EIR Maps

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[tank130]

Disregarding the small bits of flame.

There was absolutely no intention of any kind of flame in my post. I would like to know what you thought was a flame, because I honestly say there was no intention of that. In fact, I went out of my way to try to make it completely neutral.....

Sometimes I just want to give up on this community.......

[IJustDontCare]

There was absolutely no intention of any kind of flame in my post. I would like to know what you thought was a flame, because I honestly say there was no intention of that. In fact, I went out of my way to try to make it completely neutral.....

Sometimes I just want to give up on this community.......

Wasn't referring to you sorry should of been more clear. Also it doesn't matter who I was referring to. No need for names. Chill.

[deadbolt]

plz remove my shitty omaha match, it doesnt even deserve to get told to GTFO.

[hans]

plz remove my shitty omaha match, it doesnt even deserve to get told to GTFO.

he got ownd by his own map lulz

[Dnicee]

Can't someone make a map with two towns and a big no mans land in the middle of the map.

[EliteGren]

You mean like Linden?

[WildZontar]

I miss Dawn tbh.

[Masacree]

And what would the difference between Skaffa promoting his ideology and you promoting your ideology be?

1. I'm not taking a particular positive ideological position (which is to say, I'm not advocating that a particular style of maps should be preferred or played exclusively), I'm only pointing out flaws in the currently held ideology.

2. I'm only bringing to consciousness what is already hidden in the way that words are used in the EIRR forum. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, it's absolutely important to be aware of these hidden presuppositions.

3. I explicitly outline what is at stake in this argument:

The consequences are clear: increased variety in maps will do nothing: people only play certain maps as is, and really, all of those maps share certain fundamental characteristics (as is embodied in Skaffa's thread). The functionalization of map making has led to a general decline of both creativity and variety in the mapping and gameplay processes.

If you choose not to view those consequences as a bad thing^tm then it's absolutely a tenable position to support the current mindset. Nevertheless, I think Skaffa's insistence in the way that he uses certain words and the viciousness with which he attacks those whose opinions differ from him (it's only a different magnitude from labeling "the other" as "terrorists" to justify wars against them) is entirely unnecessary.

For the sake of argument, let's just assume that I am completely neutral in the argument and don't give a shit either way. I do have an opinion, but just humor me and pretend I don't for a moment.

Assuming it would be better from a marketing stand point to produce a product that appeals to the largest mass of consumers:
We don't sell EiRR, but our goal, of course, is to have the largest  population in our player base as possible.

A while back I posted a record of the Map usage: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=20594.msg361638#msg361638

Whether you agree or not with my statements at the time is really irrelevant to my point now. The data clearly shows the maps the MAJORITY of the consumers (players) want to play. Whether they want to play them because they are a bunch of mindless souls who can't think out side of the box, or if they play them because the maps are better, is a matter of opinion. Regardless of your opinion, that data is correct.

What it does show is what the majority wants. It would be silly to provide support for a product that only a very small percentage of the consumers use.

I guess you could argue that by forcing a different product on the consumer it may make them change their mind, but that would be a risky gamble. You could even suggest rewards or incentives to use the lower desired product, but the usage will stop when the incentives stop. In the end, you are throwing a lot of resources, time, and production trying to convince people to use product they don't want to use.

What's interesting is that the current state of the EIR meta-meta game and thus the style of maps considered appropriate in the mod was a positive design choice by the development team in the transition from EIR to EIRR and is thus contingent on a series of historical events. EIRR was designed to encourage shorter, faster paced games, and map choices reflect this. The map choices that people make, though superficially their own, are guided by social norms regarding the style of gameplay encouraged by mod balance, the desires of other people in the mod, and the types of maps made available to them. Again, keep in mind that I'm not taking a particular stance on the type of gameplay that EIRR encourages (though I do think the relative stagnation of the meta-meta game is probably bad). Desire is not a purely personal thing, but is also partly socially conditioned.

[jackmccrack]

plz remove my shitty omaha match, it doesnt even deserve to get told to GTFO.

+1, that map sux donkey dangus!

[tank130]

I spend a lot of money on post secondary education and like to write thesis

No offense...I am just having a little fun.

But seriously, I think you are analyzing this on a much more complex level than is really necessary.

