I didn't mean to upset anyone, I am sorry. I think what I was trying to say is that asking for maps that are poorly-designed is dangerous. Everyone has a different opinion on a map, and even if you give a reason why you think it is poor, someone might like that map for exactly that reason.
One example is cp_5gorge. Every single one of my friends hates it because it usually ends in a stalemate if teams are even slightly balanced. But it is my favorite map in the game solely for that reason alone. So because of this, when asking a group of people I know, 5/6 will tell you that its a bad map and 1/6 will say its good.
If I were you, I would add the maps that you think are fun to play, and if there is one or two that people really seem to dislike, then don't add them. But "poorly-designed" is all subjective, and one thought or another could really upset someone. (Not to mention the creators of some of the maps you mentioned frequent this site.) That was all I was trying to say. I'm sorry for making you look bad. :<
Puxorb makes a compelling argument, but I still say you can divide between poorly-designed and well-designed maps. Effectively he's arguing for
Relativism, saying that no map, or even no game (Call of Duty, TF2, Counterstrike), can be good or bad because "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". However, such an attitude falls flat in the real world: no judge will accept your defense on murder because you thought it was just and that these things are relative!
So clearly, some kind of majority vote is necessary to decide what is right and what is wrong. Most people say murder is bad, therefore murder is bad. In ethics, things are always muddy though, and philosophers have debated for years on whether war - sanctioned murder - is just.
Likewise, "good" and "bad" game design is similarly muddy because different groups of people like different things. You might have an overall majority saying that cp_orange is bad, but the people who play it will majority disagree. And I this really is what Puxorb is arguing about - that some communities like some maps and that others like others. Think of all the 24/7 2Fort servers!
But as game designers, we actually have a job to do. Well, Valve are the game designers and we help out sometimes rarely. That job is to make a game that makes a specific environment for the player. I think we feel able to point to good and bad maps because Valve have set us the guidelines of
what playing TF2 should feel like. Those guidelines have changed over time - which is why 2Fort/Dustbowl/Goldrush have fallen out of favour. Remember that these were popular and "well designed" maps back in the day.
So currently, the environment of TF2 is one where each class is equally strong, where battle over one area should continue for no more than 5 minutes, and that player lives should last roughly 1 minute. By this definition, all of the "bad maps" fail. A lot of them are stronger for demomen and medics than "good maps", and time spent fighting over a single area could go on for ever.
Again, this is just what I feel Valve and the TF2maps community have been aiming to make recently. Interestingly, I think Valve is a little more old-school than this community as well, as evidenced by maps like rd_asteroid, harkening back to 2Fort style massive bases with little health. Nevertheless, we are never going to see another 2Fort again. It is no longer fit for TF2. It no longer fits the game it was designed for, which means it's poorly designed.
2Fort is a bad map.
