Author Topic: First v1.10 zone terrain  (Read 4924 times)

Offline wantok

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 139
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #105 on: June 02, 2002, 03:27:46 PM »
nice work AKs... looks like it will be a fun map.  i like the way there will be lots of fronts between zones.

all those complaining about the artificiality of the layout, may i remind you that the existing sfma map is really quite similar - in that it's rotationally symmetrical and doesn't look like natural terrain...  yet i don't hear a stream of constant complaint about that map.  shock of the new, people, i'm sure once you've been playing in it for a while, you'll love it.
Madina ... AHWiki

Offline Ghosth

  • AH Training Corps (retired)
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8497
      • http://332nd.org
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #106 on: June 02, 2002, 08:29:45 PM »
Wait till its released guys!
Going to take a week just to see the high spots. This terrain could take a LONG time to get to know well. Love the GV outer ring, that aspect has been sadly lacking on the Mindanao map.



I do predict that this map will favor the attackers. Those who pick a reletivly quiet corner and wrap up the capture before a defense can be mustered.

I do miss the old downhill run to 27 that we used to have. No better way to shake the blues than to get a panzer to 130 mph! :)

Offline BOOT

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 349
      • http://www.327th.org
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #107 on: June 02, 2002, 10:00:09 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Gypsy Baron


 Agreed... one needs to nuke THIS ludicrous "terrain" right
 off the face of AH!

 I can only HOPE that this is a giant troll/joke!


Oh boy,,,

I wish this were the case =GB=  but I am afraid the Main Arena is now beyond realism in any sort...  Perhaps the Combat Arena will become more popular now.

This map would be better if it didn't have the Gamey Look to it.
At least something more close to a Believable land mass.

I am not criticizing the AK's by any means... I would not even begin to start on such a task as creating this terrain...  Hats off to you guys !!!  This is terrific for the community....

From strictly a "GAME" viewpoint, this new map makes perfect sense... Unfortuantely there are a lot of us players that fly more for the simulation than for the winning a war, or for want of creating more realistic missions etc...
Winning a reset imo is fun for awhile, but it tends to wear on the nerves in the long run.  Maybe HT will come up with another terrain for another arena.

Something with lots of fleets and Big Blue Planes along the lines of the old BigPac would be my choice.

BOOT

Offline LLv34_Camouflage

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2189
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #108 on: June 02, 2002, 10:12:51 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by straffo
About the Pizza design I will warn Camouflage lawyer !

It's an obvious copright violation :D

Check here  New terrain - "Battle for the City"


:D




Good looking terrain, AK's! Well done, I can barely imagine the amount of workload it took to build an MA terrain!

Camo
CO, Lentolaivue 34
Brewster's in AH!
"How about the power to kill a Yak from 200 yards away - with mind bullets!"

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #109 on: June 03, 2002, 01:21:45 AM »
If resets take too long, and I think they may with large maps, maybe Hitech will consider an alternative to the current method of reducing one country to one base.

One suggestion might be to cause reset when one country owns all (12 on our terrain) the large bases. Or perhaps when one country owns maybe 75% of all the bases. I think it'd be interesting to have multiple conditions that force the reset. But then I'd still like to have an Aces High board game.  :D
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline FDutchmn

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1114
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #110 on: June 03, 2002, 02:59:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
If resets take too long, and I think they may with large maps, maybe Hitech will consider an alternative to the current method of reducing one country to one base.

One suggestion might be to cause reset when one country owns all (12 on our terrain) the large bases. Or perhaps when one country owns maybe 75% of all the bases. I think it'd be interesting to have multiple conditions that force the reset. But then I'd still like to have an Aces High board game.  :D


In such a case, please consider my suggestion on alternative objective for victory conditions...

