9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison


As things today been slow, I’ve made a comparison between the 9.15.1 and 9.16 minimap changes for you:

-I haven’t decided if I like these or not, you can see clearly that WG is trying to simplify the minimap for the pubbies as much as possible but some of these feel excessively washed out (example Westfield).

What do you think?







Fisherman’s Bay








Artic Region




El Halluf










For those who prefer sliding pictures (also you can enlarge these):


Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison

73 thoughts on “9.15.1 VS 9.16 Minimap comparison

  1. fighting_falcon93 says:

    The new maps are much better. All the clutter has been removed and they now clearly show what’s important on each map. I have no idea why you say that only pubbies would like this, since anyone that’s actually using the minimap, instead of just having it visible for decorative purposes, would agree that it’s now much easier to read it. Also, these new minimaps follow the new more “modern” design of being graphically processed, it’s actually old practice to use a top-down satelite picture for minimaps, that’s what was done back in 2005.
    Also, just tip for you Rita, your waterstamps with “Status Report” serves no purpose at all. Anyone decent at computers could even remove those with paint…

  2. I think the new maps will be advantageous for getting a quick read on enemy locations in relation to landscape features. This will help new players a lot, and older players should be able to identify locations with relative ease via the map already.

  3. Mini-Map in WOT?

    joke right!
    as 90% of all players in Random’s have it as small as possible and completely unused that’s old and new players alike

    In my Clan for example if platooning, in SH or CW the amount of times I have to tell off my experienced players or recruits (aka clan mates

    guys look at the Map! look at the dam Map please
    then crap there all dead or we get capped out, why, they cannot do 2 things same time
    – OR just cannot be bothered

  4. They really look neat and tidy like that, just wondering if the differences in height could be shown better than this light-dark theme. Then again if it’s too detailed it’ll look cluttered again.

  5. 4ccident says:

    I already said, I dont like it, but I want to explain why:

    I have minimap relative small. before the change, I noticed everything important with just half an eye on it.
    Now often I have to look twice to see, what I want to know.
    Not enough contrast, trees and bushes to small, all in same color.

    would be nice to chose.

  6. Matt says:

    Maybe just make your maps larger, if its small, It will be hard to see. These maps are simpler and much more clearly display the features of the actual ‘map’

  7. cyber_pagan says:

    I still prefer the high def minimaps mod that no longer works. I think the new maps look like shite, but apparently a lot of people here like them for some reason. To me it looks like most of the detail is actually gone.

  8. 427Arbok says:

    They’re a mixed bag, if you ask me. The new maps definitely make it clear where you can and can’t go, but they don’t tell you much about the terrain you’ll be going through.

    With the old maps, I think it was a bit easier to read the terrain and recognize foliage and water, allowing you to pick out concealed positions or a pond or riverbank you might could duck down into for cover, assuming it’s shallow. They also communicated pretty well whether the terrain was hard, medium, or soft, making it easier to judge whether or not you should take your tank through it.

    On the other hand, the new maps are much crisper and give you clear topography. While it doesn’t tell you much about the terrain, it does give you substantially more information about the landscape and features. Rises and falls in the land are substantially easier to see, roads and buildings are clear and well-defined, and it is extremely apparent where you can and can’t go.

    The advantages of the new maps are quite clear on maps that have fairly uniform terrain and minimal concealment like Kharkov and Arctic. There’s no point in trying to portray useless information, as is obviously the thinking behind all of these. However, overall, I think it constitutes a swing from showing too much to showing too little, as Westfield and Swamp demonstrate. It’s great that they removed vast amounts of useless information, but unfortunately, they took some useful stuff, too. Further, while the more urban or mountainous maps look really sharp and badass now, more rural maps look kind of drab and boring. Is a little color too much to ask? Utility is important, but so is feel, after all.

Leave a Reply