QB ME maps aren't cutting it

[eltorrente]

I keep seeing strange map setups in PBEM QB ME's. I usually see one side getting an advantage in victory locations - often BIG advantages. For instance, one VL is worth 2-3 times as much as the others, and it's right next to one side's setup zone. Sometimes one side gets a huge advantage by setting up on a hill, and the opponent has to fight up hill the entire battle. Sometimes one side gets VL's close to his zone, the other guy has to go half way across the map.

Here is the latest crazy ME map, that is obviously bugged.

Obviously an attack/defend map that has no business being a ME map

All the CMFI maps really need to be looked at and play tested before they are considered good for a ME. I'm going to setup in the corner and not issue any orders for my first turn, plus not rush straight to the VLs for the first few turns to be fair to my opponent, and I'm going to ask him if he wants to start over with a different map - but what a pain in the butt.

[sburke]

All the CMFI maps really need to be looked at and play tested before they are considered good for a ME. I'm going to setup in the corner and not issue any orders for my first turn, plus not rush straight to the VLs for the first few turns to be fair to my opponent, and I'm going to ask him if he wants to start over with a different map - but what a pain in the butt.

The guys who design them can respond about taking a look, I can't speak to that process or effort at all. But as to playtesting them - I spent a huge amount of time just testing scenarios and that was largely looking for buggy stuff while giving some feedback on the design. Playtesting all the QBs is utterly unrealistic if you want to see more than one game/module a year.

[eltorrente]

The guys who design them can respond about taking a look, I can't speak to that process or effort at all. But as to playtesting them - I spent a huge amount of time just testing scenarios and that was largely looking for buggy stuff while giving some feedback on the design. Playtesting all the QBs is utterly unrealistic if you want to see more than one game/module a year.

Doesn't have to be playtested necessarily - just look at the thing.. If one side has a 200 point VL, on a hill, right next to his setup zone, and the other guy as 2 50 pointers at the bottom of the hill.. then it obviously isn't fair. Simple stuff to look out for for whoever makes the map(s), places setup zones, and/or labels them as good to go for a ME.

[sburke]

Doesn't have to be playtested necessarily - just look at the thing.. If one side has a 200 point VL, on a hill, right next to his setup zone, and the other guy as 2 50 pointers at the bottom of the hill.. then it obviously isn't fair. Simple stuff to look out for for whoever makes the map(s), places setup zones, and/or labels them as good to go for a ME.

Yeah that is a whole other subject. I really don't know the process that goes into the QB design and am not qualified to speak on it, but your point is well made.

[Sublime]

I have to agree. I forget what map it is. but I started a qb me, pbem. my opponent started the map. I got axis he.s got allied. I started on the high ground, about 200 meters from the old windmills vp and another vp a little further on the opposite side of the hill i started on. he started on the low ground, muuuch further away from the VPs. a little unfair setup, and Im admitting it though it benefits me!

[GreenAsJade]

The whole concept of QBs has been completely changed.

"We" (someone) have lost sight of what it is that made them work in the old system.

Right now QBs are "an interesting map with self-selected forces". Everyone knows ... or thinks that they know that ... a balanced scenario takes hours of playtesting with carefully picked forces, so what makes us think that doing a scenario by making an interseting map and whacking forces on it is going to work?

The reason QBs worked in CMx1 is because the maps were _highly predictable_.

This is what was _good_ about them. If you wanted to play an ME, you knew what you were up for - you knew roughly what size the setup zones would be, within reason what flags there would be, and "silly outlier" maps were rare.

The complaint about the generated QB maps wasn't that they were not "varied enough".

It in fact was that they did not look realistic enough. Unconnected segments of fence and road, uphill lakes etc.

However, the CMx2 response has been "lets fill the QB selection up with realistic looking maps of all varieties".

As a result, you completely and utterly can't trust that you will get a sensible map to plonk some forces on and play a "standard" kind of game (attack, ME, whatever) over uncontroversial terrain.

I think that right now we're in a "testing time". People are trying this new way of getting a QB set up, and finding ways to make it work - like each player looking at the map beforehand. This, while being more laborious, might have to be the longterm answer. What we will have lost is the fun of trying to select a force for an unknown terrain, because the unknowns are too much....

GaJ

[eltorrente]

The whole concept of QBs has been completely changed.

"We" (someone) have lost sight of what it is that made them work in the old system.

Right now QBs are "an interesting map with self-selected forces". Everyone knows ... or thinks that they know that ... a balanced scenario takes hours of playtesting with carefully picked forces, so what makes us think that doing a scenario by making an interseting map and whacking forces on it is going to work?

The reason QBs worked in CMx1 is because the maps were _highly predictable_.

