Q&A: Maps


while the old RSR was temporarily down you may have read on the WoT portals these following changes about maps (this has to do with the map feedback gathering I posted weeks ago):

  • The Stalingrad and Kharkov maps will be reworked, but will remain in the game until they are replaced.
  • The probability of the Kharkov map appearing will be greatly decreased to match the probability of getting Stalingrad, which we reduced earlier based on your previous feedback.
  • Map selection restrictions placed on lower-tiered tanks (Battle Tiers 4+) will also be altered to provide you with a wider range of maps on which you can use your favourite lower-tiered tanks.


I gathered a Q&A on maps from the SEA office for you:

-The Mittengard in clanwars is a dev error, they will be fixing it soon / current unknown eta.

-Stalingrad and Kharkov were the leading contenders for getting some work done to them on all servers , NA/EU/RU/Asia. They have some issues and low FPS’s for smaller spec computers.

-“Lets not fix Live oaks which is the most imbalanced map in the game at the moment, It would have a 60-70% winrate from south spawn”:

Live oaks.. or as called in game “44_North_America” is an averagely balanced map.

Stats are up and down , depending on server, and when the stats are pulled.

But basically in the past month and taking ~1.75 mil battles on the map in all game modes into consideration…Team A won about 51.5% and team B won about 47.5% with a draw being the remainder…or just taking random battles, the stats are about the same.

-“Oh yeah. How about that Fisherman’s Bay wherein there is a technical difficulty common to all? Did WG made a move regarding this already?”

Tech issues with Fisherman bay is minor (considering the map play vs reports of crashing are very low in comparison).
At the moment its looking more like players mod use, or previously installed but no longer used mods.

If you are having issues with Fishermans bay, try clearing out the appdata directory, and reinstalling WOT Clean.

See also: Fisherman’s Bay Crash

-“What happened to all the “bring back Port” votes?”

It was passed on as feedback to development, as well as in the form of a long personalized email to the new global producer based in NA and the usual upper management & development in Minsk.

-The stats for maps is very carefully and fully analysed,

We have clear stats of win %’s for each team for each game mode for each server, Etc which covers the almost 2 millions battles per month each map has..

The win %’s on all maps and game modes are balanced, and usually within 1%… Sand River.. or internally called 28+Desert.. is the same..
Balanced with win%’s to within 1%, on random, and also all game modes.
As well as Heat maps, showing common area’s of combat / where combat / traffic is conducted.

-About adding more maps to low tiers: Maps for tier’s 1-3 will be limited due to the mini client because new players need to be able to download a small client and get playing asap.

-“If I understand correctly mm has a few maps for a range of tiers over a certain time frame, like a few hours right?”

MM had all maps available at high tiers, and not all maps available at lower tiers.

Now the map selection for the lower tiers have been extended to the same as the higher tiers, IE all maps.
And no, its nothing to do with time or hours.

-Map probability can be altered, per server, For example: now Kharkov and Stalingrad are OFF on Ru server.. And ON but on a reduced probability on Asia.
The rest of the maps (Excluding Kharkov and Stalingrad) all have a normal default / equal probability.


RG: As EU or NA rarely speak of these things, is unsure if they also decreased match probability of Kharkov and Stalingrad.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
Q&A: Maps

44 thoughts on “Q&A: Maps

    1. Dennis de Ruiter says:

      I do, as I am getting terrible performance on it for some reason while I have no trouble with the other maps. I also dislike it in light tanks, as I tend to explode there as the first one, I can’t get it to work in my light tonks. 🙁

      1. I’ve had plenty of fun and good battles on Kharkov in my light tanks. It’s not the greatest map for LTs, but it works, not to mention there are maps which are far worse. Only real issue on Kharkov is performance.

      2. stormcrow99 says:

        But but getting into someones face and being an absolute motherquack is some of the most fun you can have in an LT. Damage, spotting, nobody cares, I usually focus on distraction.

    1. carrotmoon says:

      They really should learn to stop messing about with maps all the time. But heyho Stalingrad and Kharkov is fine as is so they have to fuck it up somehow.

