What makes a good PR map?

|TG|Beatnik · Post by **|TG|Beatnik** » 2007-04-02 04:46

Playing the .5 maps has gotten me to ponder a bit (usually while dead, staring at the sky) about what exactly makes a good/great map. In my opinion, at least a couple elements need to come together to make a great BF2 map.

1. Map Design - there should be plenty of cover between flags and interesting/complex CPs. There should be ample room for RPs to be set apart from CPs without encroaching in another CP zone. There should be varied terrain between and around CPs. It should plausibly support a variety of vehicles, with available counters to those vehicles (e.g. pickup AA kits to counter Air, etc.).

2. Map Dynamics - this is the biggest hurdle to a lot of the maps with AAS v2, in my opinion. Granted the mod/maps supported are work in progress. But it seems that there are gaps in the map design and map dynamics that result in bottlenecky (Sunset City, Op Phoenix), less-than-optimal games. Basrah in particular got me to write this thread; after COing as USMC for reasonably competent teams for a few games (3 ground assault squads, dedicated A-10 and Helo squads), the USMC still wasn't able to even crack Facility despite massive coordination and execution by competent SLs. The same could be said for Muttrah, Sunset City, Operation Phoenix, and Airport (all other beautifully designed maps with poor dynamics in AAS 2).

I've heard more seasoned PR vets talk about "shitty maps" and "great maps" so I'm wondering how far off the standard/typical perspective I am in my thoughts on map design. Ideally, a PR AAS v2 map should be HUGE (e.g. Qwai, Jabal), have varied terrain between/around CPs, a decent number of CPs (5-7 tops), and either be well balanced or assault-focused with an initial imbalance that somehow rewards the assaulters accomplishing goals (e.g. once a CP is taken, they can't get it back like Fallujah, Hills of Hamgyong).

What are your thoughts on the exact qualities that make a stellar map? i.e., What's your favorite map and why? What's your least favorite map and why?

Sneak Attack · Post by **Sneak Attack** » 2007-04-02 05:01

yeah, almost all PR maps are extremely one sided right now, and one side will dominate and the other will get dominated, aka mut. city and sunset and stuff like that

wpgcivic · Post by **wpgcivic** » 2007-04-02 05:04

thats what comes with reality though

you think that a well armed us army is going to have a fair even fight against a group of insurgents armed with off the street explosives and ak's...oh wait thats just like iraq and afghanistan

...and take a look at the death toll from either side...a little one sided i know

|TG|Beatnik · Post by **|TG|Beatnik** » 2007-04-02 05:24

Keep in mind that I'm not against one-sided maps, but in my opinion there should be some payoff (bleed, defenders not being able to re-cap, etc...) for Assaulting teams capping a very hard CP in AAS 2. The current dynamics on Basrah (for example) are shite - USMC almost never (in my experience) cracks or gets past Facility. This results in extremely repetitive, futile games that are very frustrating, despite otherwise great map design. Again, just my perspective after 40-50 or so games on that map.

Deadmonkiefart · Post by **Deadmonkiefart** » 2007-04-02 05:41

Balance

Post by **eggman** » 2007-04-02 06:05

size
.. need to be big if they are to include heavier vehicles

view range
.. needs to be 400m as a minimum

distance between CP Groups
.. needs to be 400m minimum

plausible setting

large CP radii
.. 100m should be the norm

right # of CPs
.. most maps have too many

ability for both teams to win

Animalmother · Post by **Animalmother** » 2007-04-02 06:37

I dont like clutter. Be creative with the terrain, dont just put arabic hotels everywhere. That's what made jabal so great, the map was all about the terrain.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-04-02 07:00

Reasons to go between CP's in anything other than a straight freaking line. The most fun infantry/light vehicle clashes are in maps like Op. G. Mullet, where the rough terrain in some areas with natural cover take power away from aircraft and tanks, and make a well deployed MG team or humvee absolutely lethal.

EPatrick · Post by **EPatrick** » 2007-04-02 07:03

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']size
.. need to be big if they are to include heavier vehicles

view range
.. needs to be 400m as a minimum

distance between CP Groups
.. needs to be 400m minimum

plausible setting

large CP radii
.. 100m should be the norm

right # of CPs
.. most maps have too many

ability for both teams to win

Dido!

DJJ-Terror · Post by **DJJ-Terror** » 2007-04-02 07:13

Best balanced and playable map imho is EJOD.
This is only map that both sides have fair chance to win.
Frankly this is a first map i look for when im connecting online.

