Why new maps

[Lusche]

Why are maps that I see in the snapshots never in the arenas?  Are they bad for arena play or too small or something?

Gameplay is very different, much more limited in snapshots vs MA. An MA arena terrain has to be build with having three equal sides waging a free-for-all, sandbox mode war in mind, in a special event you can ignore such matters of balance by and large.

[WING47]

With a few new threads and comments coming up about "new maps" I'm curious what people think to accomplish with new maps. To me I really don't see any thing wrong with the ones we have. Sure I have a few favorites, as well as a couple that I cringe when I log in and see them up. But to me, there isn't any thing wrong. What are people looking for in a new map?

Something new, I can understand this as it is always fun to see something new, but that wears off quick. The reason being is that all that you see "new" is lay out. Terrain graphics are the same. Same trees, farms, bases and such. I know why that has to be and have no problem with it. So that only leaves layout and with the game play we have now that is unimportant.

Game play, with players only joining large groups of 30+ and rolling over bases layout is unimportant. When missions had smaller groups things like valleys, approaches to bases (up hill or down hill), where the town was situated as compared to the bases and spawns, forest, hedgerows, and base relationship were all factors in figuring out how to run your mission and attack a base. With 30+ players there really isn't a tactics or strategy involved. It's fly strait to the base drop everything and try to get the goon in before defense can arrive from a nearby base.

So what are people looking for in a new map..... really?

Why not add some new maps... same maps every time I come into the main arenas. I really see nothing being done by HTC such as regarding the flight model, gun characteristics, ENY, or major plane or gv additions to the game anyway.

[Greebo]

Apart from designing the terrain for a balanced 3 sided rather than 2 sided war, there are other restrictions to MA terrain design. There has to be a strat system with one or two cities per side, with supply roads or barges to each field. Airfields must be 20-25 miles apart.

While an MA terrain can have custom textures in it, you can't put in anything like as many compared to a special events terrain in as it makes the terrain file size too large.

Also an MA terrain can have no custom made objects in it. This is because such objects increase the risk of the host crashing and HTC absolutely cannot risk any chance of the MA crashing. Basically you can put in the normal fields, CVs, SPs, SBs and strat, plus the tank town object and that's it.

I would like to see HTC add some new allowable objects that can be put into MA terrains. Maybe just add some ruined towns and factories. Stuff that has no bearing on the war, it just breaks up the visual monotony of the areas between the fields on an MA terrain. Adding a bridge object would add a lot of options for MA terrain designers or even a capturable bridge V base with its own flak and map room. These additions would act as a spur for new MA terrain designs even if none of the existing terrains were modified to take them.

[WWhiskey]

Some useable structures for the gv's would be nice, as it is only one type can be used , the burned out red barn,  also, a different type of tree, bigger canopy!! To help shield gv's.
Their are a couple of maps I get tired of because they only promote one type of play for the most part and get rolled quickly ( thanks)
I don't care so much for new maps as to just see a few corrections on the ones we have, the gv spawns at 135 and 85 both could use a little tweaking, gv's spawning on the mountain rim above the fight with no way to counter them is one ( not sure what map that is and I'm at work so I can't look)
The only reason I would like new maps is  new places to fight, explore, exploit, ect.ect.
I do love most of the ones we have and admire the builders, with all the changes the game has gone thru, That we still have maps to play on is a testimony to their skill!

[Midway]

I watched surfinn degrade and put down Fester last night(even about his maps) I can honestly say I wouldnt blame Fester in the least bit if he erased the whole Map he is working on.


Sad to see so many asking for maps and disrespecting the players who make them.      

I'm pretty sure Fester is way more mature than to erase a whole map and related effort just because one guy like surfinn attempts to degrade what he does.  Fester's main MA map is my favorite.  I appreciate the variety on it as well as TT.

   Fester

[DrBone1]

You are of the Majority I speak  lemming.


I have seen so many whine about maps but yet when somebody takes the time to do one for the AH community they get disrespected as if the Map they are creating is not worthy.

  btw Its not about being "mature" that is something that you know nothing of lemming, Its best not to speak on subjects that you know little of.


I hope Fester keeps up the good work regardless of the sore losers he owns In game or on the BBS. 

[Citabria]

I watched surfinn degrade and put down Fester last night(even about his maps) I can honestly say I wouldnt blame Fester in the least bit if he erased the whole Map he is working on.


