No-Flag No-Bleed Dynamic-Spawn Point Maps? -1 reply

Please wait...

Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

I posted this in a General Discussion thread, but I think people were just too annoyed and burned-out by the general contentiousness of that particular discussion to take notice or bother. So, I would like to offer this to map makers not so much as a suggestion as a, well, ok, a suggestion. Here goes:

FH maps mainly rely on the (IMHO stupid) BF1942 mechanism of cap flags->ticket bleed. I think that this (a) introduces bad, arbitrary and artificial methods of punishing teams, and (b) discards large portions of otherwise great maps which could see good combat if they weren't away from flags. Add to this things like the discussion about back flag-capping and the possibility for one person to grey a 3-people-required flag, and I think there's potential to really come up with some cool, creative new gameplay here.

A lot of maps have these really hyper-cool locations which are just terribly underused for fighting anyway, and which, in the absence of flags, would just kind of draw battles there. Examples:

-Burg Hundenfels in Blackknight -The West village (harbor) & caves in Saipan-1944 -Large sections of the factory areas in Orel -Big chunks of Guadalcanal -All the little desert villages in many of the maps

Keep people away from the mainbase with ABC.

Currently it's pretty easy to predict where fighting will occur, based on the tactical assets the enemy wants to target (flags, natch.) That's sort of lame and unrealistic--I'd force people to deploy based on what's logical. Someone made a great suggestion a while ago, to allow commanders in FH2 to "plant" spawn points within certain restrictions (not right @ enemy base, no more than x meters beyond the last spawn point) anywhere on the map, which I think is an awesome idea that would work well in combination with this.

I would just love map devs to consider something like this, and instead of saying "let the battle develop along these and these lines", and have people get pissed off if someone uses "unorthodox" or "cheating/buggy" tactics, depending on your point of view, just present some maps with "here you go, there's tons of good, tactically brilliant locations here, let's see how you use them."

Ways in which I can see this affecting the game:

-People will be forced to work together more. After all, if the entire objective of a map changes from "take and hold an arbitrary, pre-determined position" to "deploy in such a way that'll best help you destroy the enemy", you'll have to think a lot more.

-FH2's shrink-the-map-depending-on-number-of-players mechanism will need to be used. Otherwise you'll have single, isolated dudes running around, CS-style.

-Some way to reward teams for certain tasks would need to be determined--currently if you take x combination of spawn points on some maps, you get certain vehicles. As you no longer have forward spawn points, you'd need to figure out a way to (a) spawn your team's vehicles/weapons at a given point on the map (maybe if the commander plants a spawn point near it?) or (b) work with your supply routes.

-Commander would have a good purpose in FH2. How you determine who gets that slot, well, I dunno. Maybe allow people to request the spot, and the top-scoring guy from the last round gets it?




SciComHam

Now with more red

50 XP

28th November 2004

0 Uploads

935 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

Sounds good. A bit like the attrition minimod for '42?




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago

Well technically the "changing map size thing." isn't a mechanism. They just made 3 versions of the same map and the admin sets which one to use based on the size of his server.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago
JetroWell technically the "changing map size thing." isn't a mechanism. They just made 3 versions of the same map and the admin sets which one to use based on the size of his server.

A ok, sorry, I was never entirely clear on how this worked--I always thought that the server auto-adjusted the size of the area in play depending on how many players you have.

In any case, that makes it even more of an idea, because instead of having 10 people spread out over, say, Prokhorovka, snagging flags and never seeing each other, you'd have 10 people more likely to congregate in one particular area ("go where the explosions are") to beat the crap out of each other, as that's the full point of the map... :-)




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago

Well it sounds very good but there is one big problem: the front. The flags try to represent a moving frontline, without flags people would try to rush to the enemy base and camp it. Ofcourse it would be great if they met in the middle but changes ar high that troops would be able to "sneak through" and reach the enemy base unharmed. In real life there would be no "base" (not that close to the front anyway unless it's an operation were an actual base is overrun).

If we could have a dynamic frontline however where a mapper sets which area belongs to who at the map start and people would have to "take" enemy or neutral territory. Certain locations might be assinged a higher "ground value" then others. A random field would be worth one point per square (deci)meter and in town, hill or bridge five points per square (deci)meter. The stronger your unit (can be anything from a specific class to a type of vehicle) the larger your area of effect and the more "ground" you can claim ( a larger capute radius).

I doubt my above idea would be able to get coded in in this engine though :p :( .