Red Halibut · Post by **Red Halibut** » 2007-04-02 11:06

Yep.

I understand the need for realism. Hell it's the Raison d'Être of this mod, but it actually isn't much fun sometimes when you are on a map that is so unbalanced that it's a matter of when, not if, you lose.

I have no problem with losses on one side being much higher than the other, owing to firepower superiority, but there should still be circumstances under which that "inferior" team could "win". Note that IMHO winning does not have to be obliterating the other team.

To that end, and lest you think I'm complaining, I'd just like to say that I'm really looking forward to the "scenario" maps.

DrMcCleod · Post by **DrMcCleod** » 2007-04-02 11:31

'[R-CON wrote:DJJ-Terror']Best balanced and playable map imho is EJOD.
This is only map that both sides have fair chance to win.
Frankly this is a first map i look for when im connecting online.

True, it is balanced. But I don't think it is a great map, just a good one.
I really like Mao Valley, although I know I am in a minority...

Can't wait to play Zatar Wetlands in the next release. I much prefer terrain to buildings.

causticbeat · Post by **causticbeat** » 2007-04-02 12:13

Too many maps still have a scaled down feeling. For example, Sunset city, Its so small and unnatural feeling (why would there just be a city that small in the middle of the mountains, yet its so dense?) I feel it just doesnt work for PR.

I think if we had a map that was like helmand, but 4kmx4km, that would be perfect. Really simple static set up, more focus on terrain and just movement/engagement room

DrMcCleod · Post by **DrMcCleod** » 2007-04-02 12:28

causticbeat wrote:Too many maps still have a scaled down feeling. For example, Sunset city, Its so small and unnatural feeling (why would there just be a city that small in the middle of the mountains, yet its so dense?) I feel it just doesnt work for PR.

I think if we had a map that was like helmand, but 4kmx4km, that would be perfect. Really simple static set up, more focus on terrain and just movement/engagement room

Hmm, Greasy Mullet is like that, but no-one rates that map as one of the greats.

Long Bow · Post by **Long Bow** » 2007-04-02 14:11

I seem to be on the opposite end of the spectrum here. I like smaller maps. I play infantry almost exclusively so thats why. Some maps really only need a CP removed to focus the fighting a bit more. Al-Basrah could potentially be more balanced by simply removing Industry. I agree with allot of the comments posted already, cover, multiple routes, ability for either team to succed etc.

I enjoy the maps where I spend more time fighting and less time commuting

However to many maps that are small will take way from the vehicles and aircraft in game so I can live with large maps once and a while.

NOTE: Edited becuase I said to remove facility from Al-Barah, wrong CP I meant Industry!!!!!

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-04-02 14:22

Maps need to be large so that competant squads are rewarded and smacktards punished.

The most important thing IMO is to have valuable strategic points outside of CPs. If a team is intelligent, they will capture and hold these points, even though there is no obvious reason to. And they will be rewarded for it.

These can be a particularily well placed house of pain (Muttrah), a ridge overlooking an oft-travelled canyon (Mao), a row of buildings (Al Basrah), or a mountain overlooking a CP (OGT, Jabal).

I also like a good mix of clearings and denser forest (OGT), as it affords more strategy and communication.

Also valuable is realistic seeming maps. Even though I love it, I've never been anywhere that looked like Jabal. I've been to many places that look like Qwai River (of course, I've lived in Asia but never the Middle East, so maybe I'm biased.... but I still think Qwai River is a triumph of realistic mapping).

WhiskeySix · Post by **WhiskeySix** » 2007-04-02 14:50

I find Helmand Province one of the most fun because of the tactical possibilities afforded by the terrain. If you flank properly on this map, you can completely eliminate an enemy squad.

In addition to map design, the CP GROUP design is almost as important. IMO, NO map should ever have just ONE flag in contention *coughfacilitycough*.

Clypp · Post by **Clypp** » 2007-04-02 15:21

Balanced but not mirrored. Multiple routes (no single choke points a la Fallujah)

Al Basrah is a perfect example of balanced but not mirrored. Both sides can win but need different tactics. Unlike Karkand 2 which is mirrored and choke pointed.

Wasteland · Post by **Wasteland** » 2007-04-02 15:23

Karkand 2 was fun because you could clean up with the heavy AT kit. And it was the best map for making spec ops demo runs against the enemy main base.