This is what was _good_ about them. If you wanted to play an ME, you knew what you were up for - you knew roughly what size the setup zones would be, within reason what flags there would be, and "silly outlier" maps were rare.

The complaint about the generated QB maps wasn't that they were not "varied enough".

It in fact was that they did not look realistic enough. Unconnected segments of fence and road, uphill lakes etc.

However, the CMx2 response has been "lets fill the QB selection up with realistic looking maps of all varieties".

As a result, you completely and utterly can't trust that you will get a sensible map to plonk some forces on and play a "standard" kind of game (attack, ME, whatever) over uncontroversial terrain.

I think that right now we're in a "testing time". People are trying this new way of getting a QB set up, and finding ways to make it work - like each player looking at the map beforehand. This, while being more laborious, might have to be the longterm answer. What we will have lost is the fun of trying to select a force for an unknown terrain, because the unknowns are too much....

GaJ

Great points - I agree.

I still think that there shouldn't be much of a problem using these maps, though - it's just the VL's and setup zones that should be looked at, as far as ME's go.

The screenshot I showed is obviously a bug, because normally ME's have setup zones that are exactly opposite from each other. The VL's though, are so often just not fair in relation to those setup zones.

I play a lot of PBEM's - usually have 2 or more going at once, so I've been seeing trends in CMFI maps. First of all, every map I've seen so far, has been a great map and well designed. When playing an ME though, I almost always feel like they should have simply deleted one of the VL's, or made a new one(s) in a spot closer to the center, and/or adjusted points based on an ME.

All the maps have locations on them that would be logical to place a new VL(s) that is specific to an ME - like a crossroad, a building, or whatever - so the maps could all work better if they just had a little VL lovin'.

I much prefer these maps to the random maps from CMx1, though. They just need adjustments for ME's.

PBEM ME's on random maps is the most fun IMO, since you never know what is going to happen and every battle is different. I guess a possibility is to go with the painstaking task of opening them all in the scenario editor and simply changing them myself. That's a real pain though, and I feel like it should have been done already..

[Vanir Ausf B]

The reason QBs worked in CMx1 is because the maps were _highly predictable_.

This is what was _good_ about them. If you wanted to play an ME, you knew what you were up for - you knew roughly what size the setup zones would be, within reason what flags there would be, and "silly outlier" maps were rare.

The complaint about the generated QB maps wasn't that they were not "varied enough".

I can't agree with this.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=57112

I think that right now we're in a "testing time". People are trying this new way of getting a QB set up, and finding ways to make it work - like each player looking at the map beforehand. This, while being more laborious, might have to be the longterm answer. What we will have lost is the fun of trying to select a force for an unknown terrain, because the unknowns are too much....

That may be the case. My problem with QB maps is that only a fairly small number of them are of the type I like to play on, meaning LARGE; at least 2 km². The only way around this is to give up on the idea of randomness and choosing the map manually.

[herr_oberst]

Complain, complain, complain. The great thing about Cmxx is that you can make your own QB maps and post them for the user base if you think the delivered ones aren't 'fair'.

[eltorrente]

Complain, complain, complain. The great thing about Cmxx is that you can make your own QB maps and post them for the user base if you think the delivered ones aren't 'fair'.

Yes, we are all aware of that, but that isn't the point of this thread.

[Darknight (DC)]

I have a recent partial AAR of a large ME that is right on point here.

The map itself was pretty good, with fairly plausible terrain, but:

- my opponent had the only VL, which was located 3/4 of the way towards his side;

- with covered approaches for his units;

- and 3 separate setup zones, all concealed;

Meanwhile, I had:

- 2 setup zones, mostly under enemy observation from the start;

- very limited/obvious approaches for closing on the VL;

- with limited concealment along the only covered approach.

On seeing the map on the first turn, I predicted a slaughter, as I had to move my troops closer, under enemy observation, taking casualties all the way, then attack an entrenched enemy. We gave up after 10 turns so that we could start a ME that was more 'fair' to start.

[womble]

It isn't the maps that are the problem, but their assignment as "suitable for ME"; the screenshot shows a map that would be fine for an attack/defend type battle. That seems from what you're saying to have slightly slipped through the QC process, at least in some cases. ME maps should still have relatively predictable setup zones and roughly symmetrical placement of VLs, and the designer is the one who sets the battle type the map is for.

Or perhaps the game has forgotten that there's a difference between ME and A/D maps.

[eltorrente]

Or perhaps the game has forgotten that there's a difference between ME and A/D maps.

I don't think that's the case, at least as far as the setup zones are concerned. This one was the first I've seen that used A/D setup zones for an M/E. It seems that the VL's are what are mainly the issue with M/E maps.

[womble]

I don't think that's the case, at least as far as the setup zones are concerned. This one was the first I've seen that used A/D setup zones for an M/E. It seems that the VL's are what are mainly the issue with M/E maps.

