Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: popeye on July 01, 2024, 10:21:55 AM
-
There have been numerous suggestions for retiring "large" maps in favor of "small" map. As a map maker, I'm curious to know what defines "large" and "small" maps.
All the current maps are the same size (256x256), and the same number of sectors. Maps differ in the number of bases (which determines the ease of winning the map) and the density of bases (how far apart they are). Maps also differ in the spawn patterns requiring more defined attack paths or multiple available attack paths, as well as land/water ratio and the number of ships.
What characteristics and features would you want in a "small" map? Is there a particular current map that represents your idea of "large" or "small"?
-
Post the list of maps please. My search is only giving 1 page results from 2000 for some reason when I type in maps.
There are about 5 in a row that could be wiped out and make a huge impact to fights and battles with the current #s. Oceana, BowlMA, Buzzsaw, CraterMA, I'm missing one I think, but once posted I can confirm. That part of the rotation is horrid.
Huge fronts, too many bases, no "fight zone" areas to entice people to fight In a certain area. What you have during the off hours are tiny little dars with maybe a 30k bomber or 1 con, and then a hoard of one team capturing undefended bases. With smaller maps that have closer back bases, it make the other team have to fight in that area to keep their bases, which provides more or a team control and allows for bigger battles. Far distances to fight with little #s really make the gameplay slow. Taking off and flying 5-10 minutes to die quickly gets old after a few sorties. Less time to action keeps players re-spawning. One or 2 tiny little dars during the off hours on a huge map makes it tough to find a good battle.
-
This is the list I found. Im sure there are a few more added since this post.
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,351453.msg4646668.html#msg4646668
This is the link to "Obies" "Nautical" maps to get an idea of the lay outs.
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,407530.msg5412691.html#msg5412691
I think the original maps are the one considered the "small" maps, ndisle, sfma, baltic, and mindanao. I think Kenai is working on a rework of Baltic right now. Those are the maps that seem to always have action going on them.
-
I think the original maps are the one considered the "small" maps, ndisle, sfma, baltic, and mindanao. I think Kenai is working on a rework of Baltic right now. Those are the maps that seem to always have action going on them.
I always thought of those as small, also a few of my favorites regardless how large the population was. I do get the feeling there are people that think of those as large.
-
The maps that were "small" with much better subscription numbers should now be considered a "large" map given today's daily numbers..
That stated, a new "small" map size should be considered ..even if the new small results in quick flips as the fights on those would be concentrated and intense fun imo
Eagler
-
Mindanao always aims to please.. but then the gv aspect of it kind of sucks.
There is always an opportunity for a 3 front war in the middle, not necessarily a furball island. The fights for a2 and a44 come to mind.
Sorry not the answer you were looking for, but that map has great fight making characteristics, minus the gv aspect due to toejamtay spawns.
Ndisles used to do the same, although the unreal puffy ack between the main fighting points is really a turnoff after the new version of the map. No offense to Kenai.
-
Maps like NDIsles, Uterus, etc... Perfect size IMO.
-
Thinking about it more and more today I think it has to do with the size of the fronts. I was worried that it was due to all of them not really having any kind of good GVing as they were all built before GVing was really a thing.
If you look at the fronts on those maps they really dont have any that are more than a couple bases wide. Mindanao has more in the center but the fights almost always work their way out to the three fingers of land than staying in the middle. Creating maps that the fronts dont get wide may be good for building action.
-
While I don't play in the MA much at all, the biggest thing for me would be the ability to steamroll the maps. It seems like all of the seemingly smaller/fun/new maps get rolled quickly and then grapefruit is up for a week because it's difficult to win the map due to # of bases.
Not sure if there's a solution to this besides a hard minimum timer for a map to be up. Number of bases seems to be the steamroll deterrent, but it's also a fun killer in terms of action. I assume it's still possible for a small crew to roll 2-3 maps on a Monday morning lol. Kinda lame.
-
Here is a list of the current maps in rotation, also includes the Map size. Available sizes are 64 X 64, 128 X 128, 256 X 256, 512 X 512.
The current AH3 map list.
RotationIndex Map Size
0 sfma2016 256X256
1 riftval 256X256
2 fjordma 256X256
3 grinder 256X256
4 baltic 256X256
5 montis 256X256
6 mindnao 256X256
7 bowlma 512X512
8 smpizza 256X256
9 buzzsaw 512X512
10 craterma 256X256
11 oceania 256X256
13 ndisles 256X256
14 northco 256X256
15 etoma 256X256
16 3points 256X256
17 atoll 256X256
18 badlands 256X256
19 crags 256X256
20 blacksea 256X256
21 natoma 256X256
-
Didn't know there are 512x512 maps in the rotation. I stand corrected.
