Ok, in an effort to be more diplomatic and NOT to rant and rave as I usually do about what I dislike about maps, I'd like to start a thread here to discuss the concept of "challenge" in maps.
In general, folks like a challenge, I think. They don't always want the task in front of them to be a pushover. But I often find that the concept of "challenge" can become diametrically opposed to the concept of "balance." People want a challenge but they also want to know that they have a chance (like, more than a 30% chance) of succeeding. The trouble is finding the balance between "challenge" and "balance" and what's required to acheive both.
To my way of thinking "balanced" maps are maps where there may be DIFFERENCES between the two teams, but the differences ultimately balance out. For example, my gold standard for a "balanced" map is Breakthrough. The germans have a major armor advantage, but the British get more tanks (I think) and have a lot of air cover. The Germans have decent air defenses, but not tons of it. So, it's balanced but not identical for the two sides. Positioning and bleed rates are about equal, too.
A "challenging" map is one (by my definition, anyway) where in order to win the map, the team will have to overcome some reasonable obstacle. It's not impossible, but it isn't easy. "Balanced" maps are often "challenging" because they require a fair amount of work for one side to win. So, again with Breakthrough as the example, in order to win, either side has to effectively use its advantages and work to minimize its disadvantages.
Other maps are "challenging", but in a different way. I often refer to these as "see-saw" or "teeter-totter" maps. With these maps, often one side starts out with a MAJOR advantage, but if they lose it, the map is basically over for them. For example, the new Zitadelle map is an example of a "teeter-totter" map. The allied tanks are, compared to the German tanks, weak. They have weaker guns and their armor is only strong enough to take maybe 2 hits from most of the Axis armor. To compensate for this general disadvantage, the Allies get (a) a lot of relatively fast-moving armor, and (b) excellent initial positioning and artillery. BUT if they lose their positions with the artillery, they're screwed. They basically have to hold those positions long enough that, if and when the Germans take them, there is enough of a ticket difference that the Allies can still wear the Germans down.
Another example is Omaha Charlie Sector. The Germans have a major positioning advantage, offset by the Allies' HUGE ticket count. If the Germans can hold the bunkers long enough, they'll wear down the Allies and win. If they lose the bunkers too early, they lose the round. The back portion of the map usually is ignored completely because all the action centers around the bunkers and beach. So, essentially the map hinges on who controls those positions.
Other times, "teeter totter" maps can rely on a single piece of equipment, rather than a position to maintain balance. A map where the Allies have, say, 10 tanks, and the Germans have maybe 5, but two of them are "supertanks" (IE: Tiger, KT, Panther). If the Germans lose (or god forbid allow to be captured) one of these tanks, they're in SERIOUS trouble.
Then there's maps that are "challenging" in a different way -- these are the maps where one side has a huge advantage which can only be countered by a specific combination of factors, usually requiring a TON of teamwork -- not just teamwork in the sense of one squad that manages to work together, but teamwork requiring pretty much the entire team to work as a crack company. Examples of this are Hell of Bocage and (I think -- I'll need to play it a few more times) Cretan Village. These maps typically place the defenders in a pretty easy position where they have to REALLY screw up in order to lose. The challenge, therefore, exists essentially only for one team -- the attackers. They face a major uphill battle (sometimes literally!), while the defenders basically have no challenge to speak of. Often these types of maps may also be "see-saw"/"teeter totter" maps, too. The defenders have no challenge UNTIL they lose the all-important position/piece of equipment, at which point they're likely to lose (unless they've held out long enough to bleed the enemy down).
Personally, I don't like most see-saw maps. I find them to be frustrating regardless of which team I'm on. When I'm on the winning team, I'm usually bored because we're winning very easily. When I'm on the losing team, I'm annoyed because it feels like nothing we're doing makes a difference and we might as well just pack it in and move on.
The "challenging" maps that require incredible amounts of teamwork are almost always irritating to me as well. Again, if I'm defending, it all feels too easy and like there's no challenge at all. If I'm attacking, the map feels like an exercise in futility and I wonder why I'm bothering to play. These types of maps may be great for clan play or for play between people who all have VOIP programs and can coordinate, but for general play on a public server, they almost always go the same way, and usually by a wide margin.
What I'm trying to get a sense of is:
- (1) What types of maps does the FH community like, and do they like maps that are challenging in the sense of one team requiring TONS of teamwork, or maps that are see-saw maps?
- (2) What do you consider an acceptable level of "challenge" in a map and at what point does that challenge become too much for you?
- (3) Given the choice between an uphill battle and an even fight, which do you prefer?
- (4) What types of servers/matches do you usually play in/on (IE: pub servers or clan servers/matches/tournaments)?
(1) see-saw and teamwork maps can be one and the same.
(2) "challenge"--see my rant about "balance". It must always be possible for either team to gain advantage proportional to its ticket count, position on the map and time left in the game.
(3) definitely uphill battle, if there is a reasonable chance of winning
(4) pub
Can you explain what you mean by your "balance" principle a bit better? In reading it and thinking about it a bit more, I'm starting to think maybe I've misunderstood you.
Are you using challenge and balance interchangably all hinging on your definition of balance? Plus, how do you manage your definition at the start of the map on an uphill battle style map? The line between "balanced" and "no chance of winning" seems basically razor-thin on maps like that, and requires a lot of things to fall into place to make that chance happen.
By the way, when you say "reasonable chance of winning", what do you mean in terms of both how often each side wins and what's required in order for the disadvantaged side to win? What makes it "reasonable"?
Nup. I posted this huge-ass rant about "balance" a while ago. Basically, a manifest based on too many years of playing online games. Remember this? :-)
1. each side at the beginning of the map has a realistic chance of winning (not equal, just realistic.)
