Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Babalonian on July 18, 2012, 03:23:23 PM
-
First and foremost, I sincerely do not mean to insult or degrade those investing (or who have invested) a great deal of time and effort into working on creating new maps out of your generous creativity and time....
But....
After this much time, I think it should be apparent that the community is not generating enough (MA) map content to solely rely upon it for contributing the necessary new content.
Maybe HTCs could please invest a couple weeks worth (guesstimation) of resources so we can have a new batch of maps to chew over and satisfy us, like the last ones, for about another decade or so?
PS - fix Trinity to end the (now predictable) 6/7-day's worth of stagnation that comes with it in the LWMA.
-
PS - fix Trinity to end the (now predictable) 6/7-day's worth of stagnation that comes with it in the LWMA.
After carefully reading B's post 3 times (he is sensitive about this), I offer the opinion that the "stagnation" referred to is only bad if one is trying to sweep the map. Many play for the fights, not to "win the war".
MH
-
Maybe HTCs could please invest a couple weeks worth (guesstimation) of resources so we can have a new batch of maps...
:lol
*reads again*
:rofl
Thank you for that... I really needed a belly laugh today, and you provided me with an excellent one.
+1 to new maps please. Also reduce the 'map has been up for too long' counter from 7 days to 4 or 5 please. An entire week is too much.
Wiley.
-
First and foremost, I sincerely do not mean to insult or degrade those investing (or who have invested) a great deal of time and effort into working on creating new maps out of your generous creativity and time....
But....
After this much time, I think it should be apparent that the community is not generating enough (MA) map content to solely rely upon it for contributing the necessary new content.
Maybe HTCs could please invest a couple weeks worth (guesstimation) of resources so we can have a new batch of maps to chew over and satisfy us, like the last ones, for about another decade or so?
PS - fix Trinity to end the (now predictable) 6/7-day's worth of stagnation that comes with it in the LWMA.
Yes, I thought that was pretty funny too. It takes "months" to design, build, and test A map. This is one of the reasons you don't see players investing the time to build and add MA maps.
-
Yes, I thought that was pretty funny too. It takes "months" to design, build, and test A map. This is one of the reasons you don't see players investing the time to build and add MA maps.
I can understand if it was a one-man project it would take that long, even at investing 40-hours a week. But what if you had a small team that was coordinating and utilising each others production strengths, or is there no other way to generate them rather than a very long and linear process?...
And the intended pun to my OP was that they wouldn't have to make too many to keep us happily occupied for about another 10-years (while the current maps are pretty old, think of the mileage we've put on them!).
-
When the AK's made the "AKDesert" map I think they had a number of guys testing and such and I think it still took them 6 months to build that one.
There are a lot of things that go into making maps. Even the guys that make the AvA and scenario maps don't do MA maps because they are soooooo much more work. I'd hate to think how many hours Fester has put into his. Granted he goes "above and beyond" to make this match and such but still.
-
STILL we need new maps. Made by pros if possible.
and PLEASE change the 7 days timer, being on trinity half of time is boring...
-
Fester, Bruv and I are currently working on new MA maps. Mine is just about done, unless I think of something else to do to it before it is checked by HTC. Fester's I believe is nearing completion as well while Bruv's is in the early stages.
My map is up on the HTC server. if you log on to AH, hit the "create server" button and select "craterma" as the terrain you can get a sneak preview.
-
it is hour intensive and I take my hat off to anyone who manages to complete one.
for me the focus is on making the base layout interesting for ALL player types. Players want to have everything and the more detail you put into it the longer it takes.
If there was a way of having different people being assigned different parts to work on then your wishing for a professional development team to deliver the results your after in the shortest amount of time.
-
Fester, Bruv and I are currently working on new MA maps. Mine is just about done, unless I think of something else to do to it before it is checked by HTC. Fester's I believe is nearing completion as well while Bruv's is in the early stages.
My map is up on the HTC server. if you log on to AH, hit the "create server" button and select "craterma" as the terrain you can get a sneak preview.
Greebo; I checked out your map, and it is a fine-looking creation. Any chance you could take into account some of the design elements I mention in my new "Wish" called "GV Friendly Maps" ( http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,336510.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,336510.0.html) ), or is it too late?