-
Map size and terrain size are not the same per se. Buzzsaw is a good example.
Also… please get rid of buzzsaw!!!
-
IMO, The actual map size is not as relevant as size of land mass. Mindnao is my best example. Some will state too small, but a small tweak to enlarge size of land mass, just slightly.
256 or 512 sorta matters not. I think the square miles of land mass is where the honey spot is found using last year’s winter numbers. Land mass for 200-300?
-
Haven't tried one yet, but I think a 128 X 128 map would be to small. lol I'll have to try one now. :devil
-
I am in favor of doing away with a number of "Large" maps for the sake of this community.
DALE, LET THE MAPS ROLL FREQUENTLY AND PLEASE LOWER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ENY.
-
64x64 or 128x128 should be the standard now.
-
Here is a list of the current maps in rotation, also includes the Map size. Available sizes are 64 X 64, 128 X 128, 256 X 256, 512 X 512.
The current AH3 map list.
RotationIndex Map Size
0 sfma2016 256X256
1 riftval 256X256
2 fjordma 256X256
3 grinder 256X256
4 baltic 256X256
5 montis 256X256
6 mindnao 256X256
7 bowlma 512X512
8 smpizza 256X256
9 buzzsaw 512X512
10 craterma 256X256
11 oceania 256X256
13 ndisles 256X256
14 northco 256X256
15 etoma 256X256
16 3points 256X256
17 atoll 256X256
18 badlands 256X256
19 crags 256X256
20 blacksea 256X256
21 natoma 256X256
Alright, so for me, 7 - 11 can all go. Smpizza just because.
-
Im on-board with dropping some of these action killing maps
-
64x64 or 128x128 should be the standard now.
68 by 68 n the MA???
Bro your out of touch this isnt the DA....
-
68 by 68 n the MA???
Bro your out of touch this isnt the DA....
See I disagree, usually that's the response. It forces team play into attacking or defending a base. Slugfests for one or two bases, protecting strats become drastically more important but also not as time consuming as the larger maps. I see it as speeding up the game not the DA. It also eliminates horde play...in a way(of course if the one side has drastically lower numbers, it will be overwhelmed).
Typically if one side is being horded, they can't muster concentrated numbers to setup a viable defense. All three countries have horded and been horded. Smaller maps allows for a side to develop a stronger defense against a horde. The horde must now work for it. Before MNM last night, on the rooks, just rolling undefended bases. Terribly boring.
My point is not to make a new DA. Some of the more exciting moments in AH is the setup of a strong defense and winning. Or the triumph of finally breaking down an enemy base but it took an hour or two to get hangers down, town down, stop the inflow of vehicles from another base, amongst other things.
-
I dont think smaller map would work. A 256x256 map is 10 sectors and a bit square. A 128x128 would be 5 sectors and a bit square, and 64x64 would be 2 and a half sector square.
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZCfDTLx/grids.jpg)
So a 64x64 WOULD be making a DA.
A 128x128 would be 25 sectors for 3 countries, 8 sectors each, 2 sectors water, 6 sectors land, rule of thumb is one base per sector, need 30% for war win which means capture 3-4 bases (adding in V bases) per side to win the war. Reset in an hour. Not to mention how close strats would be, bombers would never get over 5K because they would be jumped almost as soon as they took off.
Smaller than 256x256 wouldnt work in the MA. Again, I think its the size of the fronts. Using water and mountains to keep the fronts no wider than a few grids would funnel the fights. Less places to run off and play hide and seek to avoid the enemy. It could work on the larger maps as well, but the lay outs would look really odd.
-
Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?
Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?
Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...
128x128 gets my vote
Eagler
-
A 128x128 would be 25 sectors for 3 countries, 8 sectors each, 2 sectors water, 6 sectors land, rule of thumb is one base per sector, need 30% for war win which means capture 3-4 bases (adding in V bases) per side to win the war. Reset in an hour. Not to mention how close strats would be, bombers would never get over 5K because they would be jumped almost as soon as they took off.
64x64 may be too small, you would have to break the rule of thumb to create it. You would have to get creative to get it to work. Mountains, valleys, etc .
However, it would be like a cocaine map. It would be wild. @MapMakers - CocaineMap, lets do it.
-
Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?
Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?
Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...
128x128 gets my vote
Eagler
That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA. He would have to approve/implement any changes.
I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. :cheers:
-
That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA. He would have to approve/implement any changes.
I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. :cheers:
Im very sure it will be too small. You'll kill any buff lovers game play..... well except fin3time/cheater :devil
-
Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?
-
Can you make everything harder to destroy/capture when you build the map or is that coded from the top?
Who cares how fast a map is reset? Does that matter?
Maybe faster base capture would interest those interested in capturing bases...
