Mapping experiment

[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

[Unkn0wn]

I'd like to try and build a map around a "new" sector system

Basically the map would be really narrow but very long, i.e imagine the width of RTC for a 3vs3 but at least 1.5 times the lenght.
Then only one sector on a little less than the width of a map, about 10 - 12 sectors for the entire map.
So imagine something like this


Due to the narrow width of a map, and the sector layout, combat would be focussed around only one sector at a time, with there being a real 'PUSH' type gameplay. A sector wouldn't cover the entire width of a map, so there'd still be some room for flanking on the edges.

If any of you ever played Red Orchestra, they have a similar gamemode (For example the FOY map)

Anyway, just brainstormin'. I'm sure not everyone would enjoy this type of gameplay, but it may be worth experimenting with.

[BigDick]

this map will suck donkey balls

no flank camp camp camp

mortar support weapon spam lame crap



if you want a map with only one sector in width you need to make it wide sectors with very open flank
to make sure you can go around these lame camping support shit bitches sitting in the middle to hold the sector
....

something like that (proportions are a bit fucked up red sectors need to be smaller and others more wide) even when its not just one sector in width



in the middle some roads buildings etc. and the flanks need to be designed open unable to  stop everything with an hmg and an atg etc.

[nugnugx]

 place 88  and hmgs

watch allies ragequit

[deadbolt]

17lbers mg emplacements and 25lber/howies. watch axis rage.

[Unkn0wn]

It'll be LEGENDARY

Anyway, It's something that I originally wanted to do for 1vs1 or 2vs2, 3vs3 would probably be excessive.
Also, the ability to camp would really heavily depend on the type of layout the map has, that 88 won't be doing much good if it's an urban map for example.

[Smokaz]

I like it. Hope to see it ingame soon! Couldn't tanteville be resectored to work like this?

[nugnugx]

Make 3v3 RTC as your first map for this.

[Killer344]

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU U

I haz no backcapz.

[puddin]

good idea unknown, However no on would play t unles they had alot of arty to counter the sit and wait game. 

If you could change the core design of the game mode.... Perhaps make it so that if neither team "pushes or moves" than the population gain is set to 0 untill territory is captured.... 

that would be the onl way, because then who ever got the 1 territory would just sit on it, and it would be similar to an attack and defend map, except no extra pop to push.

[deadbolt]

i added a river in for good measure lolz.

but the river is a sector of its own so whoever holds it will have the advantage.

[8thRifleRegiment]

I'd like to try and build a map around a "new" sector system

Basically the map would be really narrow but very long, i.e imagine the width of RTC for a 3vs3 but at least 1.5 times the lenght.
Then only one sector on a little less than the width of a map, about 10 - 12 sectors for the entire map.
So imagine something like this


Due to the narrow width of a map, and the sector layout, combat would be focussed around only one sector at a time, with there being a real 'PUSH' type gameplay. A sector wouldn't cover the entire width of a map, so there'd still be some room for flanking on the edges.

If any of you ever played Red Orchestra, they have a similar gamemode (For example the FOY map)

Anyway, just brainstormin'. I'm sure not everyone would enjoy this type of gameplay, but it may be worth experimenting with.

Itll be done by monday

[RikiRude]

i like the idea. i think the play area and sectors should be rtc wide, but the map itself should be a bit wider for a 3v3 so there is room to fllank.

[8thRifleRegiment]

i like the idea. i think the play area and sectors should be rtc wide, but the map itself should be a bit wider for a 3v3 so there is room to fllank.

size doesnt depict flanking, map design does

[DarkSoldierX]

I wonder what got people to think, just because sectors look like that, that there is little room to flank.

Hell couldn't we just take a map we already have a change sectors?

[8thRifleRegiment]

but thats sooo easy...

[Unkn0wn]

It's a psychological thing mainly . But yea, just because a sector fills the entire width of a map doesn't mean you can't flank. Though from a gameplay perspective it wouldn't be ideal if sectors were capped or held by a single squad on the very edge of the map's width, which is why I think keeping the sector itself smaller than the map's width would be beneficial.