What do you love or hate most about certain maps?

[Citabria]

after seeing another rant about a map I made that gave no specifics other than length of time in play I am asking for actual feedback about what is liked or not liked about the MA terrains in rotation.

considering that I am actually working on updating an old main arena terrain I did in AH1 to be submitted now is the time to air your list of grievences with everything you hate about certain maps and why.

don't give me a mindless rant that I can't use.

tell me what specific things you like or dislike.

positive feedback of certain aspects of particular maps is good as well.

the only map I made that is currently in rotation is Ozkansas, I am working on updating my first MA terrain called FesterMA.


so air it out now is your chance to influence an MA terrains design.

[lyric1]

I like Ozkansas except for the partial or no fleet with the CV's.

[Debrody]

For me the main deciding factor was the distance between fields. When i had to fly 40-50 miles to the nearest enemy base, well, that wasnt as nice. But we were discussing about it a couple times.
The other thing i liked was real life - like landscape, like on the grinder map.

[Lusche]

I like

- VBases set up like V135&V136 on Ozkansas - close to each other with spawns almost meeting up in the middle, for a much more balanced and actually maneuvering GV battle. More of them is my biggest wish for future maps
- base numbering in a logical way (minor issue, but on large maps bases can be hard to find if base numbers are just all over the place)
- maps that try to provide equal gameplay opportunities for most playing styles (CVs, vehicle combat) - hard to achieve on small maps at times
- european tileset, quire dislike the pacific one, especially when tanking
- initial fronts defined by geography, for example compello.


I dislike
- maps with too much intitial obstacles like trinity
- "attention traps" like A1(country A) - A2 (country B) on sfma, both being standard log-in airfields.
- beta2. Sorry to whoever made that, but I know I'm not alone. When we still had 2 LW arenas, it was in fact the only map that consistently made players prefer LWB over LWO 

[Babalonian]

It's non-stagnant gameplay, so I guess the "smaller" or fast-paced maps.  You can play all night, capture 8 bases, defend 5, loose 2 or 3 of those.... and not do it all over again, on the same map, at the same bases, for the next 6 nights.

I honestly wouldn't be griping about the map we got stuck with for the past week so much if last night, after it finally changed, so much progressive/active/participating/fun (with BBQ sauce) gameplay was unleashed in the arena by everyone in it.  The only sad thing to me is, the two maps we jsut had a blast on (and blasted through), we won't see again until after another rotation including another week-long map as hosted by Buzz Killington.

[The Fugitive]

Ok, I don't like bases close to the water. Ports I can understand....tuff to launch a boat with out water, they did teach us that in the Navy one month   Is there really a need to have bases right on the water? If they are on the water it makes it far to easy for the NOE crowd to just run base after base because the water is much easier to fly NOE over. Set them back a bit, give some elevation to the land between the sea and the base, make them work for it. Sure it will be a bit tougher on the LVT's but I hear we are getting duck boats  

GV spawns. Make them multiple pronged like in a TT, and increase the "random spawn area" at each spawn. The idea is to make it much harder to set up a spawn camp. I think the valley runs you have on your map as well as the ones on the TT island on the big  island map we have are good, but spawning is still too predictable. If the spawns are spread out it will make it harder to camp, but also harder to group up for the attacking force moving out. People spawning out would just have to group up at a grid marker like an air wing does then move out on the attack.  

More bases with some alt. Map makers seem to have gotten away from bases with alt. Use to see 3k 4k alt base, but now rarely see one over 1k. The towns don't have to be at alt, so the GVs don't have to fight up hill, but even that would be a good twist. Build the town of a few base with some alt, but add a couple easy approaches to set up GV ambushes. The attacking team would need to bring in dive bombers to clear a path in for there tanks so they don't get cut down by the ambushes. I think it would be great to set up a few bases along possible attack fronts that need "special" work to take. In stead of a country just rolling along steam rolling base after base, put one of two of these special bases that need a coordinated mission to take.

[JunkyII]

I'll start by saying NDisles is my favorite and OzKansas is number two. The only reason for that is on Ozkansas people have all those v bases they can run to and hide in ack.

I like a center island because you can always find the fight you want, tanking, jabo, furball, bombers...only thing that screws that up is when people start taking the bases there.

