"not this map, I HATE this map"

 

"this map was way better before they..."

 

"I loved that map from the old PR"

 

"Insurgency SUCKS"

 

 

Sooo many times have I heard statments like those above ingame. What I'd like to know from you is:

 

 

Why do people hate/dislike certain maps, what is wrong with them?

 

What did people like from older map versions?

 

What did people like in the old/retro PR maps?

 

Why does insurgency "suck" for some people?

 

And what would people like to see in a NEW map?

 

 

I'm asking this because im making my own PR map, and I really dont want to make a map that is "hated", I want to create something that will be enjoyable for all players and something to look forward to.

 

 

Thanks for your feedback, and also Hello everyone

I know it doesnt really answer your question but..

 

I can enjoy every map in PR, it all depends on how they are played.

 

Don't get caught up trying to please everyone with your project, do it how you want it, pleasing everyone is nigh on impossible to do.

The truth is that whatever you create will always have at least one person who dislikes it. From what I can see your map looks like it will have that Sharqi Peninsula feel from BF2. As long as you don't make another Tad Sae I think you will be right.

ME....I Love city maps.....I wouldnt mind just 1 modern map where it was say USA VS CHINA, in a multi-layered city map, with skyrise buildings....

 

Only map i really really loathe would be that Valley one (think its Kolezky or sumthin) with the high peaks? Only cause it lags the bugger out of me:(

Bad:

too open

too small

not enough capture points

 

Good:

CQB, urban areas or some way of creating CQB environments for infantry and vehicles

 

good variety of battles types, not just one type.

 

balance revolving around flags or relating to resources both aas or insurgency.

 

Id like to see something new, not the old same old same old which is seen in a few maps, though looking at your current project i dont think thatll be too much a problem.

 

Good luck with the project, looks good so far even in this early stages.

LOTS OF JETS AND CHOPPARZ.

 

Jokes aside, I like ones that involve light assets like qwai with it's little birds, strykers, MG apc's and jeeps.

 

I'd like to see more of the likes of Kyongan because of the patches of forests dotted all over the map.

Well, make the map the way you feel best. If your passionate about it this will be portrayed and people will like it no matter what. I've been doing Siege of Cehennam on the side but I hope I can work on it more during the holidays. Most importantly it should be unique, interesting and re playable. Detail and effort goes a long way and the threshold of PR maps (quality wise) is quite high so it is obviously going to take awhile.

Edited November 9, 200915 yr by YAK

needs strip club or two and lazor beams ...just kidding

 

as long it is big , urban and full with a fair amount of assets then it will be a good map.

 

i have some more ideas , i'l mention them tomorrow

You can never go wrong with some underground tunnels..

Even if their just sewage pipes or something..

And chuck in some really cool easter eggs/ random stuff. Not an ideas man but you know just like scenes reminscient of movies or something

Performance

i love maps with 5 or more capture points.

Why do people hate/dislike certain maps, what is wrong with them?

People have different play styles, IE Barbies are constantly on armor maps, Submox always goes infantry 99% of the time. This is a direct catalyst to who will like a map and who will not.

 

They have to make sure that vehicular combat is a complement to infantry combat, and vice versa. Maps like Qinling failed with this, as infantry stands close to no chance unless the HAT kit hasn't been lost, taken.

 

What did people like from older map versions?

Most people would agree that Ejod was better with multiple flags in the city.

 

What did people like in the old/retro PR maps?

I liked Mao valley for the fact you could ninja behind them (in choke points, remember how it was like a maze?) due to the inCREDIBLY high grass, little bunkers, and pockets of water.

 

Operation pheonix was pretty great too as it had wide open spaces, but trenches for the infantry. Plus the Cobra used to own up pretty hard.

 

Why does insurgency "suck" for some people?

Because most are influenced to kills, staying alive for a long time, asset use, and conventional warfare overall. People who switch over to the BLUFOR will usually grab an asset or something new and high-techy that will kill the largest amount of insurgents.

 

Or the fact that they simply love taking out caches with a goal in mind.

You can never go wrong with some underground tunnels..

Even if their just sewage pipes or something..

 

:o TUNNELS TUNNELS TUNNELS!!!

 

Put in choppers and APC's and let the whores take those, but they can't get me while I is fightings in teh tunnels!!!

 

I want to see a map like Muttrah City with a tunnel network underneath it.

The Chechen and Chinese maps are my favourite.

Great height variation on the Chechen ones, and I love the terrain and colours. I also love the vehicle disparity and the way that Chechen's can still have victory over a better equipped opponent.

 

I love the Chinese ones for the grass (that said, the ones I talk about are Tad Sae, Bi Ming and Operation Ghost), and the way that it is so tense and the proximity is so near! It isn't all just about blasting on these maps, it's about picking your engagements very wisely. So much more intense.

 

IMO Fools Road is the best map. It's height variation is fantastic for snipers, the roads are great for armour and CE's () and the squads have a chance to shine in the woodlands. Also, a well placed FOB is a jewel.

Techies are always a winner too.

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by The Product

My suggestion would be to make sure you have variety.

 

Try not to make a map that makes people think of a map that already exists Eg. "What's that new map, you know the one that looks like Muttrah?" New maps that "feel" like old maps get old more quickly.

 

Also make sure that the map has areas that are great for different types of fighting. A more open area for vehicle combat, an urban area for infantry, and maybe some wooded areas too, make sure you don't have all urban or all open plains or all woods as it will bias the map to a certain playstyle and people who like the other playstyles will not enjoy it.

