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

[jackmccrack]

I miss Linden.

[TheWindCriesMary]

I miss Linden.

+1

[Unkn0wn]

You should be happy that after 5 years of EIR there is finally 1 good map out of the 100 and that there is a guide about how to make more.

You really need to tone down this  asshole-attitude of yours skaffa. Just because your map is at the top of the map list doesn't mean it's the only good map out there (and 1600 plays, given the 544122151 months we've been without a patch isn't unmatched either) , or that you are somehow the best mapper in the history of EIR. Also, let's not forget the fact that if it wasn't for you REFUSING to play any game that wasn't on neuville, your map probably would have had a much harder time getting at the top. (So to claim your map was instantly succesful and liked is just pure nonsense)  Bastion was once at the top of that list too, now look where its at. A little modesty goes a long way. After next wipe, a new map could quickly rise to be the new number one.

What Eirrmod said is right though, this is beating a dead horse. It used to be abbeville, then it was bastion, then it was tanteville (which I think to this date is still the most succesful EIR map when we look at # of plays over the course of several wars) and now it is neuville. People always seem to need their de_dust. Adding 50 more maps won't change a thing, simply because most players are inflexible and hate change. In addition to this, real urban and forest maps are just frustrating, no player enjoys pathing problems, thus the preference is much quicker given to more open maps.

[Demon767]

I miss titeville, i dont know why it people stop playing it and started playing this map with a church in the middle, what is that map called?

[Demon767]

oh wait, lots of maps have a church in the middle, its hard to describe that map

[Unkn0wn]

Probably because skaffa still threatens to quit the game if they don't change it to that map, LOL.

[Smokaz]

You really need to tone down this  asshole-attitude of yours skaffa. Just because your map is at the top of the map list doesn't mean it's the only good map out there (and 1600 plays, given the 544122151 months we've been without a patch isn't unmatched either) , or that you are somehow the best mapper in the history of EIR. Also, let's not forget the fact that if it wasn't for you REFUSING to play any game that wasn't on neuville, your map probably would have had a much harder time getting at the top. (So to claim your map was instantly succesful and liked is just pure nonsense)  Bastion was once at the top of that list too, now look where its at. A little modesty goes a long way. After next wipe, a new map could quickly rise to be the new number one.

What Eirrmod said is right though, this is beating a dead horse. It used to be abbeville, then it was bastion, then it was tanteville (which I think to this date is still the most succesful EIR map when we look at # of plays over the course of several wars) and now it is neuville. People always seem to need their de_dust. Adding 50 more maps won't change a thing, simply because most players are inflexible and hate change. In addition to this, real urban and forest maps are just frustrating, no player enjoys pathing problems, thus the preference is much quicker given to more open maps.

LOL propaganda campagin FAIL

You should also check out how skaffa posts "really good map" on a bunch of indirectly neuville rellated youtube vids

blow your own horn much?

but hey if we had MORE MAPS instead of fewer we would have more choices even if some of them were crap for some people but because we have a inactive and dum-dum map lead who refuses tons of map out of some trolling personal taste..yeah

[Dnicee]

LOL propaganda campagin FAIL

You should also check out how skaffa posts "really good map" on a bunch of indirectly neuville rellated youtube vids

blow your own horn much?

but hey if we had MORE MAPS instead of fewer we would have more choices even if some of them were crap for some people but because we have a inactive and dum-dum map lead who refuses tons of map out of some trolling personal taste..yeah

I'm with smokaz!

[Unkn0wn]

but hey if we had MORE MAPS instead of fewer we would have more choices even if some of them were crap for some people but because we have a inactive and dum-dum map lead who refuses tons of map out of some trolling personal taste..yeah

Stop trolling, I haven't been refusing any maps simply because I haven't really been around these last few months. Some maps I rejected in the past but only because they didn't meet the criteria mentioned in this thread: http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php?topic=19138.0

All those criteria are objective from a QA point of view and will get your map added. I don't like all maps that are currently in, but that doesn't mean I would remove them. I don't adhere to subjective criteria like skaffa's 'each map must have flanking space'.

Specifically I'd like to point you to this ADVANCED (which maps need to meet in the long run if they are to remain supported) criteria:

- Map needs to have generated a reasonable amount of plays, i.e it needs to have garnered a minimum level of support within the community. (Fully completed maps that no one wants to play may still be removed)

The players are primarily responsible themselves if a map gets removed. This is also why dawn was is and will remain removed. After 5645612 attempts to throw it back in, it NEVER generated more than 20 plays in a few weeks. You are so quick to judge the map lead or the dev for 'lack of maps' when in fact you are in the end responsible for the maps WE deem to be a failure. Like the OP posted, there are A TON of maps in already, yet only 10 or so generate a large amount of plays. How is that anyone's fault but the community's?

Also, all maps are supposed to be given a chance under those criteria posted in the thread. All new maps are given a 'trial period' when they meet the basic criteria, which are entirely objective. If anyone's map meets those criteria and has not been added, that IS our fault. And it is primarily due to my absence and the lack of anyone else on the dev team being capable (or willing?) to implement those maps.

