Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Butcher on February 16, 2012, 04:27:01 PM
-
Most first person shooters have a map vote on it, why not add one for aces high, instead of it being a rotation people can vote for the map chance once a week if no war is won.
/would vote anything other then baltic
-
So you'd be OK if most people voted for Baltic every time?
-
you really want the same people who voted for the new airplanes we dont use to also vote for new maps? definitely nobody would log in anymore.
semp
-
you really want the same people who voted for the new airplanes we dont use to also vote for new maps? definitely nobody would log in anymore.
semp
By "nobody" you mean the people winning the vote? ;)
-
So you'd be OK if most people voted for Baltic every time?
Once a maps voted it goes off the voting lineup until the next map is voted and won, idiot-proof.
-
By "nobody" you mean the people winning the vote? ;)
you know it.
semp
-
+1
-
I love baltic! +1
I call Finland! I want more PERKelez!!!!
-
I vote for NO small maps during US prime time. The toxic enviroment is evident.
-
I vote for NO small maps during US prime time. The toxic enviroment is evident.
The idea I Have is when the War is won - there is a time frame of a few minutes before the map changes, what happens is during this time the Map Vote box will come up and ask you to choose the next map.
This means everyone gets a chance to vote on the next map before it switches, kind of what a first person shooter does when the time limit runs out on a certain map, and again if a certain map wins a vote - its not eligible for the next round - which means you can't vote the same map over and over.
I think it would work, not sure what HTC thinks though.
-
+1
This way we won't have to blame HTC when we get a map we don't like.
-
I have noticed that since the FA crowd showed up there has been nothing but a desire to reset the map. By far the incentive is to destroy field objects even over getting kills. If the attempt to get to the next field is thwarted then the alternative is not to move to another area but to furball until the opposition gets tired of furballing and then going back into field capture mode.
With that in mind it seems the only problem with any map is the mountains that stop the normal progression of base captures by preventing the horde from going directly to the next field.
So... in conclusion... the only map that is preventing resets from happening is Trinity. If you like resets then you dont like Trinity. If you dont like resets and prefer fights and so on then Trinity is your map.
I myself would love Trinity if all of the mountains except TT mountains are reduced to an 8k altitude.
Outside of this I dont have issue with any maps.
-
I myself would love Trinity if all of the mountains except TT mountains are reduced to an 8k altitude.
I agree with this.
btw, +1 for butcher. Some maps are real cool, bases are close to each other, fights are rolling, not much times is wasted by travelling a sector to the next base. Some are not, you have to fly like 50 miles to get to the nearest enemy base.. thats way too much imo.
The baltic rocks on the Finnish and the Russian side, but sux big time for Sweden. But, for example, the Beta2 map sux pretty bad for everyone who wanna fly fighters.
-
Once a maps voted it goes off the voting lineup until the next map is voted and won, idiot-proof.
So all you'd change is the order of rotation? That hardly seems worthwhile.
-
I myself would love Trinity if all of the mountains except TT mountains are reduced to an 8k altitude.
I agree with this and it is actually very easy to reduce the overall altitude of terrain in a map. It is just a question of altering a single number in a text file. Keeping the TT mountains the same height would involve a bit more work in the TE and possibly some bug testing, but does TT get used much on that map anyway?
As for the map vote idea, a lot of players would not know what they were voting on if presented with a list. I couldn't visualize what some of the maps looked like if just presented with a list of names.
My particular hates on the MA rotation are those maps with no CVs, particularly that one with the mountain ranges on the borders.
-
I vote we get new maps :salute
-
I vote we get new maps :salute
:salute
-
I vote we get new maps :salute
+1
-
I vote you get your butt in gear and start making a new map. :D
-
There are two maps I dislike. The first is the one with the mountain ranges between sides and the second is so small you can't even get a bomber to decent altitude before crossing the border, nor can you bomb anything without risking Me163s. The first one I tolerate, though it has pushed me into Bf109K-4s, but I just log right back out if I see the small one up.
-
There are two maps I dislike. The first is the one with the mountain ranges between sides and the second is so small you can't even get a bomber to decent altitude before crossing the border, nor can you bomb anything without risking Me163s. The first one I tolerate, though it has pushed me into Bf109K-4s, but I just log right back out if I see the small one up.
Fortunately it usually gets rolled in a couple hours.
Since the last round of changes, has the mountain range one been player reset yet? I don't think I've noticed it happen.
Wiley.
-
This isn't being implemented soon enough.
-
... but does TT get used much on that map anyway?
Yes TT still has its uses and still occasionally gets visited by aircraft. Dont mess with TT. :D
-
I'd like to see Guy Martin win the TT :aok
-
I have noticed that since the FA crowd showed up there has been nothing but a desire to reset the map. By far the incentive is to destroy field objects even over getting kills. If the attempt to get to the next field is thwarted then the alternative is not to move to another area but to furball until the opposition gets tired of furballing and then going back into field capture mode.
This could be due to the fact that in FA they had a trigger system that sent armored units in to take a base and the opposition had response units that would be triggered to go fight it out.
-
+1 me likey! :aok
-
I vote you get your butt in gear and start making a new map. :D
2 technical for me i hate to say FUGITIVE, so i guess players
have to create there own maps? did the playes create the maps we have
now? i'd rather have new maps than this up date or new planes.
only speaking for me.
-
For those who are saying "make your own MA map then" I wouldn't hold your breath. I submitted one a year ago and am still waiting for it to be approved.
-
How Long Did it take you to make?
-
wouldn't even need new maps if some how they could improve the ones
we have maybe set all gv spawns closer to town for better defence
and just better gv spawns over all?
-
+1 to vote with little previews of the map's setup next to the voting buttons.
-
How Long Did it take you to make?
I started the map 3-4 years ago. However I didn't work on it continuously, just in between skinning projects.
-
For those who are saying "make your own MA map then" I wouldn't hold your breath. I submitted one a year ago and am still waiting for it to be approved.
Amazing (picked a nice word) how long it takes. :angel:
-
It's probably just too badass to put into circulation Ranger... if they put that in, all the other maps would look like they were built in 2001 and quickly converted over to utilize the new terrain features. Then no one would want to fly them. :devil
-
You could do it where the previous map can't be voted for.
-
+1 to vote with little previews of the map's setup next to the voting buttons.
Instead, there could be a section on the wikipedia page with a photo of the map, this way people can view the wiki for info and the maps.
-
So you'd be OK if most people voted for Baltic every time?
Yes