On the technical feasibility of making a two-sided map.

[-gg-]

I'm a quick learner. I could probably take a weekend and learn how to make a map. Probably make a two-sided map for about 50 bucks. Save almost $600,000.

[CptTrips]

I'm a quick learner. I could probably take a weekend and learn how to make a map. Probably make a two-sided map for about 50 bucks. Save almost $600,000.

OK. 

Call HT and offer to make a two-sided map for the Melee.

Report back with the conversation notes.

[Spikes]

There's one base hidden off the map. It's not meant to be part of the map but obviously you can go to it.

So you're telling me that those are not two-sided maps? Lol!

So it is a hidden base that's not really hidden? I'm well aware what the intention of them is supposed to be, since I've been involved with map design for quite some time. There are still limitations like I stated prior, the inability to disable a country entirely and force people onto the other two countries.

Also as CptTrips stated, HT has no desire to have a two sided war and it would require major code changes. How much change or how much money, who knows.

So yes, they are not technically two sided maps, since this thread is about the technical feasibility of it.

[CptTrips]

And with the graphics, and subscription model, and competition,  all that work and risk wouldn't make any market difference at this point.

LTM

Long-term-maintenance.

Just keep it running.

[AKIron]

[The Fugitive]

[AKIron]

5 pages in it's a little late for that.

[The Fugitive]

5 pages in it's a little late for that.

It seems some people need reminding 

[CAV]

Personally I'm okay with the three-sided system. And I think recoding the game towards a two-sided system would be a bridge too far. But...


Would like to see the radar turn back the old system.

Maybe a few lines of coding preventing two teams from gangling up on one...
Something as simple as once you take a base from one A side. The next base taken must be from side B.

And a simple, easy attrition system. Something that is simple and easy. Like, Once you die from enemy action 3 to 5 times from the same base. You are locked out of that base for an hour.

CAV

[hazmatt]

Would like to see the radar turn back the old system.

This idea seems to be shared by many people. The problem appears to be that the people who are listened to aren't calling for this to change. In my experience the way it works is you could have 100 people that want something but nothing will change until one of the people who are actually listened to suggest it and then it will get changed. My suggestion would be to find one of those people and have them suggest it.   

[Lazerr]

There isn't enough players to support a 3 sided war anymore.. maybe for a few hours in US primetime.  Especially with a 14.95 a month price tag.  There just isn't enough p2p interaction the rest of the time.

It's the only way to grow the game IMO... if it stays like this it will wither away slowly.  I've accepted the later, and log in rarely just to observe maps that are too big and spread out.. and cheesedog gameplay from the remaining player base.

[hazmatt]

and cheesedog gameplay from the remaining player base.

 

[The Fugitive]

Personally I'm okay with the three-sided system. And I think recoding the game towards a two-sided system would be a bridge too far. But...


Would like to see the radar turn back the old system.

Maybe a few lines of coding preventing two teams from gangling up on one...
Something as simple as once you take a base from one A side. The next base taken must be from side B.

And a simple, easy attrition system. Something that is simple and easy. Like, Once you die from enemy action 3 to 5 times from the same base. You are locked out of that base for an hour.

CAV

The attrition thing will never happen. If there is only one fight going on your front in a low numbers time, your out of the fight for an hour.

The other point I put forward years ago. I suggested that after team A took two bases from Team B they would have to take at least one base from Team C. Some of the coad for it may already be in the game from back in the days when we had the "base capture path". It didnt seem to catch much attention back then, but I think it would be a boon for low number times like we have now, generating a fight on different fronts. Major down fall with the idea is it is forcing players to do something other than what they want. Forcing players to do something has never been a good idea around here.

[-gg-]

So it is a hidden base that's not really hidden? I'm well aware what the intention of them is supposed to be, since I've been involved with map design for quite some time. There are still limitations like I stated prior, the inability to disable a country entirely and force people onto the other two countries.

Also as CptTrips stated, HT has no desire to have a two sided war and it would require major code changes. How much change or how much money, who knows.

So yes, they are not technically two sided maps, since this thread is about the technical feasibility of it.

You're very childlike it seems. Purposely obtuse. They made those two sided maps even with the limitations of the game. Functionally they are two-sided maps meant to be two-sided maps. Axis versus allies is a two-sided map and you're not going to tell me otherwise just because of the fact that they had to leave a Bass from the third country hidden and not usable in the game. Don't be ridiculous

So they could easily put a two-sided map into the rotation in the main arena and it wouldn't cost $600,000 to do it.

Trolling? I don't think so. Just responding to the idiocy of a few people here. People that made it out like it's in a possibility to make a two-sided map and put it into the rotation. Ridiculous. It's quite easy to do.

[hazmatt]

You're very childlike it seems.

This have something to do with his avatar? I find it rather hypnotic.