MH
-
I'll have a look at moving spawn points closer together and/or to the bases. I'm a bit concerned that HTC may not like the SPs too close to the fields on MA maps and may make me move them back out again if I put them too close. IIRC I couldn't find any information on this at the time I placed the SPs on my map so I played safe and copied the typical SP distance I found on other MA maps, roughly 3.5 miles centre to centre to the target field. So I have PM'd Skuzzy for guidance on this subject before I do anything.
-
Nothing wrong with the maps.... just some of the players. :D
-
map looks great greebo
-
Can't wait to have a look at it tonight Greebo, thanks in advance for your hard work! (I'm definetley eager to see it put to use soon if it passes)
-
I'll have a look at moving spawn points closer together and/or to the bases. I'm a bit concerned that HTC may not like the SPs too close to the fields on MA maps and may make me move them back out again if I put them too close. IIRC I couldn't find any information on this at the time I placed the SPs on my map so I played safe and copied the typical SP distance I found on other MA maps, roughly 3.5 miles centre to centre to the target field. So I have PM'd Skuzzy for guidance on this subject before I do anything.
Thanks Greebo. No need to get spawns closer to the bases than allowed; just try to stay at the shorter end of the existing range. Also, what did you think about having the spawns face each other on the same side of the base, as in the image I posted? I don't think that will hurt the "win the war" players, but it certainly seems to enrich the GV battles (again, that's so you don't always have to attack the base, and have the option of immediately fighting the opposing GVs at their nearby spawn).
MH
-
Skuzzy says the only thing regarding SP placement on an MA terrain that is a definite no no is if a player could spawn within range of an auto ack. The range of the light AA in AH is about 2.7K yards or just over 1.5 miles. So the nearest edge of a SP would have to be at least that distance from the nearest AA gun on a field or town. I will probably play safe and put at least a 2 mile gap between the edge of a field and the edge of any SPs.
I can see why you want the SPs clustered, my original thinking on this was to space them out to avoid spawn camping. But I guess a lot of GV fighting involves camping anyway, so all I am doing is increasing the ratio of travel time to fighting time by doing that.
I will rearrange the SPs to cluster them and move them closer to the fields where it is practical to do so. This will take a while as there are over 200 of them on the map but I'll let you know when it is done and uploaded again.
BTW what are the typical and maximum engagement ranges for GVs in AH, assuming no ground clutter gets in the way?
-
Skuzzy says the only thing regarding SP placement on an MA terrain that is a definite no no is if a player could spawn within range of an auto ack. The range of the light AA in AH is about 2.7K yards or just over 1.5 miles. So the nearest edge of a SP would have to be at least that distance from the nearest AA gun on a field or town. I will probably play safe and put at least a 2 mile gap between the edge of a field and the edge of any SPs.
I can see why you want the SPs clustered, my original thinking on this was to space them out to avoid spawn camping. But I guess a lot of GV fighting involves camping anyway, so all I am doing is increasing the ratio of travel time to fighting time by doing that.
I will rearrange the SPs to cluster them and move them closer to the fields where it is practical to do so. This will take a while as there are over 200 of them on the map but I'll let you know when it is done and uploaded again.
BTW what are the typical and maximum engagement ranges for GVs in AH, assuming no ground clutter gets in the way?
My initial answer is to space the spawn point a distance from the base such that it is just outside the range at which the base flashes. Place the adjacent opposing spawn points 3 miles (5280 yards) apart.
I could get you a better answer if I could measure my favorite base layout, but I can’t find the map. Perhaps you know it; it has a country in the west, north and south separated by waterways, is quite large, and most of the vBases are connected in “chains”.
Questions:
1) What is the radius of the radar rings?
2) What is the radius at which one triggers base flashing?
3) What is the name of the map I attempt to describe above?
MH
-
3) What is the name of the map I attempt to describe above?
MH
compello
-
(Follow up to my response to Greebo)
Yes, it's Compello. V166 on Compello has a very nice layout. I just did a crude measurement, and it looks like the 2 spawn points are about 2.5 miles apart. Also note that Compello has the chained vBases.
MH
-
Questions:
1) What is the radius of the radar rings?
2) What is the radius at which one triggers base flashing?
1 - 24 miles
2 - 12 miles
-
1 - 24 miles
2 - 12 miles
The 12-mile figure doesn't sound right for GVs triggering the flash ... I remember it as being much less.
MH
-
Questions:
1) What is the radius of the radar rings?
2) What is the radius at which one triggers base flashing?
1) 20 miles in EW and MW, 12 miles in LW
2) 12 miles for planes, 3 miles for vehicles
You can always look up the settings in any arena, all ranges are given in feet.
