[Final] 6p_Hill_60 V2

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Groundfire]

Could you post the replay of this game?

Ive only played on my own map twice and need visual feedback anyways.

[RoyalHants]

i alrdy started a game ask hicks or skaffa or asterkas or heartmann

[tank130]

OH FFS!


Maybe I should just do territories like this...

Please don;t flame me for the dumbass question; but why are the sectors not like this anyway. Is there a good reason why they are always oddly shaped?

[Artekas]

Hicks just posted a thread about Marines and said he'll post the replay of a game where he just used them - which was the one on hill 60.

[RoyalHants]

Please don;t flame me for the dumbass question; but why are the sectors not like this anyway. Is there a good reason why they are always oddly shaped?

calculate veroni (which is used for territories)makes weird shapes depending on whee you put the points

[Groundfire]

Please don;t flame me for the dumbass question; but why are the sectors not like this anyway. Is there a good reason why they are always oddly shaped?

@RoyalHants, The first iteration of the map had only calculate veroni and Unknownz told me to change it.

@Tank
I thought it would be fun to create territory emphasis on the defendable features of the map. Square grid maps dont do this and it increases the valuable defensive capabilities of buildings in sectors as opposed to sectors with no buildings. (open fields, hence why the city is fought over more on Tanteville, its the easily defendable position on an equal territory layout map)

If you look closely the Southern big hill is a circle divided into 5 seperate territories

Northern 2 defendable positions revolve around the circle trench observation post and the city.

These are also divided into 5 territory circles, but im going to cut it down to 3 because right now too much emphasis is being placed on taking the left top half of the map (because more territories are there)

Pretaining to the northern circle territories, it would seem as if the right circle of territories has an advantage over the left b/c it has so many buildings, but if you look closely, I have placed factories running the territory divide, so they are easily defendable but one unit garrisoned in that factory can potentially cap 2 out of the 5 at once.

To counter balance this, the left circle is more open but has more green cover and bottle necks of approach for their circle. Less avenues for attack and lots of Green cover equates to a more defensible position regardless of garrisonable buildings.

HOWEVER

the map being kinda large with 6 players max and more incentive to fight over the north makes the south hill dead space and an easy flanking path for those not paying attention. Not having the southern hill as the dominant feature of the map throws balance in favor of the northern team and their city.

Spawn points are going to be shifted to so that 2 players from each side start on the southern half of the map, making the hill more valuable and easily reached from both sides.

So this is the problem as I see it now, and what I have to fix.

Anyone else see it any differently?

[Hicks58]

There is a problem you missed Groundfire.

Those sandbag clumps on the corner of buildings? They cant be crushed, not even by a Pershing. It resulted in the death of my Pershing and I've played the map a grand total of once.

[Groundfire]

There is a problem you missed Groundfire.

Those sandbag clumps on the corner of buildings? They cant be crushed, not even by a Pershing. It resulted in the death of my Pershing and I've played the map a grand total of once.

Ok, ill change those. Didnt know they were uncrushable.

[LeoPhone]

groundfire, u better also remove the burned bus, the concrete roadblocks and the axis concrete tanktraps
(u can see most of em in this pic: http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss38/groundfire_photos/relic00013-2.jpg )

untill the eir devs take 5 minutes of their time to fix all these objects they remain broken.

[Artekas]

Another issue with objects is the railroad in the southeastern corner of the map, right around the spawn. It isn't acting as a movement blocker. I had a hummel sitting on top of it and my units could run right through it. If you watch the replay of the match on tihs map provided in the marines thread, you'll see what I mean.

[Computer991]

Ok, ill change those. Didnt know they were uncrushable.

There is a huge amount of stuff that causes micro issues on your map ...... Marder + Bad pathing = DAETHHHHH But otherwise i like this map

[Groundfire]

lolz, so its only PE players that are having trouble with pathing, that and uncrushable objects.

Ill fix these and make it an 8 player map in my next update

Another issue with objects is the railroad in the southeastern corner of the map, right around the spawn. It isn't acting as a movement blocker. I had a hummel sitting on top of it and my units could run right through it. If you watch the replay of the match on tihs map provided in the marines thread, you'll see what I mean.

Those flatbed cars are supposed to be able to be walked across. I can make it unpassable tho.

[Unkn0wn]

Making it a 4vs4 map is really out of the question, that would just be absurd.

[Groundfire]

Making it a 4vs4 map is really out of the question, that would just be absurd.

Im at a loss then. People say its too big to be a 3vs3 but im most deffinately sure that we have 3vs3 maps that are even bigger than this.

Judging from the replays ive watched large sections of the map get ignored because there is just not enough on-field presence. This happens with nearly every large map, but you dont hear anyone being vocal about it for abbeville schdijndel or goodwood. :/

[Unkn0wn]

People may have that perception simply because of how you sectored things.
Sectoring can make a big map feel small and a small map feel big.

I still think you should use square-like sectors, it's what people are most familiar with, what they prefer. Trust me, trying to reinvent the wheel with sectors gameplay wise at this point is pretty much a lost cause, we've experimented with so many different designs these past years, I can safely say less & larger sectors is always better.

It doesn't necessarily need to be grid-like, but if you look at maps like Nuenen, Abbeville and others, you'd see that the sector design is pretty straight forward without trying to force some manner of gameplay on the players. (You can have straight forward sectoring and still offer flanking mind you).

A good sectoring puts combat first and capping second, there needs to be room for 'outcapping' and 'flanking' without turning the game into a cap fest of 50541271 different little sectors. This is why large sectors are almost always better in the EIR environment.

Sector design needs to follow the likely flow of combat, and equalise the both sides if both have a fair share of the map. (With a potential "uneven" sector in place to tilt it in one's side favour, and to prevent extensive camping behaviour by both sides because there is no capping stress) A good sector system is a sector system only noticed late game (when a slight territory disadvantage starts counting for something), when one team is pushed back heavily or when players are just camping it out.

[Unkn0wn]

P.s there should never be more sectors on the width of the map as there are players.
I.e a 3 player map should have 3 sectors in width max at the spawns. You're allowed to make it 4 sectors in width approaching the middle, but never at the spawns.

Also, you don't just need to 'blindly' throw some grid system on it, a good sector system also keeps into account the map design. You can't have sectors run right through buildings, certain strategic areas could be contained in

So personally I wouldn't even advocate just applying a grid system, but I very much do advocate going for a square-based intelligent sector design with LESS and LARGER sectors than you are currently using. (For this map, In length you need no more than max 2 sectors in length to the middle of the map (not counting the middle row of sectors on the map itself))

[Unkn0wn]

Here's an example of how it could be +-
You get the idea.



Off to bed, bb

[TheLastArmada]

above idea is good but seeing its a 3v3, back capping should be an option so mayb more sectors to middle of map

[Artekas]

Those flatbed cars are supposed to be able to be walked across. I can make it unpassable tho.

I didn't realise they were supposed to be passable, it just looks weird.

On the comment about people not being vocal about large map size on other 3v3s - well, I've only played Abbeville once and the others never. Abbeville didn't feel too big because when I played it, both teams almost completely ignored the top third of the map, where one one-man unit in a corner way behind your lines could hold the absolutely massive sectors that reached practically halfway back to your spawn.

[tank130]

I have played the map a few times now.
It looks awesome and I truly appreciate all the work that went into it.

Game play:
I feel this map really favors support spam. A vehicle dependent company is completely screwed on the hill side and marginally screwed on the other.
It is very difficult to support your teammates as it takes way too long to get your units from one side to the other.

Playing airborne on this map is suicide!!!!!