That's good in some ways, as it means it's not a systematic fault, but poor in others because it means there's a need to sanity check all the ME-labelled maps and revise those that aren't equitable.

[MikeyD]

People tend to look back to CMx1 QBs with rose colored glasses. You forget the number of times you gasped at the map you got and kept hitting the map generator over and over in the hope of getting something that wasn't plain absurd. CMx2 seems to have the opposite problem. 4-5 maps out of 250 have flaws and people react like its the proverbial rotten apple that has ruined the whole barrel.

The example map looks like it might be a defense map that was either misassigned or only half-coverted from defense to ME. My advice is if you find a map that's off write down the name, open the map in the editor and do a little judicious editing. Either that or post here and request some friendly help fixing it. The problem's then permanently fixed.

[sdp]

Please report any poorly designed VLs on the ME maps - and I'll make sure you'll get them revised.

Only explanation I can produce as to how this came to be is lack of time/timepressure. Sorry about that; I'll make sure the MEs are once again thouroghly reviewed and fixed where needed!

cheers/

sdp

[z1812]

I have noticed this too. For the first time using CMFI I was looking for a QB medium map for a PBEM meeting engagement. My first surprise was the small selection of maps and then the odd placement of setup zones that seems to place one side at advantage.

It would be easy enough to take the existing QB maps and change the victory locations and set up zones, but for many people finding the time to do it is difficult.

The AI plans would have to be deleted and the maps could be listed as head to head only.

I wish I had the time.

[sburke]

Please report any poorly designed VLs on the ME maps - and I'll make sure you'll get them revised.

Only explanation I can produce as to how this came to be is lack of time/timepressure. Sorry about that; I'll make sure the MEs are once again thouroghly reviewed and fixed where needed!

cheers/

sdp

Thanks SDP. Somehow in the short space of like 8 weeks I think folks forgot how quickly CMFI hit our greedy little paws. The amount of work those QBs represent and the amount of time they were created in makes it nothing short of amazing that this is all they have come across. Apology unnecessary and the offer is outstanding, what more could anyone ask?

[Baneman]

I've also encountered this, playing an ME in which the map has the one VL very close to one side. It looks like it would be a very good attack/defend map, but for equal forces, it's not much fun for the side having to cross 3/4 of the map to even threaten the VL.

I'll find out which one it is and report it.

I think most of the FI maps in particular are very good, unbalanced VL's on ME maps seems to be the only issue.

[cjslax6]

I agree with all the above.

I am currently playing Sublime on the map he speaks of. I'm expecting to struggle, but I'm hoping I can make it a good fight. Unfortunately my options are fairly limited.

[newlife]

Are we sure the problem is with the maps and not the random map selector? I've been noticing when I put in some requirements for the map while selecting random that I don't always get back what I was looking for. Either I selected town and it gave me a rough, or I selected huge and it gave me medium. I'll assume you have, but just in case you haven't double check that the map is named with ME and not attack, or probe, or whatever. I'm guessing we might be seeing the computer attempting to meet our criteria, not being able to, and randomly grabs a close approximation. While an attack vs a probe map might work, ME is in a league of its own.

[newlife]

Natch. I missed meeting engangment on your screen shot. The text was fuzzy.

[sfhand]

Please report any poorly designed VLs on the ME maps - and I'll make sure you'll get them revised.

Only explanation I can produce as to how this came to be is lack of time/timepressure. Sorry about that; I'll make sure the MEs are once again thouroghly reviewed and fixed where needed!

cheers/

sdp

Hey... sdp... Thanks for all your great work on the maps. In the next few days I'll take a look at every QB map and pm you a list of the ones that seem to be in need of VL/setup tweaking (an entirely subjective exercise and I'm pretty laid back when it comes to things like this - if there is someone with more "rigorous" standards feel free to speak up). Thanks for being willing to spend more time on this.

[slysniper]

Personnally, if I played QB's

I would reveiw the map that I want to play and find ones that are fair.

Plus I really think players should see the map they are playing on before selecting forces anyway.

Playing the other way seems so silly to me. But just my opinion.

At least my way helps to create pretty fair battles and helps both sides get the equipment best suited for the situation.

But for many, that is not the logic to how they want to play anyway. so to each his own.

[eltorrente]

Personnally, if I played QB's

I would reveiw the map that I want to play and find ones that are fair.

Plus I really think players should see the map they are playing on before selecting forces anyway.

Playing the other way seems so silly to me. But just my opinion.

At least my way helps to create pretty fair battles and helps both sides get the equipment best suited for the situation.

But for many, that is not the logic to how they want to play anyway. so to each his own.

I think most people, like me, prefer playing with map preview ON so we can look at the map before placing forces.