-
I will rearrange the SPs to cluster them and move them closer to the fields where it is practical to do so.
I hope you mean the towns, not the fields. Please put the spawns on the side of town opposite the field, thank you.
The tankers are already coddled with the short icons, please don't make it easy for them to camp airfields.
-
I hope you mean the towns, not the fields. Please put the spawns on the side of town opposite the field, thank you.
The tankers are already coddled with the short icons, please don't make it easy for them to camp airfields.
I think he meant that he would cluster (about 3 miles apart) 2 opposing spawn points meeting at that field, instead of having thw 2 spawn points be on opposite sides of the field. This facilitates GV fights, and has no particular effect on the ability of GVs to reach a base. I agree with you that there is no need to put spawns too close to air fields or air field towns. I would prefer paired spawn points 3 miles apart on the same side of vBases or air bases (per above), and have the pair of spawn points about 4 miles from the vBase (just outside of flashing range). I have no opinion as to how far they should be from air bases or air base towns.
MH
-
The 12-mile figure doesn't sound right for GVs triggering the flash ... I remember it as being much less.
MH
Oh, that's right. There are GVs in this game.
-
Currently my SPs are 3.5 miles from the centre of any base or town. If you don't need them closer I can leave them at that then.
I was thinking of putting the clustered SPs a lot closer together than 3 miles. That was why I was asking about the typical and maximum ranges GVs engage each other at in AH. I'd like to keep them at least far enough apart that you could not kill a GV on one SP from an adjacent one, given a clear line of sight.
-
Currently my SPs are 3.5 miles from the centre of any base or town. If you don't need them closer I can leave them at that then.
I was thinking of putting the clustered SPs a lot closer together than 3 miles. That was why I was asking about the typical and maximum ranges GVs engage each other at in AH. I'd like to keep them at least far enough apart that you could not kill a GV on one SP from an adjacent one, given a clear line of sight.
An AH King Tiger has a sight reticle graduated out to 5K. I can hit stationary vehicle targets at least out to 4K with an AH "Panzer" (Pkfw IV) if on a hill so I can spot "overs" and "shorts". I think 3 miles (5280 yards) between the opposing spawn points is fine. I suppose you could do 2.5 as in Compello V166 if there are adequate sight blocks (trees/hills/ridges/etc.) between the 2 spawns. You want to give the newly-spawned GV a chance to maneuver a bit before engaging. If driving at 20 mph, you can travel a mile in 3 minutes, and the actual battle will be closer than the opposing spawn point, as GVs typically move forward to contact.
MH
-
Greebo
Great work, will be a GV's paradice, Love the layout.
Hope it get out soon
DHawk
-
Having had a look at my map in more detail, I'm going to go with a 2.5 mile spacing for SPs and stick with 3.5 miles minimum to town or field, centre to centre. I will put higher land between the SPs so there is no line of sight between them.
-
See i dont care so much about having NEW maps as using a VARIETY!!
7 days on Trinity is too long.
Have a larger variety of maps. Imagine some of the SEA maps in Main arena. So we could fly over PH. Or some thing. We do have ALOT of maps but it seems like we're ALWAYS flying over the same few...
-
Imagine some of the SEA maps in Main arena.
You can not have that much variety, becasue SEA maps can not work in the MA. They have to be balanced for a 3 country, sandbox gameplay and thus are automatically limited in the amount of 'variety' they can offer.
-
See i dont care so much about having NEW maps as using a VARIETY!!
7 days on Trinity is too long.
Personally, I'd like the map auto-reset every day, maybe every 12 hours. Would you?
-
Personally, I'd like the map auto-reset every day, maybe every 12 hours. Would you?
If it means you'd be booted from your field gun, then yes, kvuo, yes a 1000 times.
-
You can not have that much variety, becasue SEA maps can not work in the MA. They have to be balanced for a 3 country, sandbox gameplay and thus are automatically limited in the amount of 'variety' they can offer.
Well yes but there are still more then a few maps we can use, not necessarily all the maps.
But you see what I'm saying. look at the map currently in the FSO, it features a 3 team setup and the island bases along the south-eastern area of the map could over a decent spot for skirmishes. Sort of like the dueling arena's main area.
I think its worth a thought you understand, as i said, NOT all maps, but some could work upon careful consideration. maybe a slight mod to more evenly split up base controls.
Seems like all we really see is trinity, pizza, and maybe one more. But there is what 6 or so different maps designed for MA play? so if we have 6 maps, on a 5 day rotation we could run through the set in a month.
Just enough time for a little variety right? And if we can add a few more maps it would be even better. I mean the Grinder map is suited to MA, but I think ive only seen it in MA once in the last few months, so I'm not sure what the rotation selection schedule is like.
Again this is just my .02, and Im sure Lusche will have something more to say one this??
:salute
-
Well yes but there are still more then a few maps we can use, not necessarily all the maps.
But you see what I'm saying. look at the map currently in the FSO, it features a 3 team setup and the island bases along the south-eastern area of the map could over a decent spot for skirmishes. Sort of like the dueling arena's main area.
I think its worth a thought you understand, as i said, NOT all maps, but some could work upon careful consideration. maybe a slight mod to more evenly split up base controls.
Seems like all we really see is trinity, pizza, and maybe one more. But there is what 6 or so different maps designed for MA play? so if we have 6 maps, on a 5 day rotation we could run through the set in a month.
Just enough time for a little variety right? And if we can add a few more maps it would be even better. I mean the Grinder map is suited to MA, but I think ive only seen it in MA once in the last few months, so I'm not sure what the rotation selection schedule is like.
Again this is just my .02, and Im sure Lusche will have something more to say one this??
:salute
There are 12 main arena maps. The problem is some are reset in hours and cycle to the next very quickly. So while "some" of us are working, the homebodies blow through a couple of maps.
There was a suggestion to adjust the "win the war" rules to the map. Making those maps that people blow through now much harder to reset, and those that seem to last forever easier to win.
-
And of course, some of us don't mind a map being up for a week, so long as it is a good one (i.e. Trinity, Compello, Ozkansas, Grinder ). MH
-
I've uploaded a revised version of my craterma map to the HTC server. This has the SPs at each field clustered into a single area with 2.5 mile gaps between them. Tank town has a revised SP layout with some of the SPs further forward. The clipboard map still needs to be changed slightly to account for the elevation changes I have made.
-
I can't see it. Instead I see something which looks like a training arena (?). Could you please double check that it is still there and in the correct version, as I wanted to check on the degree to which vBases were separated from air bases.
MH
-
I just logged in to it again online and it was working fine. What exactly are you doing to log in? I can send you the terrain's res file if you want to view it offline.
In case you still can't get in here is the arena map, modified to show base and spawn locations etc. There is a fair bit of asymmetry in base distances, but as each of the three countries has the same asymmetry it is fair. Changing base positions is hassle as it means a lot of bug checking has to be done afterwards. If the terrain has to be reshaped then the map has to be redone as well.
A few things of note regarding this terrain: The tank town V bases have closely spaced multiple spawns and have permanent cloud cover protecting them. There are also cloud banks at sea CVs can hide under. The spawn arrangement at the front line bases makes them harder to take from the opposing side's bases than from rear bases. There are three spawns into each HQ, one from an uncapturable base. This doesn't normally affect resupply as you could get a C-47 there in less time. Of course it does affect down times if the enemy park a GV near the supply track and start blowing up trains.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_display_map.jpg)
-
I just logged in to it again online and it was working fine. What exactly are you doing to log in? I can send you the terrain's res file if you want to view it offline.
In case you still can't get in here is the arena map, modified to show base and spawn locations etc. There is a fair bit of asymmetry in base distances, but as each of the three countries has the same asymmetry it is fair. Changing base positions is hassle as it means a lot of bug checking has to be done afterwards. If the terrain has to be reshaped then the map has to be redone as well.
A few things of note regarding this terrain: The tank town V bases have closely spaced multiple spawns and have permanent cloud cover protecting them. There are also cloud banks at sea CVs can hide under. The spawn arrangement at the front line bases makes them harder to take from the opposing side's bases than from rear bases. There are three spawns into each HQ, one from an uncapturable base. This doesn't normally affect resupply as you could get a C-47 there in less time. Of course it does affect down times if the enemy park a GV near the supply track and start blowing up trains.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_display_map.jpg)
:airplane: That is a great looking map!!! Can't wait to fly some missions on this map.
-
Hi Greebo,
I just looked at Craterma again, and it looks like you did a good job with the modified spawn locations. :)
I still have some concern about the solitary vBases on the main portion of the map, however. A further improvement might be to introduce the pattern used in Compello and Grinder, where we have vBases concentrated into a "chain" of linked vBases, which runs from one country to another. Each vBase spawns to the next vBase, with the occasional spawn to/from an air base outside the chain, every couple of vBases.
The advantage to this is that regardless of where the front line is, one usually can choose to spawn from one vBase to another opposing vBase, avoiding attacks on airfields. This produces the best GV combat, as the terrain contours outside of Tank Town are typically less symmetrical and more interesting. When, in contrast, one is forced to spawn from a vBase to an air base, one gets constant air-to-ground battles. While this is interesting to the air-to-ground guys, is horrible for GV-to-GV. Is there any chance of your creating such a “chain”, by switching air bases and vBases on your map? I don’t think that it would have any significant effect on the strategic game, but it would greatly improve GV play.
MH
-
I'll have a look to see if making all the coastal bases V fields is practical. I'd need to add some offshore island airfields so the CVs have something to interact with.
-
I'll have a look to see if making all the coastal bases V fields is practical. I'd need to add some offshore island airfields so the CVs have something to interact with.
Thanks for looking into this. :)
Based on existing map practice, the chained vBases don't necessarily have to be coastal. You could have at least part of the chain/loop one base in from the coast, if that was convenient from a mapmaking point of view.
MH
-
I'll have a look to see if making all the coastal bases V fields is practical. I'd need to add some offshore island airfields so the CVs have something to interact with.
nooo
vbases crumble vs cv groups. and airbase vs cv is more fights too.
-
if you want more vbases just add 1 per country(or more with even number for each country) between the airbases as a fight anchor or somthing like that.
nothing anchors a furball and adds in bombers like a vbase between airbases.
-
Personally, I'd like the map auto-reset every day, maybe every 12 hours. Would you?
IMHO 60-72 hours I think is a good amount of time for a map to get mulled over by a few hundred participants.
But, I don't think there are more than half a dozen maps in the rotation currently though, so then a faster rotation would bring up the issue (sooner or later) of needing more maps to rotate through. It's a fine balance more than anything I think.
-
nooo
vbases crumble vs cv groups. and airbase vs cv is more fights too.
I don't really have a preference as to whether the "chain" of vBases is on the coast, or one in from the coast. However, I would like to see the "chained" vBases, for reasons I describe above.
With respect to your second comment, Fester, do you really enjoy fighting over CVs, where if you fly above 3K you get blasted out of the sky by puffy ack?
MH
-
if you want more vbases just add 1 per country(or more with even number for each country) between the airbases as a fight anchor or somthing like that.
nothing anchors a furball and adds in bombers like a vbase between airbases.
True, but if you read my posts above, you will see that I am trying to convince the map makers to provide areas where GVs can fight each other, without constantly being pounded by bombers. With my proposal, the air-to-ground guys will still get to bomb GVs where GVs attack air bases, and where they choose to fly to vBases (which IMHO should be made somewhat difficult for them to do, as in much of Compello). In turn, the GV guys will have some chance at fighting each other with the “chained” vBases, without constant air presence. So both groups get something. Your suggestion above sounds very air-to-ground-centric to me.
Thus, it’s not a question of "more" vBases, but a question of how they are connected. The "chained" vBases, as in Compello and Grinder, tend to ensure that there are adjacent opposing vBases, no matter where the front line currently is. While you get "fights" when you attack an air base with GVs, it is normally an excercise in masochism for the GVs, due to the bomb-rinse-and-repeat cycle from the nearby air base. The "chained" vBase pattern allows one to spawn to an enemy vBase instead of an enemy air base, thus promoting better (not constantly under attack by aircraft) GV-to-GV fights for those who prefer this.
I would hope that you would take these factors into consideration for your new terrain, and I would like to discuss this further with you if you are not doing so.
MH
-
Is there a reason other than ease of reseting the map and generating constant sea and land air combat action that the vBases are a string of pearls around the coast? Aside from Crater Town in the center to protect GV fights. There looks to be room for a second string of 12 pearls about midway inland to the volcano caldera base of vBases if thats TDeacon's spawn relationship description.
Otherwise this is one of the most Air Combat centric maps I've seen in awhile. Thank you for not placing vBases in the canyons of those country boarder ranges while allowing easy canyon flight access through them. Late nights on Trinity everyone seems to devolve into GV fights in those high canyon bases with 20k+ peaks all around.
-
The main reason for putting the V bases around the coast on my map was so that the spawn route ended at the HQ while skirting the uncapturable bases.
I have worked out a way to get five V base long spawn routes from each border to each central port and the HQ. These routes will be inland except for the last couple of bases. It will also increase the total number of fields on the map to 120, which should make the map harder to win.
-
Schweet! I like that.
-
Greebo- did I read that right that you are going to put GV SP's to the industrial complexes and HQ's??? :aok
That would be a great time doing battle in and around the complexes. LOTS of opportunity there for some major gv battles. :pray
-
Each of the HQs have spawns from two V bases and one uncapturable airbase. As an added bonus the HQ's train tracks run across the routes in from the SPs, so you can blow up some trains if you like.
I vaguely recall HTC saying that they didn't want spawns into the city complex so I didn't put any into there. That complex is too big to generate fights really anyway, it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack trying to find another GV there.
-
Any chance of you taking that exact map and painting it white? :D or different shades of tan, brown, and other desert earth tones??? :aok
-
Each of the HQs have spawns from two V bases and one uncapturable airbase. As an added bonus the HQ's train tracks run across the routes in from the SPs, so you can blow up some trains if you like.
I vaguely recall HTC saying that they didn't want spawns into the city complex so I didn't put any into there. That complex is too big to generate fights really anyway, it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack trying to find another GV there.
plus the ack destroys you very quickly.. the west country on ndisles has a vbase pretty close, we drove to the city a few times.. the ack towers are deadly to gv's.
-
I'll have a look to see if making all the coastal bases V fields is practical. I'd need to add some offshore island airfields so the CVs have something to interact with.
Hi Greebo,
I just looked at your latest map iteration. Was there some reason why you decided to not implement the "chained vBase" suggestion? As it stands, you have alternating vBases and air bases. Although I'm sure your terrain will be great for air and air-to-ground battles, as it stands, I fear that it won't be much fun for GV-versus-GV.
A good analogy for ground attack aircraft showing up at a GV battle is this: You have 2 10-year-olds boxing. Part way through, an adult sneaks up with a baseball bat, and whacks one of the 10-year-olds on the head. Perhaps if the kid sees the adult in time, he may be able to dodge or attempt to defend himself for awhile, but then while he is distracted the other kid decks him. In either case, game over…
We currently have maps where the above scenario is ubiquitous (Tagma), and maps where GV-versus-GV can occur in relative isolation (Compello). In the latter case, this is achieved with continuous chained vBases, which are not too easy to fly attack aircraft to. The Compello situation wouldn’t work if either of those 2 elements (chained, and not-too-easy) were missing.
MH
-
I'm working on a revision to the map with chained V bases. I'll post in here when it is done and uploaded to the server.
I don't think it is possible to make a good looking snow or desert terrain without changing lots of textures. HTC do not like that for MA terrains as it makes the base terrain file much larger.
-
I'm working on a revision to the map with chained V bases. I'll post in here when it is done and uploaded to the server.
I don't think it is possible to make a good looking snow or desert terrain without changing lots of textures. HTC do not like that for MA terrains as it makes the base terrain file much larger.
Greebo, don't make changes on your map based on a single players ideas..... other than your own of course. :D
Meaning no disrespect to TDeacon but what does he know about map lay-out? He may have ides, but who's to say their right. Your the designer. YOU decide what you want. I'm sure you had an idea of how the map would play out. Tweaking the SP is a good compromise, but I don't think reworking the whole map to please one guy is a good idea. What are you going to do when the guy shows up and complains about GV bases being in a chain?
Go with the idea you had. Make changes because YOU want to, not because someone else tells you to.
-
I don't change the map for every suggestion I get but Citabria, Easyscor and others have also made good suggestions I have implemented. TDeacon's input is useful in letting me see a GVer's perspective on things. I'd like the map to be popular with as many player styles as possible, not just furballers like me.
-
I've uploaded the latest version of the terrain to the server. This has V base chains and an increased field count of 120, which should mean 8 fields from each of the other countries now need to be captured in order to win the war.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_Arena_map.jpg)
-
I've uploaded the latest version of the terrain to the server. This has V base chains and an increased field count of 120, which should mean 8 fields from each of the other countries now need to be captured in order to win the war.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_Arena_map.jpg)
when can it be played offline or if ever
-
You can download the terrain file from this link:- CraterMA terrain (http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/craterma.res). Put it in your ahiiterr folder and it will appear in the drop down list of terrains for offline use when you click on the "Choose Terrain" button on the start up screen.
-
I suppose I'd want both a new strat system and new maps best able to take advantage of it.
I'm not sure I could make a terrain if I tried, I run textures at 256 as my box is 10 years old, and all I get when I go to the 2048 is white.
-
Fester, Bruv and I are currently working on new MA maps. Mine is just about done, unless I think of something else to do to it before it is checked by HTC. Fester's I believe is nearing completion as well while Bruv's is in the early stages.
My map is up on the HTC server. if you log on to AH, hit the "create server" button and select "craterma" as the terrain you can get a sneak preview.
:aok :salute
-
You can download the terrain file from this link:- CraterMA terrain (http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/craterma.res). Put it in your ahiiterr folder and it will appear in the drop down list of terrains for offline use when you click on the "Choose Terrain" button on the start up screen.
It cant download i can only down load ingame or on the HTC home page this sucks
-
I have no problem downloading it from that link.
-
I have adobe reader and it says it cant open it it says its been damaged
-
You don't open it to read it, you down load it to the terrain folder of the game. Then you start the game and click on "load terrain". Select the crater one from the list, then play off line to fly in it.
-
You don't open it to read it, you down load it to the terrain folder of the game. Then you start the game and click on "load terrain". Select the crater one from the list, then play off line to fly in it.
when i open it it opens abode reader
-
You don't need Adobe reader, it is not a pdf file. Just click on the link in any web browser and save the file to your hard drive. Then transfer it to your ahiiterr folder.
-
when i open it it opens abode reader
Where in new England are you, I want to come slap you :devil
-
Where in new England are you, I want to come slap you :devil
:neener: :rofl right under you :rofl
-
I suppose I'd want both a new strat system and new maps best able to take advantage of it.
I'm not sure I could make a terrain if I tried, I run textures at 256 as my box is 10 years old, and all I get when I go to the 2048 is white.
I was toying with the idea of trying to create a terrain, but I forgot about the hardware aspect. My system sounds similar to yours (Dell Dimension 8300 with AGP...). :(
MH
-
Greebo, don't make changes on your map based on a single players ideas..... other than your own of course. :D
Meaning no disrespect to TDeacon but what does he know about map lay-out? He may have ides, but who's to say their right. Your the designer. YOU decide what you want. I'm sure you had an idea of how the map would play out. Tweaking the SP is a good compromise, but I don't think reworking the whole map to please one guy is a good idea. What are you going to do when the guy shows up and complains about GV bases being in a chain?
Go with the idea you had. Make changes because YOU want to, not because someone else tells you to.
Ideally, we should respond to the logic behind the suggestions, rather than to the person making the suggestions. If accepted, this logic then becomes part of the the artist’s personal perspective, and thus in the end they are doing “what they want”. For example, when I did my P51 skin, I got a huge amount of advice from other players. I assimilated the stuff I agreed with (which was most of it), but I appreciated all the input. The only time one would object to input is when it is hostile.
MH
-
Ideally, we should respond to the logic behind the suggestions, rather than to the person making the suggestions. If accepted, this logic then becomes part of the the artist’s personal perspective, and thus in the end they are doing “what they want”. For example, when I did my P51 skin, I got a huge amount of advice from other players. I assimilated the stuff I agreed with (which was most of it), but I appreciated all the input. The only time one would object to input is when it is hostile.
MH
Agreed, I just didn't want Greeb's running off making whole sale changes on the word of one guy, no matter who that guy is. Input is good, but it's still up to the guy doing the work as to whether it works for him or not.
-
there is one good method of map layout design that I try to follow...
will this setup make a conflagration of planes and tanks and bombs all go off in a fashion that could end up in a state of constant conflict?
and greebo thumbs up on latest update! looks amazingly fun!
-
Thanks Cit, I'm not holding out for universal approval but I hope most players like it.
I changed the map's layout because I could see TDeacons' points were valid and because I figured a way to do it without ruining the furballing aspect of the terrain. Actually Easyscor had suggested a similar thing earlier as well, but I didn't have time to do it then. Also Cit's point about V bases vs carriers not being fun made me think. So I created most of the chain inland and added island airbases near the coastal airbases. These airbases can be captured from the chain and would allow a country that got that far to gain some air support for the V bases. They also give a captured CV a worthwhile target to go for.
I would say that anyone thinking of making an MA terrain should have a reasonably good system. I used to find the TE struggled to build my terrain when I had a slow PC. It would time out and crash the TE unless I did a workaround. Editing the water depth file in a graphics editor to create good looking coastlines needs a PC with a fair bit of RAM as it is a very large file.
