Discussion Thread-What makes a map a "bad map"

[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

[CrazyWR]

So many people label this map or that map a bad map.  I'm curious what causes people to give these labels to certain maps and not to others.  I know a lot of people enjoy Forest for instance.  I don't like it because I feel it is to easy to win by capping on.  Other people don't like it because it is too narrow.  However, in general, opinion on Forest is high.  Opinion on a map like France_1944 is very low.  The map has a lot of unnecessary pathing annoyances and bridges(I think its France_1944 with the bridges).  Spawns are 2 on one side, one on the other.  These are legitimate grievances.

However, on some maps, people play them once or twice, lose badly, decide it was the map's fault, declare it bad, and refuse to play it again.  I'm curious how many times this happens as opposed to the map just being poor.  I think this is one of the reasons that the map rotation policy is helpful, since it forces people to play maps they may have prematurely formed an opinion on without sufficient gameplay time.  However, some of the maps truly are poor.

My question is this: What differentiates a bad map from a map that is fine, but does not suit your playstyle?  And if it does not suit your playstyle, would you admit that in saying why you don't want to play the map, or just say it is a bad map?

[Hicks58]

Neuville generally has a high opinion, I personally think Forest is shit FYI.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Basically, opinion will vary greatly across the board on maps but a genuinely good map will inevitably generate a general level of positivity. That's why maps like Tante, Forest, Neuville, Abbeville and Nuenen are generally regarded largely as "good maps" while still having individuals who hate all or some of them.

It seems to come down to: does the map allow for smooth, intuitive, well-flowing gameplay?

I'd break that into a few categories. Note each player would assign a different level of priority to each of these criteria but let's assume they're all equal for now:

Pathing: If I tell a unit to go somewhere, is the map, it's objects and its buildings/blockers placed in such a way that almost always the unit knows exactly how to get there? Will the path that the unit takes align to the logical presumption I would have made, based on what I see, when I gave the command? Or are their hidden forces at work in the map (invisible objects, poorly placed objects, invisible movement blockers etc.) that will cause the unit to do something other than I expect it to when I give it a command?

Layout: Does the map have a logical, clean and fluid layout. EiR is a game of speed and pushes and pulls (a good, balanced one anyway). Being able to reinforce quickly or recover quickly from engagements (whether you win them or lose them) and to gain position on the map is important.

Space & Diversity: Does the map have a good combination of space to flank, maneuver, set up support weapons and establish clear defensive lines without being a total field map? Does it have areas that cater to players who prefer some buildings, shot blockers, crevices and nooks? For me Neuville is a good example of some intimate little fighting spots for players who excel and prefer city fighting while also having open plains for players who like open fields to slug it out on in world war 1 style fighting AND fringe spaces for nomad players to roam the outskirts flanking/harassing at will. It has a little bit of something for everyone.

[aeroblade56]

A bad map would be industrial heartland tbh. its narrow( easily choke pointed with either mines or other objects) hard to actually escape anything other than hoping in a house.

Tanks get caught on buildings often enough.

no room to flank and i can defo imagine someone on defense tank traping that place into the ground with minespam very easily.

[XIIcorps]

4p Airfield by Unknown.
Whole right side of map is incapable.
Leaving only left side which is 2 sectors wide and heavily clustered with buildings.

[CrazyWR]

A bad map would be industrial heartland tbh. its narrow( easily choke pointed with either mines or other objects) hard to actually escape anything other than hoping in a house.

Tanks get caught on buildings often enough.

no room to flank and i can defo imagine someone on defense tank traping that place into the ground with minespam very easily.

But does it follow that ANY city map is bad? Or just certain city maps?  And if it is only certain city maps that are bad, what makes the good ones stand out?  For instance, what is your stance on Villers-Bocage(I think thats the one)?

[nikomas]

Wind loves villers last I checked, so.......

[TheWindCriesMary]

Villers is a great map in my opinion. Nicely laid out city, plenty of space on the internal roads while also having some fields on the skirts for plenty of flanking and whatnot.