128x128 gets my vote
Eagler
The problem is everyone has an opinion, some unlike others.
Again, IMO, land mass (fighting area) is more important than map size. IMO, 128 is the smallest, and that may be too small. And Again, people are basing it off summer numbers instead of higher winter numbers. It's possible to hit 250-300 in winter.
-
That is coded from Hitech, while it is adjustable, He determined the current settings for the MA. He would have to approve/implement any changes.
I will make a 128X128 map and post it. We'll see what kind of feedback we get and how applicable it might be. My gut feel is it will be to small. :cheers:
I think trying map sizes out in other arenas might be a good idea.
-
Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?
it can change how the game is played drastically, and that doesn't mean in a good direction.
-
Just for understanding, what are the concerns with a map being too small?
HTC has a rule of how close a base can be to another. These map maker get pretty creative in placing the base so that they dont get too close but still make it competitive. In a 64x64 that is 64 square mile split between 3 teams, so 21 square miles. With the rule of thumb being 1 base per sector I dont care how creative you are thats still one airfield per team..... Dueling arena.
For the 128x128 its a bit better but you are leaning toward a DA again as it makes most buff runs very tough so a lot of buff guys would quit in stead of switch to fighters (if they thought they could fly fighters they wouldnt be in buffs all the time). So you would lose numbers again. For the fight, sure they would be right on top of each other, it would be as close to a furball as you can get. This would cut out a bunch more players. I like to fight, but furballs are just pick fests and they get boring pretty quick.
You have to look at it from as many possible angles as you can. Tighten up the room too much and you lose the buff guys and maybe half the fighter guys. So you have to have enough room for the buff guys to get some alt to hit their strat runs, the strategic guys who want to co-ordinate and capture a base room to get together and gain some alt to even have a chance to get in to the target. The fighter guys room to fight with out being in each others ack and so on. There isnt one way to play this game and you have to think about all of them, especially if you want to at least keep the players we have.
-
Honestly, I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable. This would give the fighter jocks a place to play while leaving the rest of the map to the base takers, bomber pilots, GVers, and anyone that wants to avoid combat. I think the fighter pilots are the ones making the most noise while representing a minority group. I’ve always said an uncapturable TT/FT would be a middle ground because it doesn’t negatively affect anyone.
-
Honestly, I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable. This would give the fighter jocks a place to play while leaving the rest of the map to the base takers, bomber pilots, GVers, and anyone that wants to avoid combat. I think the fighter pilots are the ones making the most noise while representing a minority group. I’ve always said an uncapturable TT/FT would be a middle ground because it doesn’t negatively affect anyone.
Remember, the core of the game is dog-fighting. Everything incites and promotes that to happen.
-
Remember, the core of the game is dog-fighting. Everything incites and promotes that to happen.
With the current player base, I disagree. I think those that want to dogfight are in a minority compared to those that want to steamroll undefended bases.
*Edited to add that setting three bases aside for the fighter guys does not force anyone to change their play style, whereas changing map sizes would.
-
You need all levels of the AH ecosystem fighting in the same area surrounded in a battle. That's what makes the game exciting. It's not necessarily about X by X map. It's more about base layout and strategy. That's why everyone loved Festers map. It created "path of action" as I like to call it. VH bases in-between fighter bases but not so many that saturated take off and spawn points. On small maps, if you add a bunch of mountains it only just creates just super high alt fights for the most part, and getting low in a mountain is a dogpile trap. But paths to action is what you want to foster large battles for all gameplay types.
-
Map size and terrain size are not the same per se. Buzzsaw is a good example.
Also… please get rid of buzzsaw!!!
:rofl
-
I think the easiest way to appease everyone is to have three bases next to each other on every map that are uncapturable.
As I recall.... This was Tried in AirWarrior long ago in FR BIG PAC. It failed miserably. It ended up screwing up the scoring, as there was no way to turnoff scoring from those bases. And once the Battlefront moved past these three bases, Groups of players and squads would launch missions from the uncapturable bases to the main battle area. In retaliation the warfighters would launch non-stop strikes against the bases and basically keep them flattened so no planes at all could launch. That ended any thoughts of any future "Official" fightertowns.
CAV
-
Let me throw in a wrench here.
Problem with large maps and small player base is vicious cycle - you come in, there is 15 people per side, but you fly around for 30 minutes and can't find a fight. Everyone is flying by their lonesome somewhere off the in the world. You log off. Player count stays low. This is especially apparent during EURO timezomes.
My proposal:
1. leave large maps.
2. have a script running that disables bases further away from the center so that number of open basis (and capturable ones) is proportional to number of people online.
