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

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

If I am seeing it correctly, nev's has the x |||||||||| y layout with VP area's overlayed sort of like objectives, unless it is possible to make a sector give one of two things, either VP's or MCP i can't see how it will work with out more scar, but this may just be me reading it wrong.

[salan]

if you could have a second kind of sector that gave vps, that would work.

but again its more of a scar thing 

[fldash]

I was thinking this sector layout:

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

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

so you make the middle and early flanks uncappable?

[fldash]

All are capturable based on supply from your spawn.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

so what do the '|' represent? or are the middle and early flanks single large sectors?

[fldash]

| are sectors... It's 4 single sectors on either side of a dual sector width (like Carentan).

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

So it is 3 sectors from top to bottom 4 sectors long from side to side at the top and bottom and 9 sectors long in the middle.

TBH i may just be too tired ATM .

[fldash]

No, it's 1 sector the entire length of the map from each spawn for 4 sectors.  Then it's split in two like RTC for 3 sectors.

[Nevyen]

my idea looks to use the existing listening post things in the VCOH vp game that you have to cap, just remodled to represent a house or military asset.

lay it over the sector layout, and yes i guess it would require scar coding and i've never looked at it before so not sure if i could do it myself.  

Might think about reading some guides and so on about scar to teach myself.  But the idea is to have both systems working in tandem.   So while you cap territory it won't help you win the game alone you need to hold the key points on the map to win effectivly.  They are the key.  Thus players don't just play the cap game they need to apply a coherant startergy to win the objective and gain ground as well.

This means that also you can't go for one in deferance to the other, no airborne 2 squad drops in a random area or storms roaming free.  You need to hold a combination of both to win.  The vp positions also show up cloaked units so no camping you have to declare your intentions to take the position.  

Anyway maybe after 2.0 we can look at rather than before.

[scrapking]

my idea looks to use the existing listening post things in the VCOH vp game that you have to cap, just remodled to represent a house or military asset.

lay it over the sector layout, and yes i guess it would require scar coding and i've never looked at it before so not sure if i could do it myself.  

Might think about reading some guides and so on about scar to teach myself.  But the idea is to have both systems working in tandem.   So while you cap territory it won't help you win the game alone you need to hold the key points on the map to win effectivly.  They are the key.  Thus players don't just play the cap game they need to apply a coherant startergy to win the objective and gain ground as well.

This means that also you can't go for one in deferance to the other, no airborne 2 squad drops in a random area or storms roaming free.  You need to hold a combination of both to win.  The vp positions also show up cloaked units so no camping you have to declare your intentions to take the position.  

Anyway maybe after 2.0 we can look at rather than before.

To save the effort of changing coding, could you sort of accomplish the same thing by having a really small sector (the radius  diameter of maybe 2 tanks end to end) inside a larger sector?  i.e. need the big sector to take the small sector, but it would double the value of that area if you controlled the objective within?

[AmPM]

You could do that, even going so far as to make it 2-3 small sectors.

[scrapking]

You could do that, even going so far as to make it 2-3 small sectors.

Exactly.

But an important question here:

How does the actual number of sectors affect MCP?  Assume FL- implemenation, so that we are not including sector capping race on the flanks.  Simply the number of sectors.

Does MCP work by a % sector controlled? or a function of a flat number?

We need to really consider this exact relationship, and how it affects gameplay in our maps.

[Nevyen]

Hmm intersting from a mappers perspective that might be the easier way to go and then place a suitable item in it to represent an objective.  The sector shuould be big enough to fit the item but not big enough to place heaps of units in it. Hmm maybe ill have a go at it tonight on world builder to see if its fesible,  though i think it is so ill have a go at it, im sure ampm can try it as well.  

Say a building that is occupyable or a heavy cover tank.  

HMMM  i need to know how to manipulate sectors and have a go at it.

[AmPM]

I'm going with a % from how it affects games, either way, making 3 sectors spread out that have 3 more small sectors inside them would make an objective style game.

[fldash]

For all sakes and purposes, it's % territory owned based.

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

fldash: i finaly understand what you ment with that sector layout, and it sounds nice, would stop back capping.

[Nevyen]

The only thing that concerns me that its % of territory held is that my origonal idea has it that even though you don't hold the sector you can hold the vp thus glorious final defence or stubborn fingernail hold on will support it moved on. Since MCP requires supply line that might not work in general maybe (i might not be seeing somthing)....

Somthing to test anyway.  Maybe a version of the new AMPM map might see if its fesible.  Up for mapping it that way AMPM?  Make it 6 vps as i have it outlined with fls  sector approach and place such items as downed planes and damaged tanks and houses in the objective sectors.  Im up for testing it out when i get in since ive come to the conclusion that i can't compete in the company or leaderboard not enough games played and all that but im up for messing around with maps:P 

Develop somthing new that works!!  fun fun

[scrapking]

The only thing that concerns me that its % of territory held is that my origonal idea has it that even though you don't hold the sector you can hold the vp thus glorious final defence or stubborn fingernail hold on will support it moved on. Since MCP requires supply line that might not work in general maybe (i might not be seeing somthing)....

Somthing to test anyway.  Maybe a version of the new AMPM map might see if its fesible.  Up for mapping it that way AMPM?  Make it 6 vps as i have it outlined with fls  sector approach and place such items as downed planes and damaged tanks and houses in the objective sectors.  Im up for testing it out when i get in since ive come to the conclusion that i can't compete in the company or leaderboard not enough games played and all that but im up for messing around with maps:P 

Develop somthing new that works!!  fun fun

The real problem with your idea, and I'm not saying I don't like it, is that it relies on altering the MCP system entirely.  It adds a new victory check, and I would probably focus on making what we currently have, work, rather than revamping it.

[Nevyen]

Well problems aside, i think there should be somthing out there to offer as a viable alternative and if its worked on and presented as somthing that works through testing whats the harm?

1st part of that post scrap leans to what id like but 2nd part is about seeing if MCP in its current form would work.  So im going ahead with it anyway.