I like a variety of terrain, canyons, 2 land bases split by sea, cv vs airbase, mountains, flat ground....every terrain imaginable.

Distance between bases doesn't matter to me as much as it does with others....opens up better opportunities for higher alt fights.

My main dislike is when a base has a huge alt advantage on another base.....from a military point of view, I would not build a base near another that has such alt unless I had OPs on near by hills...since we dont have these OPs, I don't think this type of situation should be in game.

[TDeacon]

I don't do the strat game, so I actually like maps which stay up for a while. 

Do GV spawn points in pairs, with a second one 3k in back of, or off to the side of the other.  (This might be too "busy" visually, but would make spawn camping harder). 

Hills in the GV battle area are nice.  In canyons, hills can be off to the side. 

Don't put trees or hills at the end of runways. 

MH

[Gixer]

I prefer maps that have more realistic levels of terrain, 25,000 ft pyramid mountains and canyons from Mars don't have a place in a WW2 sim. Maps that actually represent a collection of real geographic locations and combined to make a map look good.



<S>...-Gixer

[Dadsguns]

Would like to see;
-Length of Runways that can accommodate 29's without the fear of over running into trees at the end of runway, or eliminate trees in those areas......
-Bases with greater ALT....
-As mentioned, normal bases further away from shore....
-Sheep

[titanic3]

Pros:

Tank town (MUST HAVE), there are those who hate hordes and land grabbing and just want to furball. Basically just copy okanzas's Tank Town.

Close bases (no more than 2 sectors apart at most)

Alternate the field Alts in waves. Ex: first 10 fields are at 3K. Next are at 0K, next ten fields are at 3K. Forces a leapfrog effect, if the attackers take the high fields, they'll have an easier time attack the lower fields. Vice versa for the defenders if they hold on to the high fields.

Decent amount of CVs depending on map size. Ndisles have the perfect amount of CVs for a map it's size.

Cons:

Mountains and gigantic hills. For the love of god, no. Don't make this another Trinity map where everyone is forced to fly at 15K+ just to avoid the mountains.

Space out GVs spawn so they don't get camped 24/7 (I'm talking to you V135 on trinity)

Towns too far from fields.
 
No water/CVs.

[Shuffler]

I hate any map I can't fly on.

[Greebo]

I dislike any map that is obviously artificial, with a regular geometrically shaped (i.e. circular or triangular) coastline. Also artificial looking terrain features like dead straight canyons with mile high cliffs each side or regularly stepped mountains. Or roads that climb straight up 60 degree slopes rather than following the contours of the terrain. Also farmland on the same steep slopes. These sorts of thing just ruin my suspension of disbelief. I like maps where the designer has made an effort to make it look real, Grinder is my favourite.

I also dislike any map that has no oceans and therefore no CV groups. CV fights offer some of the best A2A fights in the game and maps that lack them are less fun for me.

Maps with huge mountain barriers that force aircraft up to silly heights to reach another field are a pain. Once an enemy has spent all that time to get up there it is far harder to get him to come down and fight. I would rather see mountains used to channel a fight into a canyon running roughly between the fields.

The main issue with gameplay and map design is the number of available enemy fields that a player can easily reach at any one time. If there are only one or two airfields on the whole frontline that are within 25 miles or for GVs that are reachable with SPs, then you get gang banging/camping. OTOH if there are a dozen options available it can spread out the players too much for it to be fun for anyone. On some maps you log in and there are 5 or 6 tiny dar bars along a front line 15 or 20 fields long. I reckon 4 to 6 available fields on each front line is about the best balance.

I like maps where some fields have a special importance that makes them strategically valuable and therefore worth fighting for. An airfield with an alt advantage or close to a port or strats. Or a V base with loads of spawns radiating to nearby fields.

[WYOKIDIII]

Any map :

The part where I fly poorly and die .
 

[oboe]

Everything Greebo said, spot on.   Also I dislike the DOS-era base/symbol graphics.  I'd like to see real base names printed on the map in a nice font.  With all clipboard icons turned off, I'd like it to look like a real map.   And i  really dislike all strategy targets clustered in a spot way to the rear.  I want to go trainbusting  again.