Removing incompatible Relic maps.

[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 believe fl- already confirmed it is possible to 'hide' the relic maps in the map list that are simply incompatible with EiR or never get played, for whatever reason that may be. I've composed a list of maps that I personally believe are problematic and maps that I generally don't ever see getting played.

Like all polls, this poll is not binding, just to see if there's a general consensus amongst the public on which maps are absolutely shit and should be taken out of the maplist . You may vote for every option, or none, as you please.
By removing these maps, we'd get a nice clean list composed only out of those maps that people actually want to pick out of... rather than currently having to look your way through a pile of shitty maps.

I may have forgotten a map or two, let me know.
And yes, this list is pretty large but ask yourself this, have you ever played a match one one of these maps?
And if you had the guts to do so, was it actually an enjoyable experience?

[fldash]

Good idea...  

[Smithy17]

Gayboy's Harbour

I sense that unkn0wn doesn't like gilroy's harbour

[Unkn0wn]

Also keep in mind sooner or later we can come up with EiR versions of these maps.
So just because they get taken out now does not mean you'll never ever see them again, we can easily get some mappers together and revive/fix a lot of these maps to expand the map-choices further... but that's for later .

[Prydefalcn]

Aw guys, don't vote for Vire River Valley.  It's awesome if you agree not to torch the bridges.

[Unkn0wn]

It's not binding, although I for one can foresee a lot of those maps getting axed .
We can go into detail on certain maps later if certain people for instance truly believe map X or map Y provides in fact an enjoyable gameplay experience.

I can also imagine a lot of these maps have simply never been tested extensively (I'm mainly thinking of those 1vs1 maps).

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

I agree with commander newbie. If you don't blow the bridges Vire can be a fun map with a lot of action.

[Unkn0wn]

Same with Lyon really.

fl-, Any chance you could actually make all intact bridges indestructable through code? Destroying them really contributes absolutely nothing to the EiR gameplay, quite the contrary even, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

[newblette67]

no, because the bridge has to been put into a group on the map...besides didnt someone already do this?
http://forums.europeinruins.com/index.php/topic,3313.0.html
?

[fldash]

Yes.  I think so.  If you could provide a list of all destructible bridge entities.  It's really no different than the code I use to cycle thru and remove supply points from the map, although instead of removing them, I'll add a modifier to make them indestructible.

However, I'm on the fence.  I think map design has a lot to do with it.  Destroying a bridge and making a tank drive into a valley near the bridge is neat gameplay.  Destroying a bridge to completely eliminate them from getting across is bad gameplay (which is why Vire sucks).  So, I really think it should be a map by map basis as I can see instances where maps could have destructible bridges and be fun.

[BradAnderson]

i selected all of them 

[newblette67]

well some of the maps such as hedgrow dont have bridge issues but spawn isssues....

[Unkn0wn]

That's a very valid point but as to date I have yet to see an EiR map OR relic map that actually features bridges which plenty of alternative routes.
One could argue Vire River valley, Lyon, Montherme all offer one alternative, non destroyable bridge but funneling the enemy onto one passage is almostjust as bad as offering absolutely no passage.

We could indeed just release EiR versions of those maps with indestructable bridges but then we'd have to go around and re-release every map, where as a modification-based fix saves users the need to redownload the maps and doesn't require as much work as having to do it for every map manually...


I think for the time being, untill and if we ever get a good map that features destroyable bridges with plenty of alternative routes, just doing it within the modification should definately be considered... Just my 2 cents.

[Sach]

Etavaux is actually ok to play on, at least the time I did it seemed to work.

[newblette67]

an easy fix would be to have a variable like the OCP one so that you can turn it off if you want..but that doesnt fix spawn issues and sectors

[fldash]

but funneling the enemy onto one passage is almostjust as bad as offering absolutely no passage.

I agree.

We could indeed just release EiR versions of those maps with indestructable bridges but then we'd have to go around and re-release every map, where as a modification-based fix saves users the need to redownload the maps and doesn't require as much work as having to do it for every map manually...

Didn't someone already do all this?

No it wouldn't be possible for them to over-write the code...

[Unkn0wn]

Bonte was about to do that but it's much much easier if the mod takes care of this, rather than requiring everyone to download over 100mb of fixed bridge maps. Then if users still want to create a bridge map with destructable bridges, they could add a SCAR file to their map that allows them to overwrite the mod's anti-destruction code just for that map.

Edit: bah there goes that plan .
Still, the code could be reconsidered once and if someone ever makes a bridge map where destroyed bridges don't kill gameplay...

[fldash]

Forget it.  There are more problems with Relic maps than just bridges.  Bad spawns etc... I'd rather we eliminate maps that are just bad and can't be fixed, and offer alternatives to ones that can be fixed to make them a little better (via download).

[Ucross]

Agreed with fl-.  Just get good maps.

[Lolto]

Stock maps are needed at times, don't get rid of all of them.