Author Topic: Trying again, Map idea (Read 381 times)

Guppy35 · « **on:** October 30, 2006, 05:34:39 PM »

Trying to simplify what I threw out a while back. The 'map' below is just to illustrate the point and no way meant to show scale etc.

My first time around I wanted Neutral fields that had to be taken and held. That apparently wouldn't work.

So, to simplify it. There is a single field on the center isle. If possible, the country that won the reset starts with this field. It has to be held or captured and held by a country to win the reset 'war'.

-The Moat, has a carrier battle group from each country so the navy can get involved. The moat is also ringed by fields that hold mediums and fighters. No heavies. Because the central isle being held is essential to 'winning the war', there will always be a fight there. With airfields ringing the water plus the carriers it would be tough to knock em all out so people will have a chance to get into the fight. In essense it creates a pig pile in the center of the map, but because of the fields ringing the moat, it shouldn't all be right over the center.

Note that the heavy bombers have to go from further out. That was true to life in the real war. And note that HQ is deep so that to go after it will require escorts and time.

Also note three seperate 'tank towns' for the GV crowd. If I ever get the time to figure out how to make a map, I'd have each with a different type of terrain so that the tankers could fight some open field warfare, hide in the trees, deal with hilly terrain etc.

There are also fields that would be dispersed along the rivers so that seperate fights could develop.

The key though for me is the center. Fighter guys have reason to go because there are going to be targets. And the Strat guys are going to go because they have to get that center isle to win the reset. Heaven forbid, everyone might find a reason to help each other in that kind of fight.

Again, it's the only way I can think of to get the mobs together and keep everyone involved.

Rolex · « **Reply #1 on:** October 30, 2006, 06:59:14 PM »

I posted a similar idea here, but I think restricted plane sets by field size is not something HTC wants to do.

I don't think HTC is averse to any technically do-able idea that is good for gameplay. I just let the idea pass because if it had any merit, it would have been tried already. I don't think we're coming up with anything new that HTC hasn't thought about in all their years in the business.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 30, 2006, 08:12:14 PM »

No field delimited planesets.
No way I've heard of to make the center base a war objective.
No custom terrain tiles in the MAs.

Kermit de frog · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2006, 12:15:08 AM »

I really like this idea of a limited planeset in specific parts of the map.

SkyChimp03 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:04:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by OOZ662
No field delimited planesets.
No way I've heard of to make the center base a war objective.
No custom terrain tiles in the MAs.

Not true i belive you can mod them a little bit.

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2006, 11:04:22 AM »

HT probably won't support limiting available planes based on airfield size. Though I think it's a valid idea. There should be a reason for small. med, & large fields.

HTC is looking for submissions on new terrain tiles so we may see some in the near future.

I don't think there is any map design that will stop the milk-runners and the hoard mongers. They will do what they want no matter what. In the small number arenas IMO the best thing is to have bases at the 3.4 sector minimum over most of the map.

Guppy, is this just a conceptual drawing or are you thinking of making a map with those straight lines? I've seen some maps posted that look more like game boards than terrain maps. I think the map should have some realistic features to it and not look like something designed specifically for a game.

IMO, the only way we are going to get those who insist on avoiding the fight in their base taking endeavors is to reward them based on the amount of resistance that was put up while taking the base. No resistance, no points. This would prevent those long missions half way around the map to take a base. It would also help in the small number arenas. If their goal is to be the #1 squad in the game then they will have to fight for it instead of milk-run all the time.

Guppy35 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 31, 2006, 11:11:39 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Clifra Jones
HT probably won't support limiting available planes based on airfield size. Though I think it's a valid idea. There should be a reason for small. med, & large fields.

HTC is looking for submissions on new terrain tiles so we may see some in the near future.

I don't think there is any map design that will stop the milk-runners and the hoard mongers. They will do what they want no matter what. In the small number arenas IMO the best thing is to have bases at the 3.4 sector minimum over most of the map.

Guppy, is this just a conceptual drawing or are you thinking of making a map with those straight lines? I've seen some maps posted that look more like game boards than terrain maps. I think the map should have some realistic features to it and not look like something designed specifically for a game.

IMO, the only way we are going to get those who insist on avoiding the fight in their base taking endeavors is to reward them based on the amount of resistance that was put up while taking the base. No resistance, no points. This would prevent those long missions half way around the map to take a base. It would also help in the small number arenas. If their goal is to be the #1 squad in the game then they will have to fight for it instead of milk-run all the time.

Just the concept. Trying to figure out the way to put the players together instead of avoiding the fight.

Simaril · « **Reply #7 on:** October 31, 2006, 01:54:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Guppy35
Just the concept. Trying to figure out the way to put the players together instead of avoiding the fight.

Dan for your continued efforts at that laudable goal.

It's viability depends entirely on HTC's willingness to limit plane sets. I dont pretend to understand their business, and I believe them to be very deliberate in their decisions...so if they've decided to disallow the concept, I suspect they have some very good conceptural gameplay reasons or actual negative experience with the idea.

At the same time....

HT, we've seen some obviously major restructuring, and despite what I believe are many positive aspects there has also been a greater split between the A2A guys and the reset guys than I've seen from any other recent change.

Guppy's effort -- motivated entirely from desire to get BOTH those styles on the same functional path -- deserves consideration. Even if you've decided against limited or staged base planesets in the past, I request that you give the go ahead for this concept as a single test map.

After all, there is NO reason why the A2A guys cant be the combat arm of combined capture/defense operations. It doesnt happen much now because the combination of game mechanics and map design push the different styles into different geographic areas (captures are essentially impossible without nearly COMPLETE enemy absence). A map that forces captures towards combat areas can only help.

If Dan's concept, implemented by actual map guys, doesnt produce unanticiapted negative consequences it oould be a substantial leap forward in developing larger scale community interaction.