[Smokaz]

for christmas i want a picture of two and keeps whipping each other with whips

[Masacree]

But seriously, I think you are analyzing this on a much more complex level than is really necessary.

I mean, ignorance is bliss for most people, right? Why even care about anything at all?

[IJustDontCare]

Back on topic?

[TheWindCriesMary]

I want more posts from Massacree tbfh.


And to "yes,  and" his points: Skaffa has made a map that works for many people. He even made a clear guide on how to make a map very similar to his -- if you like that kind of map. For some people this will be very welcome. For me personally, I highly dislike Neuville and find games that take place on it to be terribly boring and extremely uncreative. That's my personal opinion rather than an objective one, and by no means reflects popular opinion. It's the virtue of different preferences and playstyles -- a realization I think a lot more people need to start considering.

So no, it is not ideal for the game, the community, or our collective strategic intelligence to have every map (or even most of them) follow any formula -- it just is not. And it's nonsense to talk about a "best formula" for making maps because that's like saying there is a "best" formula for painting a masterpiece. The first part completely contradicts the point of the second.

Yes Neuville has tons of plays. I've seen it myself in game after game where you get into the game lobby and the zombie drones intone "neuville plz" without a second thought. Yes lot's of people like it. TO that I say: good, I'm glad they have a map they enjoy. But we should rue the day we ever let that trick us into making all maps into ostensible clones of eachother, even if just for formula reasons alone.

The day we start deciding that "popular" is always equal to "the only way to do something" is the day we have a problem. The simple fact of the matter being that one of the most popular movies of the year (if we look at pure ticket sales) was Transformers 3. Does that mean all movies made from now on should follow the same formula as Transformers 3? Hot girls + lots of special effects + awesome cars + lots of explosions + simple, basic dialogue, etc. etc.? Should Michael Bay make a guide on how to make movies like Transformers 3 because it is "obviously way better and way more popular" than a movie that is more challenging to the common denominator? Or because it doesn't have an easily accessible roadmap for viewing pleasure? Of course not. A well-rounded movie collection should have some documentaries, some historical epics, some romantic comedies, some dramas, some thrillers and some action movies -- not just be made entirely from one category, or the one that sells the most tickets year after year.

Unfortunately by the logic that is dictating Skaffa's decision that Neuville is the best map in EiR ever, Transformers 3 is also the best movie of the year (Harry Potter actually was, but for the sake of the analogy i'll stick with it). Also by his logic, it's a good idea to always follow the formula of Transformers 3 (or Neuville) for all movies because it's a waste of time to make a map unless it's one that people with their current expectations and tastes will play the most. That is unfortunately not only an unproductive way of looking at creating new maps, it's also a depressingly cynical one.



I will not say that Skaffa's map is objectively bad. I personally don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, for the formula and type of gameplay it aspires to is is very well made. It is good that it is in EiR, and there should be a few more maps similar to it.  But ONLY if we have a variety of well-made maps that don't all follow that same formula. We also need maps that have less extremely intuitive formulas  rather than having everyone basically laid out in the exact same (and for some players, extremely boring) "this is your nice deployment zone just before the middle of the map, these are your giant flanking zones on either side of the center" etc,"

Why is this variety so important?

Because then the homogenized map formula for all EiR maps would stagnate gameplay, decrease playabillity in the longer run, and eventually bring innovation to a standstill.


So yes, Masacree is right: if we start down the absurdly ridiculous road of declaring that one kind of map/one formula of mapmaking is "good" and all others are bad, we can look forward to a very dismal and intellectually absent metagame.

So I say to mapmakers: challenge the status quo. Don't be afraid to try new things, to break the mould (whatever it may be), and to push the envelope of innovation. You will fail many times, but I'd rather you had 9 failure maps and one that changes the face of EiR than have 10 maps that follow some overused formula until we are all non-blinking robots mindlessly going through the same old routines like so many Counterstrike players that could play Counterstrike on De_Dust in their sleep.


Be bold, and force players to get out of their lazy comfort zones. They will thank you for it in the long run...

-Wind

[TheWindCriesMary]

I mean, ignorance is bliss for most people, right? Why even care about anything at all?

Just ignore the troll. He kind of does this in a lot of threads and it's best to ignore him. Fortunately there are people who are legitimately interested in discussing the topic at hand without ad hominem nonsense and attempts to derail.