      1. Domo says:

        they need to remove arty or fix the maps that let arty be king… tired of being in a heavy (which is what i pretty much always play) on one of those maps and spending the majority of the game trying to hide from arty or just getting straight up raped by them :/

  1. Robert says:

    I strongly blieve that liking/hating of maps is based on what tanks you (or missions) you play. Try to detect 6 tanks and survive battle in a tier6+ scout in Ensk … hahaha …
    Personally, I love Charkov with heavy tanks, but dislike it with scouts or arty …

  2. Dictator says:

    Derpenberg is a horrible map. Whatever tanks push across the bridge will die. And then whatever tanks from the opposing sides push across the bridge also instantly die. And it usually winds up being 3 on 3 in the last 2 minutes. And usually they are HT that didn’t do anything or TD’s that didn’t do anything

    1. StumpyDaPaladin says:

      There is more to Derpenberg than its bridge. Seeing as a Bridge is a natural choke-point its real easy to place a kill box on either side. So of course anything that goes into the box (without support) gets killed. There is more to tanking than driving down the enemies throat in a YOLO Frontal Assault all the while hoping (instead of verifying) that your support TDs and arty are a) in position b) ready to fire and c) actually supporting You and not someone else somewhere else.

  3. mike t says:

    Wargaming just go HIRE NEW MAP DEVELOPERS please

    As the current ones just screw up the maps some so bad that we now have 3 or 4 MINUTE battles 1 side crushes the other all day, OR IS THAT BALANCED and as intended?

    For every New Map they introduce they DELETE 2 older OPEN Maps, why? so there is less Maps now

    Can i ask where are the NEW OPEN MAPS (without corridors! and Maps that use ALL the available space so they actually are 1000m x 1000m

    am just saying –

    1. stormcrow99 says:

      Open maps, without corridors. What about heavies? The class that in my opinion best defines the whole word “tank” itself shouldn’t just be left out.
      If a tank class in general (yes, even arty) is at a significant disadvantage on some map, it’s obviously bad. Urban maps are an exception however, arty can and will not be too succesful there anyhow.

      1. StumpyDaPaladin says:

        What about heavies? Well at those long ranges their armor works even better (to the point where even the “thin skined” ones can bounce a shot w/proper angling) Its not like they cant spot as well (unlike their open topped TD brethren, because Balance) Learn to do more with a Heavy than play PeekKaBoom around a corner, and your fine.

        And what class is the one that best defines the “Tank”? Humans stopped making Heavy tanks for a reason. Self propelled arty still exists. Recon tanks still exist (as APC’s) TD’s still exist (because they are cheap to make, use older parts that would other wise be obsolete, and are best used “defensively”

        You must be talking about the Medium class. You know, the one that can do a little bit of anything? the precursors to our modern Main Battle Tank concept.

        Big/Accurate enough gun to hurt whatever you find, Stronk enough armor (even if just from front) to stop whatever is shot at you (at least once or twice) a powerful enough engine to push the whole thing around at 60+kph on just enough suspension to hold the whole thing up and cross whatever terrain you face (within reason) All the while being big enough to hold the crew, ammo, fuel, and all the associated techy bits (computer assisted vision, fire control, and countermeasures) to keep that weapon system functioning and yet small enough to fit on the local roads (rail or otherwise) Bridges,Tunnels and Shipping.

  4. Actually, if you look at a map like Stalingrad, you’ll see that it’s really 800×800 as the outside of the city is blocked off. If they would open up these blocked areas the map would be more playable for lights and arty. It’s the same for some other maps as well.

    1. StumpyDaPaladin says:

      I agree. I for one would like to be able to actually break most of those blasted, barely standing walls and/or drive over those piles of rubble. .great for mediums and lights that want to flank. bad for heavies that dont like flanking. and Arty may enjoy collapsing an entire city block with one well placed 150mm+ sized HE shell (where’s your shadow Now muhahahaha!)

