there are maps which you have not even come to yet which dwarf the size of the maps you have played so far. 

 

Rest assured, the maps are going to get much much bigger.

 

in answer to your poll, and as i have seen the biggest maps in this game, i have voted No, as they get plenty big enough.

 

Thanks. This is one of the civiliest answers here. Thank you for not bashing me because Im just tier 5, playing this game just for few days. However I have 25 yrs long gaming history so I would manage...

Thanks for the info that there are bigger maps in the higher tiers. It seams rest didnt get what I was intending to say when calling bigger maps. I guess its also language barrier. I was thinking not only bigger maps but more immmersive, more interesting, maybe with bigger islands, more cover for ships, harbours, channels etc. BTW, Im a history buff, red alot of books www2 related and I guess Im asking too much to have historical missions in games hehe

thanks everybody for your votes

[ShuggieHamster]

being a DD - CL driver I like maps where I get to throw the ship around the terrain (and where necessary hide behind/run into).

size doesnt really bother me.

 

sightly off topic but what about destructive 'terrain'? or would that just encourage he spamming of villages/harbours/fishing boats?

how about for april fool sticking some secondaries in all the towns under bot command? 

 

[Admiral_noodle]

A bigger map? In a U.S. bb?

 

North and two brothers are big enough for New York. I like the variety.

[Syrchalis]

No what we need is non-quadratic maps.

 

High tier everyone is hugging the border (not literally, but quite close to it). Draws all day, because everyone is afraid to be focus target if they start engaging.

 

Watch a battle in the ocean map at higher tiers - aside from DDs noone even goes into the center of that map. The lack of islands means you get shot at by a whole fleet if you drive closer.

 

Sadly even on maps with islands this doesn't get much better. What we would need is a thin long map in which turning is more difficult, so you can force players to engage. That's why the map "North" works so well - the islands there cause many thin channels. On the ice map the north passage is also a curved channel basically. And there BBs often engage in 10km fights.

[DreadArchangel]

yes, simple as that.

[Figment]

Current maps are already so tactical that people draw too much because they have no idea about logistics.

 

Besides, it would only lead to ships getting more isolated and thus more complaining about CVs and DDs.

[Wischmob_von_Eimer]

I actually would like to have a special mode with bigger maps, maybe even multiple objectives, combined with bigger teams and a small respawn system as well as the opportunity to create large divisions and battle against others.

 

 

In regular PvP? Hell. no, most people have no idea what to do on normal sized maps, larger maps would only end in frustration.