2. no single weapon or element is without a counter that has a realistic (not easy, just realistic) chance of being successfully used
3. at any point during a game, a side has the possibility of gaining an advantage that is at least in proportion to its position in the game
4. it is not possible for a team to get into a situation that it has no realistic chance of getting out of.
5. a losing team should receive advantages, but not enough to destroy the winning team's chances of winning, and vice versa
#1 is clear--no forgone conclusions.
#2 should also be obvious--both sides have ways of dealing not only with the other side's uber weapons, but also with strong fortifications, etc. So single river crossings that can be camped too easily are a no-no unless there are back ways that can't be hermetically sealed off, you get the idea. Same with requiring the sort of teamwork you can't honestly expect on a public server to counter a heavy, near-invincible enemy unit.
#3 means that a team with 50 out of 500 tickets left and no flags shouldn't
necessarily have the right to the possibility of winning (although that should be stasticically possible, however improbable) but should be able to manage a breakout or inflict proportional damage on the enemy
#4 see the river crossing example for #2. So either side being totally, hopelessly boxed into its uncap is a no-no.
#5 means that the disadvantaged team should get some sort of help, such as shortened supply lines, more spawning vehicles, whatever. However, this shouldn't be enough to destroy the winning team's success. A great example of this is the C-47 on Market Garden, while a bad example is the Allies' loss of air power (and the Axis' monopoly on it) when Axis caps the airfield on Desert Rose.
I'm choosing my words _very_ carefully here; "realistic chance" means that a team, given average pubbie players on both sides, does not need a miracle to do a certain thing--this can be winning a map, just getting out of base and capping a flag, or killing a certain enemy unit.
Challenge is a different concept from balance. For example, some maps are hard as hell to win as a given side, but still balanced. You are right, the line is pretty thin. It is incredibly difficult to design a balanced scenario, especially given that many of the elements often cited as "balancing" out the other side's superior weaponry (great example: artillery on Hell of Bocage) seem placed there with too much focus on their theoretical possibility rather than on the effect you could realistically expect them to have on the game. "Axis has a lot of tanks? Oh, I'll give Allies some artillery, that'll do it".
I'll try to chip in but in a different manner by discussing what maps I like and dislike with a nod to what I think you want.
Iwo Jima -
The Allies have superior weaponry in tanks, infantry weapons and ships but the layout of the map is such that there is a struggle to take it by the Allies or retake it by the Axis. I think more people playing favor the Allies but this map provides good fun. There is no vehicle (outside of maybe the DD) that cannot be destroyed.
Balanced & challenging.
Any of the "cross the bridge" maps I hate. Absolutely. You are locked into factors beyond your control to determine the fate of your team.
Challenging and positionally unbalanced.
El Alemein is balanced but I don't consider there to be a challenge in the proverbial sense because the outcome is entirely determined by your air forces. If they are both poor/good it boils down to tank warfare and possilbe an edge to the Axis due to better tanks.
I play on pub servers and this is a major factor in the outcome of maps. Your team can be your challenge, even on a balanced map. I guess this is why I tend not to like challenging maps like the bridgers.
Berlin Streets (old) is both balanced and challenging. It all depends entirely on your team because here, there are no new strategies under the sun.
If I determine I am just fodder to aircraft or a group on Teamspeak I won't play. I feel like I've got to have an equal chance to kill my enemy. If I having a bad game or perhaps a touch too much to drink then so be it but there has to be parity in the map.
This is the biggest essay I can manage at this time...
There is no vehicle (outside of maybe the DD) that cannot be destroyed.
Mortar kit. Try it sometime, works a charm. Especially from the hill, if your AA and defending infantry aren't totally incompetent; you can see over the lip of the hill without being visible from the destroyer.
I'd like more maps like Cretan Village, that's really challenging in SP. Hell, the bots throw in grenades into houses, something they don't even do in BF2. Now that's what I call challenging map.
Maybe it's just me but I feel that FH is perfectly balanced in most maps..
I don't blame losing or winning on the map itself nor on the teams but rather on the players..
Fact is, if your team sucks your out of luck and are going to lose, nothing you can do to prevent this.
You can completely balance out the maps, but it only takes one MG42Manic or one Alfonso in a plane on the opposite team to complete ruin your day.
In terms of HOW maps play, I'm not saying I want nothing but Breakthrough style maps. But it is a good example of a balanced map where winning the map really comes down to good strategy for BOTH sides, good teamwork, and you have a lot of options as to how to win (and no clear single path to victory that can be easily blocked).
By contrast, I love a well-done push map (when played right, that is, but less said the better on that). I think Saipan is one of the best in this regard, and Tobruk is also very well balanced. Both present different approaches to challenges, but it's relatively rare that you play the map and just want to throw your hands up and say "Oh for f#%$ sake, why bother?!"
I'm hoping my experience on Cretan Village is due to poor strategy by the Axis (IE: they should've gone for the northern flag instead of the town, or should've split their force and sent a small detachment north), or poor use of their support forces (mortars and bombers). If that's all that was wrong, then I think this map could probably turn out to be a pretty good one.
I can see how the "Some like vanilla, some like chocolate. >shrug<" response applies to the see-saw style maps, but I really can't fathom why people like maps that are serious uphill battles -- at least on pub servers -- since those battles seem to go a certain way the vast majority of the time they're played. And Gen'l Knight, I agree with you about pub servers: your team often is challenging enough without having to face a stacked deck as far as equipment/position/bleed/ticket numbers/etc. goes. Hence, my confusion as to the appeal of these maps (unless people just love being on the defense team and practicing their marksmanship with relative ease, which, even then I don't get since that gets pretty boring for me after a while).
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
FH2 Suggestions 
The Question of Challenge 
Linear Mode