[Demon767]

Unknown has my support tbh

[Smokaz]

We're not going to CAMPAIGN for certain maps, unknown. Players want the CHOICE.

Any working map should be in the launcher, almost no matter how crap it is. It's not like wareroom that can be filled and prevent new maps!

You want us to all do like skaffa like "NEUVILLE OR BUST LOLSH"

[Dnicee]

We're not going to CAMPAIGN for certain maps, unknown. Players want the CHOICE.

Any working map should be in the launcher, almost no matter how crap it is. It's not like wareroom that can be filled and prevent new maps!

You want us to all do like skaffa like "NEUVILLE OR BUST LOLSH"

and once again I agree with smokaz...

[Demon767]

They want to reduce the bandwidth used or the size of the mod guise

srsly guise

guise srsly

guise

srsly

[Smokaz]

Come on man , we're not playing command & conquer over 56k modem anymore

[skaffa]

Haha those youtube vid comment is for the lols. Had good laughs with some people who realised that. You can see elitegren also posted something similiar for lols on the first upload from schmidt. Guess you got trolled.

I dont understand all the hate in this topic tbh, maybe they dont understand, Ill clarify my view.

'A good map for EIR is in my opinion a map where you can flank enemy positions, where ever he may have set up, with your entire army.'

I dont care who made the map, how bad it looks or whatever, as long as you are able to do this I will most likely like the map.

I think this is good for a map because its makes sure EIR can be played to its full potential. Maps where you cant flank just narrow the gameplay where it boils down to campy defensive positions which only can be attacked by going head in, the 'rush&die' playstyle. A problem easily solved by making sure the map is long enough, so when you go around you are not too close to enemy spawn which makes such an effort would be way too dangerous (eg Tanteville) or by making sure the map is wide enough. If its too narrow you get bad gameplay where people sit in 1 spot all the time with their support weapons and campy shit. They dont have to move around the map cause they can cover the entire front line side to side (eg Red Ball Express). They dont have to be worried about getting flanked by a good army because the enemy will never be able to do this unseen as the map is too narrow, if there is not a defensive position covering that area in the first place, mapside to side. Even if you are able to get some units through and flank the enemy stronghold a little its going to be hard, all they have to do is move some of their units which are support weapons 90 degrees and they are done (eg Chateau). Often if you try to do a good flank you'll walk into 2 armies and you have to run for your life. Often the maps are bottlenecked so when you do try to flank you can only sqeesh in 2 units at a time, cant set up your army properly, need more open areas.

Bocage should be a bit longer so when you move around your not so close to enemy spawn. It should also be wider so you can move around the campy positions you see now and flank them, put some sectors on the sides for backcap posibilities which has to make the enemy move.

Abbeville is pretty fun map, I prefer fighting near the chateau are on the right because you can atleast flank somewhat over there. The left however has too many trees which completely block any kind of mass movement. You cant go around with your entire army to flank enemy positions, you also cant do this as a team and say 'lets go 3v1 on the left and flank that guy'.

Forest 3v3 needs to be slightly wider but especially it has to be longer, if you get pushed back you are trapped in spawn and it can be hard to get out.

Vire Valley is decent but needs to be wider. Its nearly impossible to flank an enemy position. You could try to go along side of the map but you will most likely be seen before you can flank them, unless you move all your units behind eachother in 1 collumn at the very edge of the map and hope they dont see you. Make it wider and you can move around, creating more gameplay options instead of just catering to campy players or 'rush&die' players.

Bastion is a pretty nice map. Good thing about it is that its very long. If you can get by unseen and flank behind the town it can be a succes, without having to worry as much as on other maps about new units coming soon as the spawns are not so close. Slightly less wider wouldnt hurt it.

St Lambert. Decent map but only a few ways of attack possible, flanking on the left side is not really possible. On the right there are big trees preventing you to quickly move or do a hit and run flank with your entire army. Pretty static gameplay.

About my map Neuville. I saw all these problems with the other maps and decided to make my own map where flanking would be possible. It works great, you can flank around with your entire army pretty much unseen. You can also rush 3v1 1 side of the map for some teamwork, these mass flanks are so much fun and can mop up all 3 enemies without taking much hits. Everytime Ive done this with my team they all thought it was awsm.
The map width allows you to change fronts when 88s are build without too much losses, you can constantly move around and find the enemies weakspots and attack that.
All of this is gameplay I like to see. I see no reason why this is bad. Pretty much no other map enables all these things and yet you all complain. Massacre talks about creativity and innovativity, well this is it, you just dont see it. Maybe you are still stuck in the campy stay on 1 spot playstyle or 'rush&die' playstyle. I can understand that, none of the maps offer something else and its prolly been like that since 5 years ago when EIR started. I was amazed when I heard RTC was considered a 'good' map, a map which allows zero flanking actions.

Btw I only made that guide because Keeps asked for my help with his new map. I told him what to do and how I would do it, the text comes from xfire conversations and the pictures I send to him to clarify what I meant. I thought it might be useful for more people so I put it on the forum. Its my personal view on what I think are succesful maps. You can twist it around and do whatever you like with my tips. The most important rule is make sure your map is wide enough and long enough enabling proper flanking actions. Thats 1 simple rule, the rest is up to you and you can design it as to however you want it. Im sure there will be lots and lots of options.

Im looking forward to try the map from EagleintheSky, as Ive said in his topic I thought it looked great and might be a good map, enable all types of gamestyles so EIR can show its full potential.

~CRUSADER against the infidels~

[hans]

there are certain rules for a good map. in right a lot of points i can truly understand skaffa. iam really not for a guide that gives u the strategic role of a map or anything else like how u should build a map.

BUT

there are also kinda maps that really causing certain gameplay characteristics u cant deny.

if the map is 2x8 u have a map where u easily can lock down certain areas with support weapons and the enemy is FORCED to use mortars, in doomfort cases heavy arty.

I noticed in alot of 2v2 maps especially that space for flanking is not available. FLANKING is an important point and strategie and also effectes certain docs and fractions in different ways.
Flanking an mg should be possible srsly. 88 should not lock 1 third of a map.

SKAFFA showed us how u can easily make maps with flanking points and tbh maps like neuville or forest or tanteville or ... are not only most choosen coz its popular,

BUT there are just very few issues regarding pathing. And those maps are from my feeling ones u really can play best on. NO SWAMP, ican mention a lot more issues...

From my point of view camping maps are killing eirr. i came to eirr COZ of more action and not the same ugly campi arty combo in coh most time. CERTAIN MAPS cause those shity camping.

most player choose maps with an advantage on their side. THEN u argue ingame about which map u wanna play and u should really have NEUTRAL maps instead of AXIS or ALLIES biased maps.



....whatever, MOAR MAPS pls, we have so many FINAL maps that dont get added

MAPMANAGEMENT should get a certain priority

[AmPM]

Flanking is good, but should not be easy on every map.

It's retarded that you basically have to settle for game play that is less strategy, and more of who brought what blob of currently powerful shit to run around the map with. Which is the game play Skaffa likes. Fair enough.

However, you should be required to build a company with a certain ability to remove a hardpoint, and hardpoints should be VIABLE in the game, instead of getting bypassed and backcapped because the map is 6 sectors wide and a 2v2.

This is why Neuville is a terrible 2v2 map, it is only viable for companies based around mobile swarms.

Neuville in general is boring, it's not bad, but it's like eating plain bread...not fresh bread, not sourdough, not buttered. Plain. Sure, it will keep you going, but it's no fun and not interesting.

The biggest problem is that people hate challenge, and they hate change. Guess what, your Tiger may not be able to navigate some alleys, get over it, they can't do that in real life either. Maybe a built up urban area SHOULD be a deathtrap for vehicles, you know, like it really is. That way we get some varied and interesting gameplay instead of the same old half stale loaf of white bread we currently subsist on.

Flanking, fine, hardpoints, fine, mix them up in the same map so that a company capable of both has an advantage, even better.

[Smokaz]

^ Agree.

Also as much as "narrow maps" or these maps with no flanking tend to narrow the game down, neuville favors infantry spam and low pop AT. Guess which side has the best and most mobile low pop AT?

[IJustDontCare]

Agreed as well. Although the problem with having bad pathing or clustery maps is all the off maps and artillery there is in the game as well. If you see the smoke and your tank decides to do a 360 in the process of getting out the way well thats good bye to that tank most likely and then followed by a rage quit and quotes going like "I'm never playing that map again!" its worse with infantry making these types of maps MUCH harder to make enjoyable.

You know most of these maps with open spaces and lots of flanking is in favor of not "infantry spam" but tons of light tanks and heavy tanks. Hell if we had 0 open maps people wouldn't make triple m8 start or spam stugs, pumas, m10s, hellcats, double tigers, double pershings, so on and so forth. It would be more infantry or the hell world of piats.

Urban maps horrors = piats, mines or goliathes hiding in places, pathing, rifle nades, slow escape from arty.

Open map horrors = AT gun spam (paks or 57s), light tank spam (m8s or pumas), little to no cover for infantry

So both styles have horrors but of course urban or clustery maps have the most. To be quite honest I don't think we can make maps to much beyond skaffas map without changing the way the game is played, But that's just me.

Thoughts?

[hans]

^ Agree.

Also as much as "narrow maps" or these maps with no flanking tend to narrow the game down, neuville favors infantry spam and low pop AT. Guess which side has the best and most mobile low pop AT?

uhm yea, good point tbh

(am sry for just judging in the prespective of an allies)

in the end i would say, more new maps would solve the actual problem, coz those have to be played first of all before they can be marked as good or bad maps

too much space for flanking is good for mobile and fast units as well as for infantry blobs to cap
(favor for allies)

too less space for flanking is good for defensive units, supportunits as well as for strong armour
(favor for axis)

in the end u can also see that maps, seeming the simplest thing of the game are also very complicated and in Eirr it supports certain characteristics and gamestyles and behaviours.