Sad to see so many asking for maps and disrespecting the players who make them.     

surfinn is a good guy and he gets drunk and blurts insults on ch200 when he gets shot down. I've done it more often than I care to admit. its really a backhanded compliment...

not only did you shoot them down you got their goat and the only retaliation they have is ch200 and they end up just making a fool of themselves. I try to log off or automutemyself before my ch200 reflexes kick in when I get shot down in some irritating fashion.

my map is almost done. all i have been working on is the terrain contouring and terrain texture patterns. I will submit it soon.

[DrBone1]

You Rock Fester keep it up man!     

[Midway]

surfinn is a good guy and he gets drunk and blurts insults on ch200 when he gets shot down. I've done it more often than I care to admit. its really a backhanded compliment...

not only did you shoot them down you got their goat and the only retaliation they have is ch200 and they end up just making a fool of themselves. I try to log off or automutemyself before my ch200 reflexes kick in when I get shot down in some irritating fashion.

my map is almost done. all i have been working on is the terrain contouring and terrain texture patterns. I will submit it soon.

Knew it!!  Fester way more mature than some recent thought placed on thread by... well...

Fester awesome.

[Rob52240]

The community demands new maps to complain about.

[Shuffler]

surfinn is a good guy and he gets drunk and blurts insults on ch200 when he gets shot down. I've done it more often than I care to admit. its really a backhanded compliment...

not only did you shoot them down you got their goat and the only retaliation they have is ch200 and they end up just making a fool of themselves. I try to log off or automutemyself before my ch200 reflexes kick in when I get shot down in some irritating fashion.

my map is almost done. all i have been working on is the terrain contouring and terrain texture patterns. I will submit it soon.

While I do not care one way or the other about a new map, I would like to thank you and those others who take all the time to make them. It is a time consuming task.

  fester

[Greebo]

The design of an MA terrain can affect game play to an extent.

Fields with an alt advantage, or near a port or the strat city, or with lots of SPs radiating from them can become more important than other fields and generate a fierce fight for control of them.

Some terrains like Mindnao have relatively few SPs between fields which makes them unpopular with GVers. They end up fighting at the same few spawns and this adds to the map's staleness for them. GV fights in canyons can compress the fight, hills can give tactical advantage, multiple SPs can reduce camping. An SP placed on the opposite side of a field from the field's town can increase the difficulty of taking a base.

Terrains like Beta02 and Mesaview have no CVs which makes them unpopular with me. CVs can take the fight to a wider area of the terrain and tend to be some of the most fun aerial fights in the game.

Also the number of available adjacent fields that can be used to launch raids at any time is important for player density. Trinity and Beta02 have a limited number of available bases at their start positions, as the front line is almost completely divided by high mountains or oceans. This benefits the defender and tends to compress the action into the same few fields for large amounts of the time and adds to their staleness. By contrast terrains like Ozkansas or TagMA have a lot of available fields at all times so more of the map is used, although that can sometimes help the hordes and milk runners to an extent. I reckon about 6 available fields per front line is a reasonable compromise.

The current strat setup means a country has to capture 20% of each of the other country's bases to reset the map. To a large extent this determines how fast the map is reset, although terrain layout and number of CVs makes a difference too.  Currently there are nine 256 mile maps with between 48 and 99 bases and four 512 mile maps with between 204 and 256 bases. Rounding up that means a side needs to capture between 4 and 7 bases off each of its neighbours for the small terrains and 14 to 17 for the large terrains. So the setup of the frontline bases is going to largely determine the nature of the map, as most of the rear bases will never get used. I liked Fester's idea of varying the capture percentage requirements for different terrains, so the easier ones to reset stay around a bit longer.

[Valen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Ee_3x63n4

[The Fugitive]

The design of an MA terrain can affect game play to an extent.

Fields with an alt advantage, or near a port or the strat city, or with lots of SPs radiating from them can become more important than other fields and generate a fierce fight for control of them.

Some terrains like Mindnao have relatively few SPs between fields which makes them unpopular with GVers. They end up fighting at the same few spawns and this adds to the map's staleness for them. GV fights in canyons can compress the fight, hills can give tactical advantage, multiple SPs can reduce camping. An SP placed on the opposite side of a field from the field's town can increase the difficulty of taking a base.

