New Maps

[MK-84]

I just realized this would be taken the wrong way, disregard

[surfinn]

Imadot

I did not say I was bored. I went to great length's to say it was still fun but redundant at times.
I actual resent the implication that I fly in hordes. Anyone who fights against me knows they will never catch me in a horde or ganging a single ac with multiple ac. unless its fester and that guy ya got to shot down asap if possible, any way you can
I do mix it up quite a bit as a matter of fact new thing Ive been doing is pushing the FM2 to the edge of its attack capability which as it turns out is quite significant.
My original thought stands new terrain would be nice everyonce in a while in MA. especially a winter map that would be great.
But as Hiteck him self has already weighed in on the discussion and basically said wish DENIED then I guess its a mute point Thank you for replying to the thread HiTec.

[ImADot]

surfinn, sorry if you read my comment as stating you flew in hordes. My comment was meant to say that the current play style seems to be horde on horde and if people tried something different that might change. My thought behind the statement was to try and see what would happen if enough people did something different from the majority that overall play might be more interesting and appealing to the masses.


 

[Wiley]

GVers getting bored with maps makes sense to me.  Same few places that develop into fights, same hills, same trees, that makes sense to me because how the terrain around a base is laid out impacts your experience significantly.  That's a good reason to make a new map to me.

Other than the map with the giant ranges of mountains splitting the default country positions, what difference does it make how the map is laid out for people who fly primarily?  Regardless of the map, you up, fly to an enemy base, and take it.  How does it make a difference how the maps are laid out?  What about a different map would improve the experience of upping, flying to an enemy base, and taking it?

Wiley.

[surfinn]

Agreed  Imadot

Horde on horde or horde period, Is defiantly a detractor from the game. Reminds me of LEEEEEROOOOOOYYYYYYYY.  However this wasn't a horde complaint thread for me any way just a wish for something new.

[hitech]

Imadot

But as Hiteck him self has already weighed in on the discussion and basically said wish DENIED then I guess its a mute point

I never said any such thing. To the wish for a new terrain.

HiTech

[ghostdancer]

To chime in hear I believe what HiTech is alluding to is that with limit resources and staff they have to prioritize their work. Basically they focus their resources on what would have the most positive impact on game play. Examples of this is creating new planes, adding 88mm guns to bases, adding the 17lb anti-tank guns and so forth. Creation of new maps for the MA have a lower priority not that they won't eventually do them just that their are other things, as HiTech says, that have a bigger ROI.

In the mean time they have created tools for players to create content themselves if they are not willing to wait for HiTech. If one wants to create a winter map, one can while HiTech goes through their list of other numerous programming tasks they are focusing on that take precedence over them making a winter map.

[The Fugitive]

GVers getting bored with maps makes sense to me.  Same few places that develop into fights, same hills, same trees, that makes sense to me because how the terrain around a base is laid out impacts your experience significantly.  That's a good reason to make a new map to me.

Other than the map with the giant ranges of mountains splitting the default country positions, what difference does it make how the map is laid out for people who fly primarily?  Regardless of the map, you up, fly to an enemy base, and take it.  How does it make a difference how the maps are laid out?  What about a different map would improve the experience of upping, flying to an enemy base, and taking it?

Wiley.

I think changing how the spawn points work would go a long way toward changing that. As it is now it is rather easy to predict where the GVs are going to spawn and so it becomes "shooting fish in a barrel". If the spawn point was opened to cover a mile radius or so the spawn camping would be broken far easier as spawning tanks would spawn out of site of the campers and be able to swing around and flank the campers. With the extra movements for the flanking you would be using more and more terrain to find spots the work. It could also make spawn camping hard enough that tank battles may move out to ambush spots in between spawn points and bases using more terrain.

[kvuo75]

I submitted an MA map called CraterMA around a year ago but have not heard anything from HTC about it since then.

 


hitech. what gives?

[Noir]

 


hitech. what gives?

+1

[Wiley]

I think changing how the spawn points work would go a long way toward changing that. As it is now it is rather easy to predict where the GVs are going to spawn and so it becomes "shooting fish in a barrel". If the spawn point was opened to cover a mile radius or so the spawn camping would be broken far easier as spawning tanks would spawn out of site of the campers and be able to swing around and flank the campers. With the extra movements for the flanking you would be using more and more terrain to find spots the work. It could also make spawn camping hard enough that tank battles may move out to ambush spots in between spawn points and bases using more terrain.

With the spawn camp being used as much as it is, and in another thread I saw HT say the size of the spawn is just an arena variable, I'm a bit surprised they haven't bumped it up just to see how it goes.  It seems to me a pretty low possibility for bad things to happen, and a pretty high possibility to improve peoples' experience.  What's the worst that could happen increasing it?  The occasional spawn on a cliff in certain spots?

Wiley.

[Greebo]

The problem with enlarging the spawn area is that all the spawn points on every MA map would have to be checked for bugs. Any SP that crosses a steep slope or that touches water would have to be repositioned or the land altered to suit. This would not be a trivial job, there are hundreds of SPs on some of these maps.

[wil3ur]

I don't believe that the environment is stale because of the maps that are in rotation.  I do believe with the current numbers in the MA that many of the maps are unplayable in their current form.  If we're going to stick to a large single main arena, we should have large maps.  I still say that going to a two team system and have the login server auto-ballance players who are not assigned to a squad (and squad registrations for team slots each month), we'd be able to bring in a ton of the great FSO maps into the rotation without the need of developing new ones from the ground up.  Many of those maps were designed with the large (400+) player count FSO gets and would easily stay filled by the MA numbers the game gets.

[Arlo]

I don't believe that the environment is stale because of the maps that are in rotation.  I do believe with the current numbers in the MA that many of the maps are unplayable in their current form.  If we're going to stick to a large single main arena, we should have large maps.  I still say that going to a two team system and have the login server auto-ballance players who are not assigned to a squad (and squad registrations for team slots each month), we'd be able to bring in a ton of the great FSO maps into the rotation without the need of developing new ones from the ground up.  Many of those maps were designed with the large (400+) player count FSO gets and would easily stay filled by the MA numbers the game gets.

FSO maps are designed for a two-sided enviroment. The MA is a three sided enviroment that requires equal resources, bases and a balanced terrain.

[wil3ur]

FSO maps are designed for a two-sided enviroment. The MA is a three sided enviroment that requires equal resources, bases and a balanced terrain.

Thanks for reading my post!