-Wind

[IJustDontCare]

If there's one thing I've noticed a lot in game is very little use of cover by most infantry units. It's almost non existent somewhat ((not entirely cover is still used just feels like not a lot)). I feel like when you add powerful units such as perhaps the 4 Man KCH squad with oakleaves (by the way i hate this unit, but makes a good example) there's no point in cover since they're made of steel and have good suppression resistance so you just close in and rape everything, which people will argue that's their role you don't use cover with them you rush them in to rape everything. The idea though behind this example is why are we implementing such strong resistant to enemy fire units? Perhaps I'm being to biased in one case, but feel like maybe there are too many "Elite" units in the game that could undoubtedly be shaping the way our maps are becoming boring.

Thoughts??

A lot of people talk about tactics and shaping the maps for good flanking moves, but what about the use of cover vs blobbing and lots of armor buffs and upgrades to make the units survive longer outside of cover. What about perhaps less off maps? What I mean by this is not getting rid of off maps just lowering the uses of them.

Thoughts??

[AmPM]

If there's one thing I've noticed a lot in game is very little use of cover by most infantry units. It's almost non existent somewhat ((not entirely cover is still used just feels like not a lot)). I feel like when you add powerful units such as perhaps the 4 Man KCH squad with oakleaves (by the way i hate this unit, but makes a good example) there's no point in cover since they're made of steel and have good suppression resistance so you just close in and rape everything, which people will argue that's their role you don't use cover with them you rush them in to rape everything. The idea though behind this example is why are we implementing such strong resistant to enemy fire units? Perhaps I'm being to biased in one case, but feel like maybe there are too many "Elite" units in the game that could undoubtedly be shaping the way our maps are becoming boring.

Thoughts??

A lot of people talk about tactics and shaping the maps for good flanking moves, but what about the use of cover vs blobbing and lots of armor buffs and upgrades to make the units survive longer outside of cover. What about perhaps less off maps? What I mean by this is not getting rid of off maps just lowering the uses of them.

Thoughts??

Maps have been like this for 3 years. People don't like complicated, and they don't like areas that promote one unit type over others. This is why truly urban maps, actual forest maps, and maps that have areas hard for vehicles to go are not played.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Maps have been like this for 3 years. People don't like complicated, and they don't like areas that promote one unit type over others. This is why truly urban maps, actual forest maps, and maps that have areas hard for vehicles to go are not played.

Very true. I love maps like Viller's Bocage but try to get people to play that and you'll have a riot on your hands. It's not "clean" warfare and it's very tough for people to play the companies they want the way they are used to in a map like that. Therefore, they just avoid it and stick to what they're familiar with. Forget the fact that huge portions of the war, indeed some of the most decisive battles, were fought in brutal urban combat (Stalingrad, Berlin, most of the Italian Campaign, Caen, Carentan)... people in EiR want nice rural combat with 4-5 buildings spaced nice and neatly apart.


My own map Rouen had a very realistic urban centre. In fact when I made it I wanted it to be a nightmare to fight in the city. Not in terms fo pathing, but in terms of the sheer amount of micro and attrition that would take place in a realistic urban setting -- just like how it would feel in WW2 in an urban centre. But I knew even when I was making it that this would not make it popular, but frankly the way I saw it: we had enough maps that fit people's playstyles and comfort zones.


People should have to change their companies/playstyles to suit maps. Maps should not have to be changed to suit them.

Laziness is the death of innovation.

-Wind

[Demon767]

What was that large map where the map was kinda cut inbetween a river, and had two cities on either side with a small bridge in the middle. The loading screen was a tiger. That map was fun because it was difficult and different! but obviously the majority in the eirr community are noobs and go for a easy neuville map

[AmPM]

What was that large map where the map was kinda cut inbetween a river, and had two cities on either side with a small bridge in the middle. The loading screen was a tiger. That map was fun because it was difficult and different! but obviously the majority in the eirr community are noobs and go for a easy neuville map

Mountain Valley? That was a fun map to make. I'm thinking of cutting down the size a bit so people stop whining so much and redoing the sectors.

Also, if EIRRMod ever gets Objective Controlled Popcap back into the game (able to use sectors not connected to the spawn, so we can do king of the hill and capture the base style maps) I have a few maps from olden days ready to go. Until then, they don't work.