Issues to be solved:
- strategic targets and ability to defend them ( or lack of thereof since bases there could be disabled). Maybe always leave one "non-capturable" base open for interceptors? At least on maps where those strategic targets are somewhat centralized.
- win condition. Dynamic scaling could trigger a win without captures/action. Maybe win condition would scale with size. Three scales available, in small - win condition is 90% of own and 50% of others, in medium 90% of own and 35% of others, and so on...
Either way, we need to find a way to make a small population server fun again, cause now, if there is less then 50 people online, i personally log off, and I suspect others do too.
-
Basically the 512 X 512 are the large maps. 256 X 256 are considered small maps. Almost all the maps in rotation now are small maps.
There are some maps available for the practice arena that are 128 X 128 and 64 X 64. You can select these maps for the offline practice arena so you can see what some of these extra small maps look like.
Right now the custom arenas are not working. Once they get fixed (and they will get fixed), you can take a couple friends into the extra small arenas to see what combat would look like.
-
Fd ski
Your suggestion involves coding...
I think that has been determined as not to be a possible solution as any new coding seems out of the question these days..
We are down to trying to make aces high great again (MAHGA hats otw lol) with map modifications only...
Eagler
-
As I recall.... This was Tried in AirWarrior long ago in FR BIG PAC. It failed miserably. It ended up screwing up the scoring, as there was no way to turnoff scoring from those bases. And once the Battlefront moved past these three bases, Groups of players and squads would launch missions from the uncapturable bases to the main battle area. In retaliation the warfighters would launch non-stop strikes against the bases and basically keep them flattened so no planes at all could launch. That ended any thoughts of any future "Official" fightertowns.
CAV
Yeah, that does sound hideous. What if those bases only allowed fighters to up? I know you can select those settings on the map because it accidentally happened with the new one. I’m just tossing out ideas. I don’t think there will ever be a perfect solution. Maybe with the current numbers the outcome would be different.
-
We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.
Issues were with it as CAV said was once the "war" moved around the uncapturable bases they used them as a back door. Also GVs would make there way to the center and start popping the low flying fruit spoiling the fighters fun. The win the war types would also hate that "resources" were being wasted because flyers were fighting for no gain and so would pork the fields and/or take out the hangers just to spoil the fights.
Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak. Id rather see coading time spent on fixing ENY, adjusting hvy bombers so they cant be flown as a fighter and adjusting the resupply so the M3 isnt the first thing players think of when a base is under attack.
-
We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.
Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak.
Northco, Crags, and Badlands all have center fields available to dogfighters -- not uncapturable, but very easy to defend due to close spawn points from uncapturable fields. No one seems interested. (Northco even has a GV battle area far removed from bomb****s, that has never been used.) It seems that NDisles is the only map where center field dogfights are popular, maybe due to tradition.
-
We had a number of maps with a FT in the center and as you can see they are all gone.
Issues were with it as CAV said was once the "war" moved around the uncapturable bases they used them as a back door. Also GVs would make there way to the center and start popping the low flying fruit spoiling the fighters fun. The win the war types would also hate that "resources" were being wasted because flyers were fighting for no gain and so would pork the fields and/or take out the hangers just to spoil the fights.
Even in the hey days I dont remember seeing more than 40-50 MAX fighters going at it out of 500 players on line, so 10%. Today that would mean what 10-14 guys who would use it at peak. Id rather see coading time spent on fixing ENY, adjusting hvy bombers so they cant be flown as a fighter and adjusting the resupply so the M3 isnt the first thing players think of when a base is under attack.
Completely understandable. I just realistically dont see anything changing within the game and it’s coading. I could be very wrong, and I hope that I am. There’s a lot of small changes that I think could make a drastic difference in gameplay. The sad thing is I think those changes would eventually run off the core player base of this game because it would make things more challenging for them.
Northco, Crags, and Badlands all have center fields available to dogfighters -- not uncapturable, but very easy to defend due to close spawn points from uncapturable fields. No one seems interested. (Northco even has a GV battle area far removed from bomb****s, that has never been used.) It seems that NDisles is the only map where center field dogfights are popular, maybe due to tradition.
It seems like almost every time I’ve gotten on those bases we’re captured by one side during the early morning hours. NDIsles will always be my favorite map.
-
It seems like almost every time I’ve gotten on those bases we’re captured by one side during the early morning hours. NDIsles will always be my favorite map.
I've never seen center fields on Northco captured. All three completely undamaged at the moment.
-
I've never seen center fields on Northco captured. All three completely undamaged at the moment.
Honestly, I don’t know which map that is off the top of my head lol. I know when NDIsles was up the other day, rooks had taken the entire island except for one base. They were actively trying to take that base, too, but a few fighter jocks came in with some resistance and they quit upping in that sector entirely.