      But i imagine that a map that changes that much over the course of a battle means an engine designed to still be effective on vodka fueled potato comps would still have a hard time with the map even if all the effects are turned off and it looks more like a bunch of poorly rendered wire frames.

      Less so for kharkov. For one, the buildings are mostly intact at battle start. Though; unless these things are designed to still stand after a nuclear near miss, I wonder about the tactical implications of just hitting the right part of a building to create a collapse that blocks off (or slows down to a crawl) anything trying to use the street. Or for that matter crushes whatever tank the a pile of rubble lands on. (ha ha spall liner and enhanced suspension= a moving (at the speed of TOG) pile of spaced armor. now if i could just move the turret :/ )

      As fun as such speculation is …the same arguement from above applies. probably more so. That many collision models moving around could need a gaming rig running a Cray.

  5. Rombat says:

    I don’t know why people are complaining about Kharkov and Stalingrad, what’s wrong with them?…they are almost artyproof…do not people complain ablout arty?…look you have two maps where arty is almost useless…but you complain about them…i don’t get that…maybe these two maps are too tactical for them…too many places you can drive the tank and too many flanking maneuvres to be done in order to win…

    1. Laserguided says:

      Because people like to play arty? Besides, LT and paper armor TD don’t do well in these two maps as well. These two maps are for HT and MT only.

      1. stormcrow99 says:

        If you have more space than 10x10m and don’t do well in a light you done fucked up.
        Paper TDs usually have disgustingly huge guns.
        Speak for yourself m8.

  6. Laserguided says:

    Anyone know why WG uses different maps for different modes. Would be cool to see maps from other modes in random games. I guess I just like varieties. Oh, please bring back old maps like severogorsk.

  7. “And no, its nothing to do with time or hours.” this is bullshit, because yesterday i got fisherman bay like 5 times, stalingrad like 3 times and Live oaks like 6 times.. all of this was almost at row.. Comeee on, only once oi got El Halouf, one of the bests map..

  8. JAY says:

    Hi miss Rita can u please ask about Pearl river, Highway, South Coast, Komarin, Port, Northwest, Hidden Village, Sverogorsk? Cause these were all decent maps in my opinion and new ones ar almost all useless and not fun to play with. These maps had places for heavys, meds, artys and light tanks. U could camp or if the other team camps u ccould spot them with spotters for artys and such. Anywho it looks like Wargaming seems zo listen to u for some reason. Hope u will read this thnx. TTFN

    1. stormcrow99 says:

      They listen to contributors rather than the mass because the mass is just that, a mass. A hot steamy mess of people doing jack shit but arguing with each other and not thinking a single cent ahead of their own little bubble.

  9. Anonymous says:

    The win %’s on all maps and game modes are balanced, and usually within 1%…

    I cant believe this. Whenever i get Erlenberg assault the attacking team wins atleast 70-80% of the time.

  10. Nameless says:

    Hope they’ll remove the Pilsen horror asap.
    Geez, the shittiest map i’ve ever seen, i could play kharkov and stalingrad 10 times for each one match i would have to play on pilsen.

  11. The win %’s on all maps and game modes are balanced, and usually within 1%…

    I cant believe this. Whenever i get Erlenberg assault im pretty sure the attacking team wins 70-80% of the times. The corner in C2 is pretty much undefendable because of players shooting from the hill in G1

  12. Migsaec says:

    A lot of maps have a lot of wasted space, lots of inaccessible areas, making the actual playable area way smaller than the map size.
    For instance, Lakeville has the lake take up like 1 quarter of the map, then the mountains takes up another huge chunk. The playable areas there are, the narrow valley, the one-tank wide center path, the 2 routes to town from spawn, and the relatively tiny area in the town, total size, probably a little less than half of the map size.

    The maps that actually makes good use of the map size is, Murovanka, Malinovka and Sand River.

    Personally I like Murovanka, especially after they reworked the forest and widened the map a little. It has sufficient cover and is open enough for a lot of flanking. There’s no fixed path to flank enemies on the east or west, for example. You can flank from a different direction based on the situation.

Leave a Reply