Login

russian armor

Why is the selection of 2v2 maps so bad?

4 Oct 2019, 21:35 PM
#1
avatar of Farlion

Posts: 379 | Subs: 1

All other game modes have their own set of bad maps, but the current selection of 2v2 maps is horrifically bad. In other modes you at least get enough vetoes there to block the bad ones. In 2v2, you have maybe 5 out of 14 maps that range from decent to playable.

The biggest issue is that most of the maps are just so incredibly tiny. Almost a third of all 2v2 maps follow the same concept: A left lane, a center lane and right lane, with no room to flank or maneuver whatsoever, resulting in a couple of choke-points that are incredibly dull to play against. (See Alliance of Defiance, Road to Kharkov, Market, Rails and Metal and Poltawa.)

Then you have maps like Crossing in the Woods which are decent in design, but just way too small to be a decent 2v2 map(Nevermind certain factional imbalances on it). It's a 1v1 map that somehow is in 2v2. Why?

Also, a special mention to Road to Kharkov, a map everyone knows is incredibly biased against the north spawn, but somehow still managed to stay in the map pool all these years. Heck, even Tros-Points somehow stayed in the selection for years until they removed it a few months ago.

I just don't understand why 2v2 maps in particular are so atrocious when the map selection in other modes isn't anywhere near this bad.
4 Oct 2019, 21:48 PM
#2
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1

i actually prefer them small

something like vaux or lierneux is way too big for 2v2
4 Oct 2019, 21:55 PM
#3
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1


something like vaux or lierneux is way too big for 2v2


I disagree Im with OP. Vaux is actually one of my favorite 2v2 maps

I think Elst Outskirts is the best. Good size, and the sides are very equal

Crossing is WAY too small for 2v2 imo
4 Oct 2019, 22:13 PM
#4
avatar of BlueKnight

Posts: 320

Fields of Winnekendingdingdong is my fav 2v2 map. There are quite many maps that are too tight for flanking however...

I dislike Vaux Farmlands for the wooden fences that force your infantry to retreat over red cover, middle of the road.
4 Oct 2019, 22:22 PM
#5
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

i actually prefer them small
something like vaux or lierneux is way too big for 2v2


Pretty much, yea. The "big" maps like "Fields of Winnekendonk", "Vaux Farmlands" and even "Elst Outskirts" are far too big, imo. For me, the 480x352 size maps are perfect; big enough to allow for some interesting plays, but small enough that FRP-factions aren't at a massive advantage.
4 Oct 2019, 22:53 PM
#6
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

Fields of Winnekendingdingdong is my fav 2v2 map. There are quite many maps that are too tight for flanking however...

I dislike Vaux Farmlands for the wooden fences that force your infantry to retreat over red cover, middle of the road.


This
4 Oct 2019, 23:18 PM
#7
avatar of cochosgo

Posts: 301

Maps can be big like Vaux fencelands or small like elst.

The key element on 2v2 map design seems to be the creation of distinct combat enviroments to allow for manouverability and strategies.

Vaux problems are not so much related to its size but how the space is used. Using support weapons on that map is terrible due to the amount of undamageded fences, and the lack of cover and sight/shotblockers on the fields turns them into meat grinder.

Elst, being a much smaller map, manages to create distinct combat enviroments that allow for many aproches and options by using the right amount of cover and sight/shot blockers. Every kind of unit can be used on Elst
4 Oct 2019, 23:50 PM
#8
avatar of aerafield

Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3

i actually prefer them small

something like vaux or lierneux is way too big for 2v2


Yeah its personal preference. I know that a lot players love the campy 2-3 lane maps where it's very hard to flank effectively and where units like MGs, snipers and elefant are super easy to use.

I personally prefer the bigger maps like vaux or moscow where flanking is actually part of the game.
5 Oct 2019, 00:32 AM
#9
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



Yeah its personal preference. I know that a lot players love the campy 2-3 lane maps where it's very hard to flank effectively and where units like MGs, snipers and elefant are super easy to use.

I personally prefer the bigger maps like vaux or moscow where flanking is actually part of the game.


Doesn't it depend a little on what faction you're playing? Crossing and Alliance seem better for Axis given the arc of their MG's. Vaux or Moscow require more mobility and a different play style. Vaux or Elst are probably my favorite maps in 2's. I don't like Moscow if I spawn on North, especially on the East side.

To OP:
There aren't a lot of map makers and it probably takes a long time to make a competitive, balanced map. The map makers are probably a smaller group than the modders and (I think) are volunteers also.
5 Oct 2019, 00:33 AM
#10
avatar of baechi

Posts: 7 | Subs: 1

If you don't have Liernieux vetoed you're disgusting and you need to seek a therapist.
5 Oct 2019, 01:05 AM
#11
avatar of nigo
Senior Editor Badge

Posts: 2238 | Subs: 15

Forget about that, it's a dead subject.

This won't change anymore.
5 Oct 2019, 08:45 AM
#12
avatar of dasheepeh

Posts: 2115 | Subs: 1



Yeah its personal preference. I know that a lot players love the campy 2-3 lane maps where it's very hard to flank effectively and where units like MGs, snipers and elefant are super easy to use.

I personally prefer the bigger maps like vaux or moscow where flanking is actually part of the game.


do you want to suggest that I'm on of these campy people? :foreveralone: (i'm not)

but you can actually flank on smaller 3 lane maps...it just takes more nuanced timing and, frankly, a lot of smoke in many scenarios

i really enjoy moscow too...but something like vaux, which I consider to be bigger than moscow, is just too large, mainly because of the large distances that infantry need to cover from base to get to the battlefield, which often has resulted in annoyingly sluggish gameplay in my experience

liernaux doesn't even need to be discussed, why is it still in the map pool?
5 Oct 2019, 10:18 AM
#13
avatar of adamírcz

Posts: 956

I wish there were some short yet wide maps


There used to be one, but it was ridiculously unbalanced
5 Oct 2019, 17:24 PM
#14
avatar of Grumpy

Posts: 1954



liernaux doesn't even need to be discussed, why is it still in the map pool?


It exists to take one of my vetoes, regardless of which faction I'm playing. It's in a league of its own this way.
8 Oct 2019, 03:18 AM
#15
avatar of KiwiBirb

Posts: 789

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Oct 2019, 01:05 AMnigo
Forget about that, it's a dead subject.

This won't change anymore.


Finally!

Now if more people made and play tested maps....
8 Oct 2019, 10:10 AM
#16
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

Now if more people made and play tested maps....



It's quite a common phenomenon that people complain about the map pool while simultaneously barely anyone can be bothered to help playtest new maps (except some 1v1 players with 1v1 map updates).


Anyway on the subject of maps, there is a big map patch coming somewhere next month or so. Though I'm not sure how many 2v2 maps will be overhauled/removed/replaced, as I haven't closely followed the progress of the rest of the patch beyond the adjustments to 3v3/4v4 maps.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

248 users are online: 248 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50166
Welcome our newest member, SirBaristian
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM