Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Skyguns MKII on August 09, 2013, 01:08:33 PM
-
Getting started on terrain editor and im catching on fast. tweaking with things here and there moving objects from place to place, just trying to create the best land and air environment with great depth and detail. So my question to you my OH SO wonderful aces high community is what do you look for in a MA terrain? Both land, air, and sea. Give me your thoughts! because I wanna start testing samples of certain environments to see witch makes for best game play. Do you want a urban environment for epic GV battles like good ol tank town that you miss oh so much? A defined landscape to fly over? Epic Island battles with shore batteries and tank traps for a fortress style take? Let me know! Most favored ideas via community are the ones I will create as a priority for testing. :cheers:
:salute
Please don't be shy, more input the better!
also guys keep in mind your ideas must follow these guidelines for MA play :)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176625.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,209609.0.html
-
Tank town with airbases so the guys who don't horde can go and have a furball.
-
Tank town with airbases so the guys who don't horde can go and have a furball.
a general fighting area much like on ndisle?
-
CraterMA style TT, separate 3-way air combat area, close bases, a path to strats around radar rings, some high airfields close to similar altitude enemy fields, and an active volcano.
-
Random fire bases.
A few 88s, 17lb, and maybe even the 4x50s as found in the M16.
Place in direct lines between bases and even on mountains.
Just add a few uncapturable field with the guns and a couple of non-strategic buildings along with the tower and hangar for selection of guns.
Even if the enemy sweeps through the area and captures fields, having these would not mess up the balance since you can't spawn vehicles.
-
Defense lines.
Add a few 17lbers and 88's between the base and the spawn.
-
a general fighting area much like on ndisle?
Yep, or just like the map we have on right now (FesterMA I think?). However, please don't put a ring of mountains around it like CraterMA or Trinity (luckily those two don't have airbases to begin with), all it'll do is prevent fights. Yes there will be people who will try to take the TT bases, but that's part of the action and how furballs are started.
-
Fewer bases
Only about 1/2 of what are in most maps.
Canyons
-
Defense lines.
Add a few 17lbers and 88's between the base and the spawn.
Random fire bases.
A few 88s, 17lb, and maybe even the 4x50s as found in the M16.
Place in direct lines between bases and even on mountains.
Just add a few uncapturable field with the guns and a couple of non-strategic buildings along with the tower and hangar for selection of guns.
Even if the enemy sweeps through the area and captures fields, having these would not mess up the balance since you can't spawn vehicles.
il have to see if those go with MA guidelines, however I do plan of having certain areas where it will be a vbase on a mountainous island. But the only point of capture is its number of shore bats on ridge it contains in the alps overlooking the ocean, making for better cv play and strategic captures.
-
Fewer bases
Only about 1/2 of what are in most maps.
Canyons
I do plan on doing this, instead of having a cluttered MA arena (no offence MA teams I know you worked hard) I plan on having fewer bases with strategic captures and chokepoints
-
Not sure if it is possible, but I would like to see an area that can be cut off by bridges which can be bombed. Resupply is cut off when the bridge is out and then capture is by goon only. Bridge should also be able to be resupplied, resupply bridge first then resupply town or base. I just think bridges that have a strategic value and can be destroyed might be interesting. I don't know if it is possible with current MA terrain guidelines. :salute
-
Not sure if it is possible, but I would like to see an area that can be cut off by bridges which can be bombed. Resupply is cut off when the bridge is out and then capture is by goon only. Bridge should also be able to be resupplied, resupply bridge first then resupply town or base. I just think bridges that have a strategic value and can be destroyed might be interesting. I don't know if it is possible with current MA terrain guidelines. :salute
although I would love to see bridges they are not allowed in MA guidlines
-
1. desert terrain for dive bombing GVs.....North Africa kind of thing
2. forests with rolling hills for GV on GV fights....Battle of the Bulge type terrain
3. fighter town area...all 3 countries with airfield in same sector
4. lakes or water with PT spawns close to enemy bases.
5. Train rails going to and from factories
6. GV spawns to factories
7. tank town within a large city
8. air bases with towns at random ports
all combined on one map
-
6 Total bases.... 1 un-capturable on each side.... Biggest Horde wins :))
-
1. desert terrain for dive bombing GVs.....North Africa kind of thing
2. forests with rolling hills for GV on GV fights....Battle of the Bulge type terrain
3. fighter town area...all 3 countries with airfield in same sector
4. lakes or water with PT spawns close to enemy bases.
5. Train rails going to and from factories
6. GV spawns to factories
7. tank town within a large city
8. air bases with towns at random ports
all combined on one map
make these 3 uncapturable and the rest of the map I would never even look at. :aok
-
make these 3 uncapturable and the rest of the map I would never even look at. :aok
possible but understand its really difficult. Having uncapturable bases in the center of the map is a balance issue. People would fly out of it to hit any surrounding area and there would be nothing an enemy can do about it. Typically why they are in the back by HQ
-
possible but understand its really difficult. Having uncapturable bases in the center of the map is a balance issue. People would fly out of it to hit any surrounding area and there would be nothing an enemy can do about it. Typically why they are in the back by HQ
ahhhh.....I never thought about that....(thats because the "War" Never comes to my mind.)
its also understandable :aok
-
I want blue skies and an airfield to lift from.
Not sarcasm, that's all I really care about.
-
I want blue skies and an airfield to lift from.
Not sarcasm, that's all I really care about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6RoRRdyTxw wish granted...
-
What do I look for in a terrain?......Sheep, I guess.... :rock
-
what do you look for in a terrain?
No fighter Town & No Tank town!
CAV
-
I like terrains that look realistic.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/006-MondayHits.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame4/004-cas-Image-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame3/016-lineUp-Image-0035.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201105_roadToRangoon/pics/frame4/009-bombers-Image-0016.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame4/018-takeAHit-Image-0034.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200710_derGrosseSchlag/pics/frame1/Image-0000.jpg)
-
Right on Brooke. I think that's what we all want really......... Something that just looks more convincing. :aok
-
I like terrains that look realistic. Even with the game's default textures it is possible to make the terrain look a lot better than some of the AH1 era MA terrains we have. Just avoid geometrically shaped terrain (square mountains, straight line coastlines etc.) and put in a few rivers and lakes. Also taking the time to paint the textures where they should go, rocky mountains with snow on the top, farms in the river valleys etc.
One thing that irritates me about some MA terrains is that the designer has just used the TE's standard "make roads" facility to create all the roads and then not edited them. This creates all the map's roads and railways and routes them all due north of the bases irrespective of whether there is a mountain in the way. So you get roads running right up or along 60 degree cliffs. It ruins the suspension of disbelief when you fly over one of these.
I don't like terrains that lack CV action, CV furballs are always good fun. If positioned correctly CVs add a degree of unpredictability to an MA terrain. So put at least 3 CV groups in per side with ports near enough to the enemy that they will get used.
Another thing I dislike is big mountains between airfields that force players up to alt and that reduce the amount of action at that point. A player who does take the time to venture over the mountain often becomes loath to give up his alt and fight since he could end up trapped and unable to run home if things get bad. Better to put mountains either side of the direct route between fields to compress the action.
I don't GV but when I was making my map the feedback I got from GVers was to put SPs close together at a field. So for instance not one SP to the north and one to the south, but two to the south a mile or two apart.
Maps that have a large number of front line fields or SPs for players to choose from tend to suffer from a lack of action, particularly in off peak times. But too few bases to choose from can cause the map to become static and boring to win the war types. If you are going to have choke points don't put them on the front lines but a couple of fields back. Outside of the chokepoints I'd suggest giving players 4-6 fields/SPs to choose from on each front line at any point on the map. That gives some variety but doesn't disperse the action to much.
Bear in mind that with the 20% of bases needed to win the war rule that less than half a map's bases are likely to see any action. If you put fewer bases on the map it will get reset faster. Work out how many bases you want to be fought over on your map and then add a load of rear bases behind that to make up the numbers.
One last tip: before you spend a lot of time with the TE on an MA map talk about it to HTC. Send Skuzzy an email describing your map, maybe with a hand drawn map that shows the basic layout. This can save a lot of frustration later when HTC reject your work because the fields are the wrong distance apart or whatever. Also make a post in the TE forum describing it, there's a lot of experienced players there who can save you a lot of time going up dead ends.
-
A Madame Fifi's Parlour at Strat City with a runway. Maybe then we can get people to resupply when strats get hit. :cheers:
-
I would position vbases to connect to at least 3 air bases. This makes them strategically important.
I also like the classic spawn setup at v85 on "who knows what map". It's always popular. How about spawns that can be moved like the CV for vbases. A moving spawn? Muahhahaha. You would have to discover it and destroy the hangers just like a CV attack.
How about limiting ord loadout at certain bases so B-17's don't bomb**** the vbases? Put their load out a couple of airfields away.
How about limited plane selection at opposing, uncaptureable fields. Axis on one base Allied on the other? Russian vs German? Whoot! Let the game winning strategy just go around them.
-
Tank town with airbases so the guys who don't horde can go and have a furball.
To expand this request into my own, make it a grass/dirt/prinitive strip with 0 ordnance (or if a day comes you can limit it to light stuff...). I know customisable object, but don't got crazy with it and the map size and see if it'll fly on the submition to HTCs.
-
Non-paved strips are excellent:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame1/001-vvs10Takeoff.jpg)
-
You won't be allowed to put any sort of custom object or field into an MA terrain, been there, tried that.
What can be put in one are those same things that are in the other MA terrains, namely the three types of airfields, the V base, the port, the fleet, the strat city and the tank town group. Also the land and sea spawn points, road/rail/barge objects and the shore battery.
-
+1 to Uptown and Brooke.
Thats pretty sad though, Greebo.
-
Random fire bases.
A few 88s, 17lb, and maybe even the 4x50s as found in the M16.
Place in direct lines between bases and even on mountains.
Just add a few uncapturable field with the guns and a couple of non-strategic buildings along with the tower and hangar for selection of guns.
Even if the enemy sweeps through the area and captures fields, having these would not mess up the balance since you can't spawn vehicles.
Please don't put an extraneous amount of 88's, cause 88's really have made the game more annoying to play. The 88's are for people who don't want to use their cartoon life to fight so they rather sit in a gun and just shoot till they finally get you. Me personally, I think it is dumb. Why play a video game if you are afraid to lose at one point. Stop using guns so much and learn ACM. :rolleyes:
:salute
-
A map that helps to promote tactical use of vehicles would be nice. By that I mean a map that would allow vehicles to take part in missions along with aircraft. I realize some of the maps allow this, but those same maps are limited in the possibilities. Take Ozkansas for instance. Once TT is taken it is impossible for vehicles to support a push back into that area. Yet, on the same map you have spawns that travel one-hundred miles from the home base. In essence a more fluid and tactical front is what would promote all around full-time engagements. What Greebo did was quite excellent, but the mistake with TT being isolated actually removes quite a few players from taking part in the action. Oh, you can get a lot of vehicle kills (in both senses), but at the same time it leads to stale, repetitious play. Of course, it will take a very aggressive and insightful map maker to create something that works well.
-
Please don't put an extraneous amount of 88's, cause 88's really have made the game more annoying to play. The 88's are for people who don't want to use their cartoon life to fight so they rather sit in a gun and just shoot till they finally get you. Me personally, I think it is dumb. Why play a video game if you are afraid to lose at one point. Stop using guns so much and learn ACM. :rolleyes:
:salute
I don't see it that way. The 88s are manned against hordes when you can't up fighters without getting vulched. I found myself doing a lot of field gunning because I can't be bothered to transit flight a full sector only to be ganged 10:1. The 88 and the 30mm are a nice and fun way to punish the horde a little.
-
I don't see it that way. The 88s are manned against hordes when you can't up fighters without getting vulched. I found myself doing a lot of field gunning because I can't be bothered to transit flight a full sector only to be ganged 10:1. The 88 and the 30mm are a nice and fun way to punish the horde a little.
+1 :aok
-
I don't see it that way. The 88s are manned against hordes when you can't up fighters without getting vulched. I found myself doing a lot of field gunning because I can't be bothered to transit flight a full sector only to be ganged 10:1. The 88 and the 30mm are a nice and fun way to punish the horde a little.
With no risk to yourself. Awesome gameplay right there!
-
With no risk to yourself. Awesome gameplay right there!
Look who's talking. And your hording is exactly what? :rofl
-
For tank town, a map that is a collection of small islands, maybe 2k wide at most, connected by a narrow strip of land. Would make for some really interesting fights.
-
Look who's talking. And your hording is exactly what? :rofl
First, you got the wrong guy if you think I gravitate to hordes.
Second, I'm in an aircraft that can be shot down and a kill will be recorded against me.
See the difference there?
-
I don't think I've ever been hit by 88's, or if I have, maybe once. They are good to have around because there were lots of 88's in WWII, and no other manned ack has any chance whatsoever against high bombers. Also, they can give you something to do if all FH, BH, and VH are down at a base.
-
I don't think I've ever been hit by 88's, or if I have, maybe once. They are good to have around because there were lots of 88's in WWII, and no other manned ack has any chance whatsoever against high bombers. Also, they can give you something to do if all FH, BH, and VH are down at a base.
Me neither... Well scratch that, one time I was deacking at standoff range with the 410. But 88's are harmless, by and large.
And I'd really like to see a few more man guns if anything.
-
First, you got the wrong guy if you think I gravitate to hordes.
Second, I'm in an aircraft that can be shot down and a kill will be recorded against me.
See the difference there?
No I don't see the difference. If 88's bother you and you like to dogfight then stay away from fields. It's that simple.
Then again if you want to vulch/horde fields you have to cope with the defenses. You're confusing your own ego now with what others consider fun. I stoped caring about stats when I quit AH the first time. Now I just do whatever feels fun be it sitting in field gun or fighting in air.
-
Me neither... Well scratch that, one time I was deacking at standoff range with the 410. But 88's are harmless, by and large.
And I'd really like to see a few more man guns if anything.
88's are not harmless they're just real hard for a beginner. I've scored almost as many direct hits with 88 than puffy kills :)
-
No I don't see the difference. If 88's bother you and you like to dogfight then stay away from fields. It's that simple.
Then again if you want to vulch/horde fields you have to cope with the defenses. You're confusing your own ego now with what others consider fun. I stoped caring about stats when I quit AH the first time. Now I just do whatever feels fun be it sitting in field gun or fighting in air.
The difference is you can't be killed in an 88. Also, as I am sure you are aware, fights can occur over an enemy airfield if you are not vulching or hording. I go out of my way NOT to interact with GV's or 88's or anything else that isn't flying. I don't go low enough over enemy bases to get shot down by wirbels, and those guys can have a kill recorded against them. I'm sure you are an intelligent person Ripley, but it's your own ego that you might want to question. I'm sure it's great fun to sit in an 88 and shoot at aircraft with no risk to yourself, but it's still lame.
-
CV's
-
The difference is you can't be killed in an 88. Also, as I am sure you are aware, fights can occur over an enemy airfield if you are not vulching or hording. I go out of my way NOT to interact with GV's or 88's or anything else that isn't flying. I don't go low enough over enemy bases to get shot down by wirbels, and those guys can have a kill recorded against them. I'm sure you are an intelligent person Ripley, but it's your own ego that you might want to question. I'm sure it's great fun to sit in an 88 and shoot at aircraft with no risk to yourself, but it's still lame.
Excuse me but the 88s can be killed just as anything else player controlled in the game. The fact that AH doesn't collect k/d stats from field guns is not my problem. For you it seems to be. Do you play AH to have fun or to boost your ego through stats? :t
In the early years of 2000 I still cared about stats. I grew over that phase.
What are you going to complain about next? Players not getting recorded deaths while a CV in their command gets sunk? :D
-
I did not say 88's can't be killed, I said a player can't be killed while in an 88.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings on this subject. Out.
-
I did not say 88's can't be killed, I said a player can't be killed while in an 88.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore on this. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings on this subject. Out.
ROFL You hurt MY feelings? LOL!
I got that completely the other way around mate. Have you been playing the game for long? I've played AH for so many years that stats are totally meaningless for me. Just look at my current score, 10 minutes playing time and collision, tested the new Yak for the first time 1am half asleep!
I pushed for nr 1 in fighters one tour, after it was done it seemed less important.
-
Some maps are not very GV friendly. Mind you I dont GV but I like to hunt them and a lot of guys like to play them. On a few maps it appears the spawns werent very well thought out. There just arent enough spawns to air bases.
-
I vaguely recall asking if we could put lone AA guns into an MA terrain and being told no. I think the reason was that there was a bug with the lone gun which meant that it didn't look damaged once it had been killed and this could cause a player to waste ammo/ord on an already killed gun. This was a few years ago and things may have changed now. However I'd still advise any MA map builder to check with HTC before adding lone AA/AT guns or anything else non-standard to their map.
-
Anyone know why HTC doesn't allow bridges?
Oh, and another idea. For costal bases, put the town on an isolated island while the base is on land. Or vice versa.
Also, no more crappy SB placement.
-
I like terrains that look realistic. Even with the game's default textures it is possible to make the terrain look a lot better than some of the AH1 era MA terrains we have. Just avoid geometrically shaped terrain (square mountains, straight line coastlines etc.) and put in a few rivers and lakes. Also taking the time to paint the textures where they should go, rocky mountains with snow on the top, farms in the river valleys etc.
One thing that irritates me about some MA terrains is that the designer has just used the TE's standard "make roads" facility to create all the roads and then not edited them. This creates all the map's roads and railways and routes them all due north of the bases irrespective of whether there is a mountain in the way. So you get roads running right up or along 60 degree cliffs. It ruins the suspension of disbelief when you fly over one of these.
I don't like terrains that lack CV action, CV furballs are always good fun. If positioned correctly CVs add a degree of unpredictability to an MA terrain. So put at least 3 CV groups in per side with ports near enough to the enemy that they will get used.
Another thing I dislike is big mountains between airfields that force players up to alt and that reduce the amount of action at that point. A player who does take the time to venture over the mountain often becomes loath to give up his alt and fight since he could end up trapped and unable to run home if things get bad. Better to put mountains either side of the direct route between fields to compress the action.
I don't GV but when I was making my map the feedback I got from GVers was to put SPs close together at a field. So for instance not one SP to the north and one to the south, but two to the south a mile or two apart.
Maps that have a large number of front line fields or SPs for players to choose from tend to suffer from a lack of action, particularly in off peak times. But too few bases to choose from can cause the map to become static and boring to win the war types. If you are going to have choke points don't put them on the front lines but a couple of fields back. Outside of the chokepoints I'd suggest giving players 4-6 fields/SPs to choose from on each front line at any point on the map. That gives some variety but doesn't disperse the action to much.
Bear in mind that with the 20% of bases needed to win the war rule that less than half a map's bases are likely to see any action. If you put fewer bases on the map it will get reset faster. Work out how many bases you want to be fought over on your map and then add a load of rear bases behind that to make up the numbers.
One last tip: before you spend a lot of time with the TE on an MA map talk about it to HTC. Send Skuzzy an email describing your map, maybe with a hand drawn map that shows the basic layout. This can save a lot of frustration later when HTC reject your work because the fields are the wrong distance apart or whatever. Also make a post in the TE forum describing it, there's a lot of experienced players there who can save you a lot of time going up dead ends.
All very excellent advise that I will be noting, thank you :salute. As of now im not committing any time making a official map. Just creating certain environments and areas on a testing map that i will play offline on to experiment. When I get the sample environments right I will put them all together and see how it works out offline. I then hope to consult with consistent players in my testing map or final map to get there opinions and suggestions. I want everything to be perfect before I submit it because I do tend to be a perfectionist when making maps because i do wish the community to have the most possible appreciation for it. :cheers:
skyguns :salute
-
Me neither... Well scratch that, one time I was deacking at standoff range with the 410. But 88's are harmless, by and large.
And I'd really like to see a few more man guns if anything.
I will be testing samples of different GV environments. swamplands with narrow roads I.E. one tank wide with water on both sides is one thing I will be testing tank ace. :salute
-
Me neither... Well scratch that, one time I was deacking at standoff range with the 410. But 88's are harmless, by and large.
And I'd really like to see a few more man guns if anything.
Please don't put an extraneous amount of 88's, cause 88's really have made the game more annoying to play. The 88's are for people who don't want to use their cartoon life to fight so they rather sit in a gun and just shoot till they finally get you. Me personally, I think it is dumb. Why play a video game if you are afraid to lose at one point. Stop using guns so much and learn ACM. :rolleyes:
:salute
if I do build Anything with "strategic firing emplacements", It will be well thought out and balanced. I will consult with consistent players amongst the community to help me overlook certain ideas to ensure gameplay. So those of you afraid or in favor of 88s 17lbers or soft guns really have nothing to worry about. I'm getting all aspects on all sides :salute
-
I like terrains that look realistic.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/006-MondayHits.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame4/004-cas-Image-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame3/016-lineUp-Image-0035.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201105_roadToRangoon/pics/frame4/009-bombers-Image-0016.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame4/018-takeAHit-Image-0034.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200710_derGrosseSchlag/pics/frame1/Image-0000.jpg)
Are those custom textures?
-
Anyone know why HTC doesn't allow bridges?
Oh, and another idea. For costal bases, put the town on an isolated island while the base is on land. Or vice versa.
Also, no more crappy SB placement.
interesting, sounds like a nice cv battle. But perhaps a peninsula? Unless you want it to be GVless and protected/attacked by pts. Would like to see more PT play... :headscratch:
-
I thought 88's were for cigarette breaks :)
-
Are those custom textures?
I think most are.
-
interesting, sounds like a nice cv battle. But perhaps a peninsula? Unless you want it to be GVless and protected/attacked by pts. Would like to see more PT play... :headscratch:
Some of this, and just to mix things up. GV's can still shell it, but need an LVT if they want to run troops from the ground.
Also, I'd say put the added 88's on the edge of the docks for ports.
-
I don't see it that way. The 88s are manned against hordes when you can't up fighters without getting vulched. I found myself doing a lot of field gunning because I can't be bothered to transit flight a full sector only to be ganged 10:1. The 88 and the 30mm are a nice and fun way to punish the horde a little.
Bingo.
Plus, if your accurate, you can catch them off guard :D
It is so funny to surprise a horde. I've saved quite a few bases because someone didn't take down the 88s :neener:
Tinkles
<<S>>
-
what do I look for in a terrain?
enemy fighters
-
All existing map styles are OK for air-to-air, IMHO.
However, for GVs, things are not so good. Any new map should have a dedicated TT for GV-versus-GV combat, for those who want it. Two good examples of this are Trinity TT with an additional VBase added in the center, Ndisles TT, and OzKansas TT. CraterMA TT has some good points, but is too symmetrical, and the high cliffs and lakes channel combat excessively into head-to-head. Also, the surrounding mountains are only 13K, and this does not adequately deter griefers.
At least one base for each country in a TT should not be capturable. TTs should probably not have air bases; there are plenty of opportunities for the ground attack guys on the remaining 95% of the map. True that Ndisles and OzKansas have air bases at the edges, but I think they work in spite of, rather than because of these air bases. Drives from spawn points to fights should not be too long. Alternative spawn points are good, in case one is camped. Terrain should have a lot of moderate-scaled hills, valleys, gullies, etc. to maneuver over (as in Ozkansas), and avoid terrain consisting solely dead-flat plains with clumps of trees.
MH
-
Haven't read anything in this thread, but the things I look for in maps?
TANK TOWN #1 biggest thing for me personally
Something like the 135 spawn from good old Trinity (RIP trinity, I loved you ;_; ) fantastic cluster of everything for EVERYONE, bombers, GV'ers, fighters... what wasn't to love? :> You oculd use the mtn's to your advantage as well, you knew the enemy could only run 1 way really, you could ambush the runners and demolish the bombers.
and general choke points where there's massive dars on both sides fighting!
-
Haven't read anything in this thread, but the things I look for in maps?
TANK TOWN #1 biggest thing for me personally
Something like the 135 spawn from good old Trinity (RIP trinity, I loved you ;_; ) fantastic cluster of everything for EVERYONE, bombers, GV'ers, fighters... what wasn't to love? :> You oculd use the mtn's to your advantage as well, you knew the enemy could only run 1 way really, you could ambush the runners and demolish the bombers.
and general choke points where there's massive dars on both sides fighting!
^^^^This.
Redbull beat me to it. Almost word for word.
-
The issue with the good GV spawns is that once camped, they're damn near impossible to break without LOTS of air-support, or a lot of uppers to swarm forward like lemmings and overwhelm the defenders.
It seems that the best fights are driven by a desire to camp the spawn, which kills the fight. Thus the goal should be to make it camp-friendly, but difficult to hold camp. Perhaps put the spawn by the edge of a cliff, ravine, or ocean, so that campers have only a limited number of possitions, and cannot surround the spawn. Lots of trees (lots, and thick groups of them) should be interspersed throughout the spawn zone, to provide cover for uppers as well. Burms near by are an absolute must.
Encourage an attempt, prevent holding the camp.
-
The issue with the good GV spawns is that once camped, they're damn near impossible to break without LOTS of air-support, or a lot of uppers to swarm forward like lemmings and overwhelm the defenders.
It seems that the best fights are driven by a desire to camp the spawn, which kills the fight. Thus the goal should be to make it camp-friendly, but difficult to hold camp. Perhaps put the spawn by the edge of a cliff, ravine, or ocean, so that campers have only a limited number of possitions, and cannot surround the spawn. Lots of trees (lots, and thick groups of them) should be interspersed throughout the spawn zone, to provide cover for uppers as well. Burms near by are an absolute must.
Encourage an attempt, prevent holding the camp.
As I said above, the easiest fix is just to have 3 spawn points, instead of 1 (as in Ozkansas Ndisles TT).
MH
-
Terrain making is for nerds.
-
I like maps like Greebo's Crater map. It utilizes all the space on the map. There are no huge gaps on the map that have absolutely nothing. Plenty of fights to choose to go to, very good cv action, and a very fun Tank Town that can produce a fight for the off hours when there is literally no one flying.
I don't like (and don't think we need) the large maps with 200+ bases. Anyone who flies during the off hours know how deathly boring it is on those maps. Maps like Baltic could be fun if they utilized the space a bit better. The North/South front is very nice and I have had tons of fun in that area every time the map is up, but whoever gets put on the West side of the map have almost nothing to do. There are huge gaps between the bases that could have been used to place another airfield or vbase at.
-
I like maps like Greebo's Crater map. It utilizes all the space on the map. There are no huge gaps on the map that have absolutely nothing. Plenty of fights to choose to go to, very good cv action, and a very fun Tank Town that can produce a fight for the off hours when there is literally no one flying.
I don't like (and don't think we need) the large maps with 200+ bases. Anyone who flies during the off hours know how deathly boring it is on those maps. Maps like Baltic could be fun if they utilized the space a bit better. The North/South front is very nice and I have had tons of fun in that area every time the map is up, but whoever gets put on the West side of the map have almost nothing to do. There are huge gaps between the bases that could have been used to place another airfield or vbase at.
In a contrasting opinion, I like large maps, and generally can "find fights", even on off hours (like mid-afternoon weekdays, CST).
MH
-
what do I look for in a terrain?
enemy fighters
best answer so far :aok
-
In a contrasting opinion, I like large maps, and generally can "find fights", even on off hours (like mid-afternoon weekdays, CST).
MH
+1 :aok
-
For euro players 3-4pm CST isn't off hours, for myself off peak is around now with generally around 60 people at this time. Generally 50% are in flight at any one time, and i would say about a third to half are in gvs, which laves not a lot in the air to shoot at. Unfortunately a good number of these guys are more interested in milk running than any form of interaction with an enemy pilot and will up elsewhere if any resistance is met. I think some form of tank town i a good thing as it promotes combat between players, i have no interest in gv vs gv combat so i like to have a tank town with airfields in addition to vbases because offpeak players tend to gravitate to tank town.
This is the MA right now with 75 players on Montis, a map i enjoy. It has no tank town but the closeness of the bases seems to encourage furballing action which i enjoy, though you can see how few people are in the air at this time.
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/ahss104.png)
-
Haven't read anything in this thread, but the things I look for in maps?
TANK TOWN #1 biggest thing for me personally
Wait....there are tanks in this game?
:D
what do I look for in a terrain?
enemy fighters
:aok +2
-
For euro players 3-4pm CST isn't off hours, for myself off peak is around now with generally around 60 people at this time. Generally 50% are in flight at any one time, and i would say about a third to half are in gvs, which laves not a lot in the air to shoot at. Unfortunately a good number of these guys are more interested in milk running than any form of interaction with an enemy pilot and will up elsewhere if any resistance is met. I think some form of tank town i a good thing as it promotes combat between players, i have no interest in gv vs gv combat so i like to have a tank town with airfields in addition to vbases because offpeak players tend to gravitate to tank town.
This is the MA right now with 75 players on Montis, a map i enjoy. It has no tank town but the closeness of the bases seems to encourage furballing action which i enjoy, though you can see how few people are in the air at this time.
(http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh33/thrila/ahss104.png)
I never understood why the milkrunners won't play offline. That's what they want anyway, to fight ack without other players bothering.
-
Towns between gv spawns to promote gv battles thru towns.
Airfields as far from towns as HTC will allow.
Airfields triangulated to std radar rings touching as much as possible to avoid isolated airfields.
Gv fields and ports scattered between airfields.
Variation in field altitudes
Variation on local field topography
Rivers for PT boats and LVT's
A "real" look.
Tank town like Greebo's .......three uncapturable fields
-
I never understood why the milkrunners won't play offline. That's what they want anyway, to fight ack without other players bothering.
They want to contribute but avoid the attrition. To chip away at their enemies rock with their hammers and pics while avoiding their enemies sledge and chisle (the big fight). If we force them to play only in a certain way, then they will also force us to do the same. It would be like asking you why we can't understand attackers halting their advances to defend - nobody is gonna make you do anything that you don't want to.
Also, imho, the best fights are started by those who think outside the box. Somewhere in between the first couple of players trying to start an attack or defend it, and when the horde (green or red) comes through and sweeps it back to the other teams airfield, you get those really sweet fights.