I have suggested the following issues to be addressed:
Quote
1. its a constant land grab because winning the reset is the objective
2. side with more players wins the reset
3. its not too rewarding to take out facilities like factories or even HQs because it can be resupplied


and came up with this idea:
Quote
What came to my mind is this:
A. Set a time limit for a map reset (let's say 72 hours)
B. A map can be reset within the time limit like we do now by eliminating one side to one base. The side with more bases wins the reset like we do now.
C. When the time comes, the winning side will be determined by the number of perk points awarded per hour of player play.
D. Award bonus perk points for completely destroying strat targets like facilities and HQ. (let's say 10 perks)
E. As an option, the scoring system can be modified like the current ranking system for Pilot ranks and Squad ranks, where the average of the ranks for the categories for Fighter, Attack, Bomber, and Vehicle/Boat Ranks will determine the overall rank. In case of a tie (which will happen...), the raw scores of the perk points per hour will be considered. (I didn't want to say the number of bases as this will be the same as now).   A scoreboard as follows will clarify this point:
          Fighter     Attack      Bomber    Vehicle/Boat  Overall Rank
Bishops   xxx.xx (1)  aaa.aa (3)  xxx.xx (2)  xxx.xx (2)       (2)
Knights   yyy.yy (2)  bbb.bb (2)  xxx.xx (1)  xxx.xx (3)       (1)
Rooks     zzz.zz (3)  ccc.cc (1)  xxx.xx (3)  xxx.xx (1)       (3)



Discussion on this is in this thread:Suffering from the BigPac Burnout Syndrome

Blacksheep like it and started the following threads:
You all need to read this one...

You have to read this!!! (2nd post)

I really think another victory condition is necessary for the MA, not just the reset.

Offline AKSWulfe

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3812
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #111 on: June 03, 2002, 09:16:14 AM »
We play a game where every side is equal in terms of what they can use to "fight" the "war" or whatever you want to call it.

Spits vs Spits, 109s vs Zeros.

There isn't any "realism" in the main arena, want something less gamey- there is the combat theater.
-SW

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #112 on: June 03, 2002, 09:29:43 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKSWulfe


There isn't any "realism" in the main arena, want something less gamey- there is the combat theater.
-SW


Agreed, MA is kinda liked the "RR" arena...anyway, great job on the terrain AK's..which of you were responsible for this?  Looking forward to it!

Offline Nifty

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4400
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #113 on: June 03, 2002, 10:46:40 AM »
well, after looking at it some more I will say this...

the C205 is about to become my favorite plane.  :D

Oh, and I'm not too sure about the idea of fields at 10,000ft.   What is that?  Bolivia???
proud member of the 332nd Flying Mongrels, noses in the wind since 1997.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #114 on: June 03, 2002, 11:07:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
We play a game where every side is equal in terms of what they can use to "fight" the "war" or whatever you want to call it.

Spits vs Spits, 109s vs Zeros.

There isn't any "realism" in the main arena, want something less gamey- there is the combat theater.
-SW


All those with negative feelings need to lighten up a bit. Like SW said, if ya want realism there is the Combat Theatre. In fact, you should be glad as perhaps all those like minded won't play on the "pizza" map and will join you in the CT.

At least wait for some information (like trying it out) before rushing to judgement. That's good advice and can applied to life in general. No charge.  :)
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #115 on: June 03, 2002, 11:12:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nifty
well, after looking at it some more I will say this...

the C205 is about to become my favorite plane.  :D

Oh, and I'm not too sure about the idea of fields at 10,000ft.   What is that?  Bolivia???


Pepperonia? :D
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #116 on: June 03, 2002, 01:38:04 PM »
The project in our SourceSafe is dated at being opened Mar 25.  I've expended somewhere around 150 man/hrs.  I'm not sure if the other 3 team members tracked theirs.  A lot of that was in getting over the learning curve of the editor and the strat system.  If we were ever foolish enough to bother doing another one we could prolly cut that time by 30-50%.

This terrain was never intended to be the last terrain you'd ever see.  No one ever said that all future terrains have to be exactly like this one.  It was intended to be one among many in a rotation.  That’s what it will be soon.  So we felt we had a little leeway to pursue a particular design philosophy that might be different than the others.