Terrains like Beta02 and Mesaview have no CVs which makes them unpopular with me. CVs can take the fight to a wider area of the terrain and tend to be some of the most fun aerial fights in the game.

Also the number of available adjacent fields that can be used to launch raids at any time is important for player density. Trinity and Beta02 have a limited number of available bases at their start positions, as the front line is almost completely divided by high mountains or oceans. This benefits the defender and tends to compress the action into the same few fields for large amounts of the time and adds to their staleness. By contrast terrains like Ozkansas or TagMA have a lot of available fields at all times so more of the map is used, although that can sometimes help the hordes and milk runners to an extent. I reckon about 6 available fields per front line is a reasonable compromise.

The current strat setup means a country has to capture 20% of each of the other country's bases to reset the map. To a large extent this determines how fast the map is reset, although terrain layout and number of CVs makes a difference too.  Currently there are nine 256 mile maps with between 48 and 99 bases and four 512 mile maps with between 204 and 256 bases. Rounding up that means a side needs to capture between 4 and 7 bases off each of its neighbours for the small terrains and 14 to 17 for the large terrains. So the setup of the frontline bases is going to largely determine the nature of the map, as most of the rear bases will never get used. I liked Fester's idea of varying the capture percentage requirements for different terrains, so the easier ones to reset stay around a bit longer.

The bolded part of the quote, I don't think is much of a factor any more. The horde is content to just roll base after base. The main requirement seems to be a lack of defenders, not whether it is a tactically sound move or not.

The older maps show that "air combat" was the primary focus. As the GV element has joined the ranks the newer maps have more and more GV SP. I agree that the "location" of SP can guide battle, but only to an extent of "this is a good spawn camp area" as apposed to "this isn't''.

CVs create that "close base" that some people are looking for. For good or bad they don't last long.

I can understand wanting new maps just for something different. I think the 2 MA setup gave us that a bit as it gave you an option. The 12 time limit on switching sides, could also give you that option. I'd like to see all the maps brought "up to date" as far as redoing Mindnao with more GV SP and adding in those "elements" that Greebo pointed out as things that do away with the boredom that comes up in those maps. The problem is for most of the older maps there are no "source" files so they would have to be totally rebuilt. Fester has the source files for his, but look at how long it is taking him to redo his. Well ok Fester is a bit pickier than most  but it still is a time consuming thing to do.

On the other side of the coin, if people are looking for new maps to improve game play I think they are looking at a pipe dream. There isn't enough that can be done with a map to change that.

[Midway]

The bolded part of the quote, I don't think is much of a factor any more. The horde is content to just roll base after base. The main requirement seems to be a lack of defenders, not whether it is a tactically sound move or not.

The older maps show that "air combat" was the primary focus. As the GV element has joined the ranks the newer maps have more and more GV SP. I agree that the "location" of SP can guide battle, but only to an extent of "this is a good spawn camp area" as apposed to "this isn't''.

CVs create that "close base" that some people are looking for. For good or bad they don't last long.

I can understand wanting new maps just for something different. I think the 2 MA setup gave us that a bit as it gave you an option. The 12 time limit on switching sides, could also give you that option. I'd like to see all the maps brought "up to date" as far as redoing Mindnao with more GV SP and adding in those "elements" that Greebo pointed out as things that do away with the boredom that comes up in those maps. The problem is for most of the older maps there are no "source" files so they would have to be totally rebuilt. Fester has the source files for his, but look at how long it is taking him to redo his. Well ok Fester is a bit pickier than most   but it still is a time consuming thing to do.

On the other side of the coin, if people are looking for new maps to improve game play I think they are looking at a pipe dream. There isn't enough that can be done with a map to change that.

I'd like to see a TT factory town like ndiles in the middile of festers TT.

Also want gv spawns into strats for some large metropolitan area tank action.  Those cities are really nice looking in a tank.  I had a gv fight in a strat city.  There is a map, can't remember which one, where if you sneak three or four GV bases that lead to the enemy strats and then drive several miles, then down a nasty slope, you can work their strat targets with HE rounds all over the city driving over bridges, city streets, parks, etc...  Bad guys weren't happy about it and send tanks and aeroplanes to hunt me down.  They finally found me, but by then my tank was empty.  

Long way to have to go for a great fight like that.

I had to run all over the place to avoid getting killed, but eventually they got me.  Was great fun.