These maps in particular are prone to games ending very quickly and early, especially when one side has a strong forward deploy advantage, and games that are closer to even matches don't leave much time for the losing team to respond to shifts on the battlefield before the outcome is decided. It may be worth trying all zones at 1 or 2 points, including the "gimme" zones so that rush strategies aren't overly incentivized.
#Reduce zone values on 10v10 Volcano and Isura Conquest
deep pike
olive wave
wrong, the best way to solve these problems with most maps which have them, is to double/triple the amount of zones which exist and recalculate the points spread out over all these zones.
Giving more zones allows for more granularity during shifts in map control. And plenty of 10v10 maps, are prone to basically focus all players fighting over 1-3 sectors instead of 7-8
olive wave
One of these two layouts is absolutely braindead, the other one is how 10v10 map sectors should be designed. Guess which one will have the problem you describe and which one absolutely won't.
deep pike
I'm of a mind that fewer lanes with greater depth is better than more lanes. I like 10v10 better as a small set of players cooperating over a specific cap zone responsibility, rather than 10 separate 1v1's that can have 10 players worth of artillery or air pressure on a lane at a moment's notice
(Case: I find that Kreide, Iron Waters, and Cliff result in way more interesting games than Crown, Volcano, and Loop)
(I.E. the maps that are laid out more like Wargame RD than Steel Division 2)
slender stag