Small maps

[fudgums]

64x64 or 128x128 should be the standard now.

[DmonSlyr]

Here is a list of the current maps in rotation, also includes the Map size. Available sizes are 64 X 64, 128 X 128, 256 X 256, 512 X 512.

The current AH3 map list.
RotationIndex         Map Size
0   sfma2016      256X256
1   riftval              256X256
2   fjordma      256X256
3   grinder              256X256
4   baltic              256X256
5   montis              256X256
6   mindnao      256X256
7   bowlma      512X512
8   smpizza      256X256
9   buzzsaw      512X512
10   craterma      256X256
11   oceania      256X256
13   ndisles      256X256
14   northco      256X256
15   etoma      256X256
16   3points      256X256
17   atoll              256X256
18   badlands      256X256
19   crags              256X256
20   blacksea      256X256
21   natoma              256X256

Alright, so for me, 7 - 11 can all go. Smpizza just because.

[mERv]

Im on-board with dropping some of these action killing maps

[mERv]

64x64 or 128x128 should be the standard now.

68 by 68 n the MA???

Bro your out of touch this isnt the DA....

[fudgums]

68 by 68 n the MA???

Bro your out of touch this isnt the DA....

See I disagree, usually that's the response. It forces team play into attacking or defending a base. Slugfests for one or two bases, protecting strats become drastically more important but also not as time consuming as the larger maps. I see it as speeding up the game not the DA. It also eliminates horde play...in a way(of course if the one side has drastically lower numbers, it will be overwhelmed).

Typically if one side is being horded, they can't muster concentrated numbers to setup a viable defense. All three countries have horded and been horded. Smaller maps allows for a side to develop a stronger defense against a horde. The horde must now work for it. Before MNM last night, on the rooks, just rolling undefended bases. Terribly boring.

My point is not to make a new DA. Some of the more exciting moments in AH is the setup of a strong defense and winning. Or the triumph of finally breaking down an enemy base but it took an hour or two to get hangers down, town down, stop the inflow of vehicles from another base, amongst other things.

[The Fugitive]

I dont think smaller map would work. A 256x256 map is 10 sectors and a bit square. A 128x128 would be 5 sectors and a bit square, and 64x64 would be 2 and a half sector square.



So a 64x64 WOULD be making a DA.

A 128x128 would be 25 sectors for 3 countries, 8 sectors each, 2 sectors water, 6 sectors land, rule of thumb is one base per sector, need 30% for war win which means capture 3-4 bases (adding in V bases) per side to win the war. Reset in an hour. Not to mention how close strats would be, bombers would never get over 5K because they would be jumped almost as soon as they took off.

Smaller than 256x256 wouldnt work in the MA. Again, I think its the size of the fronts. Using water and mountains to keep the fronts no wider than a few grids would funnel the fights. Less places to run off and play hide and seek to avoid the enemy. It could work on the larger maps as well, but the lay outs would look really odd.

[Eagler]

Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?

Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?

Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...

128x128 gets my vote

Eagler

[fudgums]

A 128x128 would be 25 sectors for 3 countries, 8 sectors each, 2 sectors water, 6 sectors land, rule of thumb is one base per sector, need 30% for war win which means capture 3-4 bases (adding in V bases) per side to win the war. Reset in an hour. Not to mention how close strats would be, bombers would never get over 5K because they would be jumped almost as soon as they took off.

64x64 may be too small, you would have to break the rule of thumb to create it. You would have to get creative to get it to work. Mountains, valleys, etc .

However, it would be like a cocaine map. It would be wild. @MapMakers - CocaineMap, lets do it. 

[JimmyD3]

Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?

Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?

Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...

128x128 gets my vote

Eagler

That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA.  He would have to approve/implement any changes.

I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. 

[The Fugitive]

That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA.  He would have to approve/implement any changes.

I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. 

Im very sure it will be too small. You'll kill any buff lovers game play..... well except fin3time/cheater   

[Banshee7]

Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?

[Animl-AW]

Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?

Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?

Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...

128x128 gets my vote

Eagler

The problem is everyone has an opinion, some unlike others.

Again, IMO, land mass (fighting area) is more important than map size. IMO, 128 is the smallest, and that may be too small. And Again, people are basing it off summer numbers instead of higher winter numbers. It's possible to hit 250-300 in winter.

[Animl-AW]

That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA.  He would have to approve/implement any changes.

I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. 

I think trying map sizes out in other arenas might be a good idea.

[Animl-AW]

Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?

it can change how the game is played drastically, and that doesn't mean in a good direction.

[The Fugitive]

Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?

HTC has a rule of how close a base can be to another. These map maker get pretty creative in placing the base so that they dont get too close but still make it competitive. In a 64x64 that is 64 square mile split between 3 teams, so 21 square miles. With the rule of thumb being 1 base per sector I dont care how creative you are thats still one airfield per team..... Dueling arena.

For the 128x128 its a bit better but you are leaning toward a DA again as it makes most buff runs very tough so a lot of buff guys would quit in stead of switch to fighters (if they thought they could fly fighters they wouldnt be in buffs all the time). So you would lose numbers again. For the fight, sure they would be right on top of each other, it would be as close to a furball as you can get. This would cut out a bunch more players. I like to fight, but furballs are just pick fests and they get boring pretty quick.

You have to look at it from as many possible angles as you can. Tighten up the room too much and you lose the buff guys and maybe half the fighter guys. So you have to have enough room for the buff guys to get some alt to hit their strat runs, the strategic guys who want to co-ordinate and capture a base room to get together and gain some alt to even have a chance to get in to the target. The fighter guys room to fight with out being in each others ack and so on. There isnt one way to play this game and you have to think about all of them, especially if you want to at least keep the players we have.