 

And lastly variety in capture points and assets is key. You want enough flag points to make the game exciting and interesting, you don't want to be fighting over the same 1 or 2 flags every game. 5+ flags is good IMHO and random AAS really helps. You want to have a good variety of assets too so that people can play the game their way. Jeeps and trucks for the infantry, APCs/Tanks for the armour whores and trans/attack choppers for the flyboys (jets are OP and poorly implemented IMHO). But at the same time don't overload the map with vehicles just make sure there is a good variety to please every type of player.

 

My 2 cents.

If you were to implement jets (which are only on 4km maps and thus lots of work to do) instead of the old fighter & bomber combo do like iron eagle and have 2 fighters or bombers (means formation attack runs look cooler and just would be an interesting feature)

 

That said make use of ALL of the area, as far as i know (could be wrong) maps like archer and muttrah and jabal and barra are all the same size yet when you play em some feel large compared to others. Barra half of it is sealand so its a relatively small map whereas jabal is huge as only roughly 1/4 is sealand. Quinling & Iron Eagle can also be a comparison as IE is just feels huge. Quinling is also somewhat different to Kashan.

 

As a side note are you into hobbies like model trains? cose there all kinds of techniques to make things appear larger then what they are and not so bland, the same can be applied here. Though not in the same sense, hopefully you can understand what i mean by that cose its not really something im capable of explainging, p.s. good luck with building it and i think all of us would look forward to testing it

O and what are your ideas so far or designs and whatnot? Or is feedback unwanted at this point in time?

 

O and most important of all like a train layout at the end of the day do it how YOU want it to be not what someone else came along and said you should have this

Edited November 10, 200915 yr by ausklr

just think about how the game will play out in the map. Create a linear progression through a city, 5-6 flags and each flag area needs to have adequate defensive cover as well as cover for attacking players.

 

Area needs to be big enough that you can advance into the cap zone, sit down and take up a defensive position where you can get into a battle with the other 4 sectors of the flag area to engage the other defensive positions. If you can't engage the enemy if they are also on the flag then it's too big.

 

Say your coming from one flag to the next and the quickest most direct route is through an open square. If squads rush this area and the enemy has defensive positions set then the advancing squad will be cut down. Add in flanking sections around the open square that take longer but provide more cover for the attackers so they can closer to the flag before the defensive positions start to gain an advantage. So there is 3 routes to the flag, centre through open market, and the flanks on either side that provide lots of cover and distance wise take longer to walk/run to the next flag. The defending team needs to cover all 3 directions in order to prevent the attackers from advancing. This would also work with forest and desert maps.

 

Allow vehicles to have the advantage in open ground and infantry have the advantage in cities. Create bottle necks in the city to trap the vehicles so their manoeuvrability is greatly reduced and mines can play an important part to deny access to certain areas without infantry support.

 

Insurgent maps need to have advantageous landscape features to help them out. A lot of wreaked vehicles all over the roads to allow for IED placement where the enemy vehicles has no choice but to move close to it. Lots of rocks and dips in the roads, or grass, to hide mines, which should really be placed under the ground and less visible.

 

I'm sure there is more but that should be a good start

Iron Eagle!

This map is what everyone wants in a PR map and its going to be a ADF map.

 

Large (4x4km) map.

Room for jets to fly.

Room for attack choppers.

Close quarter fights in a medium sized city and a small village.

Much need for transport from trucks and helis.

Flags separated by distance and high hills for secluded battles or firebases.

Plenty of room for tank battles.

Immersive landscape that doesn’t repeat regularly.

And of course tunnels.

Iron Eagle!

This map is what everyone wants in a PR map and its going to be a ADF map.

 

Large (4x4km) map.

Room for jets to fly.

Room for attack choppers.

Close quarter fights in a medium sized city and a small village.

Much need for transport from trucks and helis.

Flags separated by distance and high hills for secluded battles or firebases.

Plenty of room for tank battles.

Immersive landscape that doesn’t repeat regularly.

And of course tunnels.

 

So you want him to make the same map?

So you want him to make the same map?

 

Na, just a good example. has everything to keep the masses happy.

Is it possible to stick some graff on the walls of buildings or something, cause that would be slightly more realistic.

 

Also, tunnels, but not too many, foliage but don't just make it a *-load of pine trees exactly the same as the last million that you've walked past, armour, but have places it can't go without getting majorly pwn'd (eg. urban areas, ravines), and have some sort of awesome urban area, possible half destroyed, or with small grasses or bushes growing on it or something... Unless that looks terrible on the BF2 editor, in which case, don't.

 

And i take Cap'n wolf's two cents and put them together to make four super awesome cents.

I agree with dirtymax to some degree. Maps like fools road where infantry can get heavy vehicles into a choke point or have a positional advantage on high ground is a great way to balance a map between assets and infantry.

 

Small capture points seem to be popular among most players in the Australian player base, but like we've been told before other bases prefer larger caps to allow for strategic attacks while maintaining position within the cap.

Thank you all for the replies.

 

Im already working on at least 2 tunnel systems. One of them is going to include a (hopefully) fully working elevator. There is also a vehicle tunnel, but to get in it, infantry have to access the door controls.

 

There are plenty of hiding places for infantry, and vehicles.

 

Variety - There is the main factory part, the docks and ships, the tunnels, a train station, salt pans, a forestry area, shanty town, an office building area, a small river with destructible bridges, a construction site, plenty of silos, and some open areas too.

 

Vehicles - definitely transport helos, attack helos, boats, and APC's.

 

So most of you will be pleased which is a relief.

 

 

1 thing still stands undecided in my map though - should I have insurgency or AAS, and who should be in it. Most likely it will be MEC as the Opposing force, but what do you people want in it?

chyeah.

 

sounds nice

make it AAC imo, cause it sounds to me like the kinda map i would like to play AAS on, and theres plenty of good insurgency maps lying around the place....