I've resubmitted the map to HTC.
-
Thanks Cit, I'm not holding out for universal approval but I hope most players like it.
I changed the map's layout because I could see TDeacons' points were valid and because I figured a way to do it without ruining the furballing aspect of the terrain. Actually Easyscor had suggested a similar thing earlier as well, but I didn't have time to do it then. Also Cit's point about V bases vs carriers not being fun made me think. So I created most of the chain inland and added island airbases near the coastal airbases. These airbases can be captured from the chain and would allow a country that got that far to gain some air support for the V bases. They also give a captured CV a worthwhile target to go for.
I would say that anyone thinking of making an MA terrain should have a reasonably good system. I used to find the TE struggled to build my terrain when I had a slow PC. It would time out and crash the TE unless I did a workaround. Editing the water depth file in a graphics editor to create good looking coastlines needs a PC with a fair bit of RAM as it is a very large file.
I've resubmitted the map to HTC.
:x
With all the buzz and feedback recently generated I was getting a little worried about that with your topographical masterpiece.
Keeping my fingers crossed that you get a responce soon, thank you so much for this immeasurable contribution Greebo.
-
I've uploaded the latest version of the terrain to the server. This has V base chains and an increased field count of 120, which should mean 8 fields from each of the other countries now need to be captured in order to win the war.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_Arena_map.jpg)
Aw, no airbases in the crater for those of us who likes to furball? :(
Something tells me this TT is going to turn out the same as the TT in Trinity, with no one in it because everyone is too busy trying horde out bases. (And yes, I know that a while ago, TT in Trinity was popular). I would love to see airfields in the TT crater, just like on ndisle or FesterMA map. Tankers can have their fun down below and planes can have their fun above. 99% of the time, the fields in these TTs are porked anyway, so the only thing tankers have to worry about are dedicated ground attack planes, which are all free kills for the fighters fighting above. :) Just my 2 cents.
-
The original incarnation of this map 3 or 4 years ago had airbases on the inner rim of the crater, which is about 5K high. Then HTC said they didn't want fighter town field arrangements in MA terrains, so I took them out.
The crater rim is 15-16K high except in three places where it is only 12K high. In a late war fighter you could probably clear the crater rim from a nearby airbase in 5 or 6 minutes and be in the centre in 10. So if you want to furball over tank town you can. IIRC the crater in Trinity is over 20K high.
The crater is more of an irritant to those who want to attack GVs as their heavily laden planes won't climb over the rim as well. Also those low spots on the rim are going to be popular places to ambush aircraft inbound to tank town. TT griefers will probably also be annoyed by the permanent cloud cover I've placed over all the V bases in the crater.
-
Sweet!!
I like it.
-
Greebo,
This is a visualy beautiful and well thought out map.
The physical features are real world relaistic while the orientation of bases will generate combat across three fronts at their demarcation while any back feild attmpts will be obvious, epic, and create combat. I hope some squad attempts a base capture by flying a buff hoard, fighters and C47 over the caldera into the middle of an enemy country and takes an airfeild. The caldera is just low enough for a mission like this to work and not be boring. Especialy since the 163 bases are far away on the edges of the map. Can you see a small hoard of C47 landed on the Caldera rim waiting for the capture call?.... :D
TT is a masterfull trick forceing GV combat while giving the bases under the caldera's rim physical features to make capture by land very tough. I suspect on some late nights the vBoys will simply fly a gazillion buffs up there, flatten everything, and swamp the place with C47. But, fortunatly that is what it will take.
I hope HTC can put this one on the front burner and turn up the heat to getting it available sooner than later. You cannot avoid combat if you want to do anything to an enemy feild becasue of the geographic setup.
This is a 5 - :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok - Rating from me.
-
Has HTC's had the convenience of time (nyuk nyuk) to review/consider/respond to Greebo's MA map submission yet?
(forgive my necro bump, but I'm VERY interested)
-
Moving the spawn points further from the bases would be nice.
-
I've been thinking a bit much about this thread the last week, my apologies for necromancing the thread... but, but, but....
You can download the terrain file from this link:- CraterMA terrain (http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/craterma.res). Put it in your ahiiterr folder and it will appear in the drop down list of terrains for offline use when you click on the "Choose Terrain" button on the start up screen.
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots3/CraterMA_display_map.jpg)
I would love to see this map in the MAs. ( :salute Greebo )
-
Thank you Greebo and HTC!