Sector test...

[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

[fldash]

Is anyone willing to alter there map to a new sector layout for me to try?

Simply horizontal sectors spanning across the whole map from spawn side to spawn side.  Make them decently wide, and make an even number...

For example... x, y are spawn points, | is a sector:

x | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | y

[DasNoob]

Sounds like a good test for the Newest Greatest Creation of AmPm..... St. Villageville Gap!

[Unkn0wn]

That was what I originally intended on doing with Road to Carentan but I ended up changing it because it just wouldn't work out as intended. You would be unable to push and cap territory when the defenders are stacking on one side of the sector and you're on the other one.  (Which is why I split up the horizontal sectors into 2 parts, making it a lot more dynamic)

I could easily try it again on RTC if you really want to. I think it's the easiest map to test it on .

[fldash]

Unkn0wn, that's the point.  You won't be able to push, forcing you to fight.  No more will it be about capping because you will be unable to do so unless you are fighting. That's what we want!  With 'supply lines', this may be better...

[Unkn0wn]

Hmm good point, I guess I was still thinking in terms of "VP Mode".
I'll see if I can slap a quick version of RTC together with this in mind.

[fldash]

Thanks, much appreciated.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

As i see it, territory is only a hinderance to the type of gameplay you desire, why not have more objective based maps (not as involved as a convoy etc just simple ones), or just have an anialte game mode.

[salan]

Interesting idea, in a map like caranten you can win the left side of the map and bypass the right players hardpoint, swing around behing and cap the territory and make it inefficient to hold onto.

with a sector you are saying, you would have to remove both sides of the enemy before you could push onto the next part.

the problem will be that people will hide units in the corners or far side simply to hold the map point for longer durations, and ultimately the design will logically work best in skinnier longer maps (rails and metal type).

interesting though, it would fix the sector layout problem eir has if they were all forced to be uniform.

could even edit the relic maps as needed to produce your desired outcome.

[salan]

dash if a test does not work as intended would you think of doing maps with 2 layers of |  |  |  | like in carentan so that there is atleast LIMITED flanking ?

[Apex]

This will limit the output of flanking maneuvers. And camping at certain hard points is very easy now, instead of defending a whole frontline. The basic idea is good, but it should still be at least one vertical sector seperation line for each player, like on roads to carentan.
 

[Unkn0wn]

Good points Apex, that's kind of what I'm worried about too but it's still worth a try.

I miss the old objective based sector system btw, I think it had a lot of potential too.

[Steinmarder]

My layout on westfalen works that way, but its not over the whole map, its the opposite but with the same target, sectors where the fighting shall occur

on that map stripes of sectors would be.. weird. But in most games shouldnt make a big difference when i think about it. If the defender holds the town, like now, you would have to engange him.. BUT you could still just move "more capping force" on the table and outcap while not fighting, and the defender couldnt really fight either because they would get stormed at before setting up all support weapons again wich spread over the town before...


well i think asking the mappers to introduce "mcp compatible sector layouts" would be the best way to go, we have enough mappers in the community to not rely on stock maps.

maybe just put RTC, Crossroads and maybe French Countryside in the basic game file extractor and work over the first 2 again, but those are the most final maps i can think off atm

[salan]

My layout on westfalen works that way, but its not over the whole map, its the opposite but with the same target, sectors where the fighting shall occur

on that map stripes of sectors would be.. weird. But in most games shouldnt make a big difference when i think about it. If the defender holds the town, like now, you would have to engange him.. BUT you could still just move "more capping force" on the table and outcap while not fighting, and the defender couldnt really fight either because they would get stormed at before setting up all support weapons again wich spread over the town before...


well i think asking the mappers to introduce "mcp compatible sector layouts" would be the best way to go, we have enough mappers in the community to not rely on stock maps.

maybe just put RTC, Crossroads and maybe French Countryside in the basic game file extractor and work over the first 2 again, but those are the most final maps i can think off atm

actually westfallen is one of those maps that could use some reworking. I like the way the layers are for the most part, but it completely dominates one half the map, changing hte play from attack/defend.

when i get home i'll photo shop a way this idea would work with keeping your objectiveness in tact.

[fldash]

Apex, this does not limit flanking at all.  Yes, it limits cap flanking, but that's lame anyway.  I still think this sector system will work best with MCP.

[Duckordie]

Fl, I will try
But in some maps is hard, bec you have to walk long way, to FIND where the enemy are hiding, and hiding a corner is harsh

I have a new map on the way, gona ad it there

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

As i see it, territory is only a hinderance to the type of gameplay you desire, why not have more objective based maps (not as involved as a convoy etc just simple ones), or just have an anialte game mode.

Elaboration: all territory's do is promote round capping, and since the game modes are all about how much terry you hold, no matter how you set the maps/ systems up gameplay will have to sacrifce some time to capping and the capping game.

Why not have the win conditions not so centred around terrys?

1. Attackers need to attack key points in succession - anybody remember WIC and the attackers had  to take area's in line and when they took the last one they won?

2. Defenders need to hold vital zones for x amount of time, the timer only counts down if they are in possesion of it, and if they lose possesion they have x time to take it back.

3. of course i can also make some more map based missions too .

[DasNoob]

My huge concern is that the defenders will be able to cap the whole map in the beginning, and then they only need to give a strong defense long enough for the timer to run down.  At it's current level, I think the rate of popcap increase may need to be adjusted.

I like the idea on the whole.  Wider sections will be needed, and it should almost play like mini maps inside the map.

[Nevyen]

OK maybe ill post this suggestion here.

In VCOH you had Objective markers that forced the VP ticker to drop.  It forced the game to in some cases have fighting be cetered around those points.  You though still need to cap territories and resources points to effectively manage the fight and take those points though.

Why not a similar approach to MCP?  what im driving at here is that you have in conjuction with territory gained victory locations on a map that add additional benifit to those holding them.  With in the long run if they hold all of them casuing a victory timer, much in the same way that hold the right number of territories.

Now if you applied the sector layout  as fl suggests  x |||||||||||||| Y  but in that a configuration of Victory locations.  6 for 2v2's  9 for 3v3's and 12 for 4v4's or somthing like that (its needs to be standarised)  the VP's are set up as follows

Fls Sector Layout 

        |                |             |             |          |          |             |            |
                                                     
                                                          VP         
                   
X                                                                                                                  Y
X                VP                            VP               VP                            VP             Y



                                                           VP

With the appropiate bonus say +.2 to pop per minute in conjunction with the MCP bonuses.    If a player  holds all VP's 3 min timer kicks in.   

So you can flank for the bonuses  you can hold the line witch just mcp but there is incentive to drive for the extra bonuses.  Enough VPS so artillery can't dominate but not enough that you get spread to far.

So these Objective markers are say specific Houses or downed planes or disabled tanks like a KT bogged in a field, a farm house on a hill.   Somthing to drive the players attention as extra spice.  My experiance is that in most games table top and computer that even though fighting is generally driven around these point clever players feint infront of the objective and flank around to make the position untennable for the player who can't feed re-enforcments.    If the Vps are placed correctly spawn artillery can stop players from pre capping on the defence all the locations and if the timer for capping is timed right not even a bike or m8 or kettenrad. 

Given current gamplay i think it would improve the style and context of play from where it is.   

Cheers Nev

 

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

sounds nice, but, like my little idea's, it will require more scar to be running in the background, and fl- does not really want to put too much more in, so i can understand why he is trying to find a solution with just sector layouts...

[fldash]

I wouldn't mind seeing a map with a sector layout like Nevyen posted as well.  Like Cozmo said, I don't really want to add any more SCAR coding because of the amount running concurrently right now.