The design of this terrain was a direct reaction to the inequities present in many of the other MA terrains that attempt to shoehorn a historical terrain into a MA environment.  I’m sure its possible to do that and be perfectly play balanced for a three way war, but we haven’t seen one yet that was.  While we enjoy historical terrains as well, we wanted at least “ONE” terrain that was totally dedicated to play balance and fun density even if that meant surrendering any claims to historical accuracy.  We wanted at least “ONE” terrain where no team enjoyed an initial advantage or started off at a disadvantage due merely to the accidents of historical geography.  Our two fundamental design criteria were maximize play-balance, maximize fun density.  Historical accuracy was not a criteria.  Surely in a map rotation there is room for at least one map strictly optimized for game play and fun density.  If we can’t tolerate at least that much variety then this is going to become a boring arena.  If you wish to re-enact WWII then the CT and scenarios are always going to be much better venues for that.  In the MA, in our opinion,  BALANCE and FUN are by far the more important requirements.

Now, there are larger issues at stake here that I think many of you should consider carefully.  Doing a terrain of this size is a huge amount of work.  The degree of effort on a terrain grows linearly in relation to the surface area of  the terrain (assuming a relatively even field distribution).  So these terrains will roughly take HTC  FOUR times longer to implement that the previous terrains.  Assuming they are not going to be adding on additional staff, you’d have to expect the time interval between new terrains is now going to be FOUR time longer than they were previously.  It’s also a zero sum game.  Man/ hours that are committed to a terrain are going to be man hours taken away from modeling new planes and new vehicles and other art assets.

It became apparent, at least to me, that to maintain the variety, and pace of development that we have all come to enjoy, a way had to be found for HTC to be able to accept MA terrain submissions from outside sources in a way they could still feel comfortable with.  The MA is their bread and butter.  Their criteria and standards for a MA terrain are an order of magnitude higher than what they are willing to accept for the player run scenarios and CT arenas.  You can’t just hand them some pet terrain and ask them to put it in the main.  You have to come to them with a blank piece of paper and work with them over a period of time to come up with a design from scratch that meets all their criteria.  You might have to scrap it and start over several times.  There might be features you badly want to include that HT won’t agree to.  He does make every effort to allow you artistic freedom, but in the end, after you argued your case, he has the final say.  Period.  If you aren’t willing to accept that then you’re wasting your time and his.  I think there are a lot of “artistic” types that would end up throwing a tantrum and walking off in a huff.  You have to be willing work with HTC like an adult.  There are sometimes you’ll get what you want; there are some times you have to accept their judgment.  In the end, its more important to establish and cultivate a mature, productive working relationship with HTC than it is to get your way on any one particular feature or idea.

So after all that, the huge man/hour commitment, subordinating your artistic vision to someone else’s control, turning over your finished work to become their property which they can change anyway they want, use it or just throw it away…after all that if they do decide to use it you can look forward to pile of derision and complaints on the bbs because it’s a certainty that you won’t be able to please all the various factions.  Do you think people are going to be beating down HTC’s door to signup for that kind of abuse?  In the end will that bring you more terrains and more variety, or less?  Are you encouraging others to make the same effort for no pay or are you showing them that its prolly not worth the hassle?  If for every one terrain you don’t like, might you get one or two that you do?

I’ve been on the Internet long enough to develop a cast-iron shell.  The words of amazinhunks roll of it like water off a duck’s ass.  And I certainly wouldn’t be naive enough to make an argument on the basis of common courtesy,  However, I’d think that even the biggest bellybutton should be able to reason.  You might want to think carefully about the tone of your reaction to the efforts that others have contributed to the community.  If not for common courtesy, then perhaps at least enlightened self interest.

That’s all I have to say about that.

Regards,
Wab
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #117 on: June 03, 2002, 01:43:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKWabbit

I’ve been on the Internet long enough to develop a cast-iron shell.  The words of amazinhunks roll of it like water off a duck’s ass.  


So what your saying is your a tough guy huh? C'mere tough guy, I got something for ya! ;)  75mm AP!

We have a saying here at Boeing: "For all your hard work and dedication you'll recieve in return critisism and ignorance".  Applies here I'd say.

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #118 on: June 03, 2002, 01:59:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron


Pepperonia? :D


YEAH ... fit prefectly well  :)

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12772
First v1.10 zone terrain
« Reply #119 on: June 03, 2002, 05:49:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by AKWabbit
Now, there are larger issues at stake here that I think many of you should consider carefully.  Doing a terrain of this size is a huge amount of work.


Dang Wabb, I wanted some of these armchair terrain experts to find out the hard way. ;)
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.