[tank130]

I think pretty much everyone, myself included, will agree that Nueville is a great map to play on. The only problem with it is playing on it every fucking game........lol


Some maps you will find pretty much everyone dislikes it for the obvious reason. Those reasons mostly what Wind has pointed out above.
Most people whom are not chronic complainers will not have much issue with a map if it has a little spot here or there that is not perfect for game play.  Even Nueville has a tiny spot here and there that could be better if you really wanted to get QQ about it.

Crazy, I think what you are getting at (if I am reading you correctly) is the in between maps. Lets pick on one of my maps for example. There are  people who really like D_Day and some that refuse to play it. There are some that like it, but wish a tiny item was changed. There are some that want no changes at all.

To me, that is a map that falls into this category most of the time:

However, on some maps, people play them once or twice, lose badly, decide it was the map's fault, declare it bad, and refuse to play it again.

I would even say I fall into that category with Villers. I have played it a few times and hated it because it became a cluster fuck. Wind loves it because it fits the play style he wants to use. So, is it a bad map or not?

I agree with you Crazy. The map rotation forces us to really try the maps and try to push our abilities as a player. Instead of just using the same old copy paste company every game.

If you have some people claiming they hate a map, but others claiming it is fine. Then I would say it is probably not a bad map.

[aeroblade56]

If you have some people claiming they hate a map, but others claiming it is fine. Then I would say it is probably not a bad map.

You should give industrial heartland a go and tell us you views.

[TheWindCriesMary]

Wind loves it because it fits the play style he wants to use. So, is it a bad map or not?

This is actually really inaccurate. I don't use many flamers, mortars or grenades so this map, contrary to this statement, doesn't fit my company playstyles.

So why do I love it? Because it's an interesting map. It's not the generic field + city map or the field map or the field + hedgerow map. It's a well designed, well made (relic knows their shit) map that has a totally different and more awkward feel than the traditional EiR map.

That's why some people love it.

[nikomas]

I also want to point this out, it's actually quite easy to flank MG's and the like in houses in villers because you can take cover behind... other houses, while on maps like neu/forest you can plop a single MG in a house and cover a large zone of the map.

A lot of people like to be able to use their units at max range, that's why a lot of people don't like city maps. I dissagree with these people, maps like villers provide for some great flank gameplay and the like, and I love villers.

3v3 villers please

[tank130]

You should give industrial heartland a go and tell us you views.

Has anyone really claimed it is a good map?

This is actually really inaccurate. I don't use many flamers, mortars or grenades so this map, contrary to this statement, doesn't fit my company playstyles.

OK, I stand corrected for you personally. But I think you kind of missed the over all point of the post.

The point I was trying to make is:

However, on some maps, people play them once or twice, lose badly, decide it was the map's fault, declare it bad, and refuse to play it again.

[aeroblade56]

Has anyone really claimed it is a good map?

CrazyWR.

[Smokaz]

A truly bad map would be Vire river valley,  most other "bad" maps are just qq. Like how is lambert a bad map, other than the trees actually having a function that people dont like?

Very nice idea for thread, Crazy.

[tank130]

Alright, so we have one person claiming  industrial heartland sux and allegedly another who likes it. I have no idea because I have never played the map.

So perhaps that map is still up for debate - I don't know.

But I still think CrazyWR. is correct. A couple of maps here & there are truly problematic. The rest are just QQ cuz the person's company failed on it.

[GrayWolf]

industrial heartland is bad. Roads don't work and tanks are slowed down, dunno why...

[Mister Schmidt]

Surely a truly good map enables all company builds to be viable on it though?

I don't see that the company you have dictates the map you play, certainly not with the way you choose your company first, and then decide on the map. If it was the other way around, sure, but...

[nikomas]

What you just said is flat out impossible, since one person could theoretically build a demolitions based company for town maps while someone else has an 88 company requiring an open map, those two don't mix.

[Mister Schmidt]

Tanteville