argentan is unbalanced.

[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

[UnLimiTeD]

I didn't want to revive this thread, but I wanted to post here 2 weeks ago and just forgot it, what I just noticed.

I think the psychological effect of the maps layout on the players.
As there is no cover in the fields, players are tempted to stay in the city, in cover, while the attacker will be forced to move in, being rewarded with cover once he reaches the city.
Counterattacking from the city will result in losing cover.
It may sound weird, but more cover in the fields (in sight of the city buildings, with redcover, empty space between) might actually benefit the defenders.
Same problem the other way around, or both sides, on at the chateau:

If you move in, you can barely find cover, the enemy has a big building for MGs and plenty of space between his AT guns and your vehicles, which in turn have no space of circling around.

On the other side of the buildings, in the fields, there is actually cover, but the way to it is by far too long for a counterattack against the fields.

The map works fine in EiR, but in TLS the fields have the advantage of greater mobility, especially at start, where they can rush straight up while defenders need to find their way through the cities streets.

Maybe more closed hegderows and some infantry pathblockers near the walls, less in the inner city, would even the fronts.

When playing TLS, I always encountered the allies one standardzoom sreen away from the walls, inside the city.

[Thtb]

I love this map.

[Generic]

bunkers?

[Warbirds]

If I constrained the map more than people would bitch like they did before when I first had people beta test it.

[Bodybag2224-Armor]

The problem I think is that the fighting takes place so far over that you lose 1 or two territories and its neutral or negetive pop cap. If the city was larger or the fields smaller I think the MCP would work beautifully. Right now the fights take place like this |-------x--h---------| h=halfway of the map (not necessarily the sectors) and x is the fighting. I've never seen any combat in the fields.

[WikingTLS]

If I constrained the map more than people would bitch like they did before when I first had people beta test it.

You dont need to be so defensive about constructive criticism on your map. People are saying 'almost, but not quite', they arent saying 'oh it looks like shit, you stink'. Not to mention this is based off of statistics of games played on the map. Take it as a compliment that people would rather see your map improve instead of just never playing it again.

[Unkn0wn]

Needs a lot more splats and splines too. Needs to be dirtied up a lot too, and more opcacity/transparanncy usage.
Needs a better atmosphere too, the current one is absolute shit and makes your map look shitty too.

[DaysOfWarTLS]

Don't listen to Unkn0wn. He thinks he's a mapping god. Really, gameplay > looking good, so get that down first.

[UnLimiTeD2]

Don't listen to DaysofWar, he doesn't understand irony.

[Unkn0wn]

I wasn't being ironic actually.
A map needs both gameplay and graphics. Yes, gameplay comes first but as long as it lacks graphics it'll still be a poor map that gets little credit. Maybe you like playing a map that looks like a cardboard cutout but I don't. If you never get both down you'll never really have accomplished a 'final' map.

Getting a map to play properly gameplay wise is a lot easier than getting a map to look good. Unfortunately some people (like Skunker :p) seem to fail horrible at the first part though.

[Warbirds]

Consider playing on one of the other 3 or 4 atmosphere settings?  (I like the thunderstorm best.)

Also, I'm not sure why, but the base atmoshpere the map starts out with looks absolutely beautiful to me in WB.  It doesn't look like it does in WB when it's being played for some reason.  Almost none of them look right in-game; they look good only in WB.

And Unkn0wn, if you're such a master of the art of mapping, why don't you take a shot at it?  I'm guessing that unless anyone except yourself makes a map; it looks like shit to you.  Speaking of which, RTC is bland, and sort of what you described; a card board cut-out.

[Unkn0wn]

If you can't take some tough criticism than you shouldn't have become a mapper.
Toughen up, you can speak shit about my maps all you want, I don't care because some of them are on top of the most played map list so far me that's considered a success .

[Thtb]

How to switch maps again?

They are only played so much because they start with A like Abeville , then we also have maps that start with C that are also decently often played like Crossroads and Clusterfuck.

[UnDeaD_CyBorG]

If he adds that much more it will lag again, like abbeville winter once did.

[BoDyBaG2224TLS]

Fuck is no one even acknowleding anything I'm posting. The biggest problem i think is the sector layout due to where the majority of the fighting takes place. A simple revision me thinks would do the trick.

And Warbirds...calm down. allow me to use caps for the next point: WE WANT TO PLAY THE MAP, BUT THERE ARE ISSUES AROUND IT THAT GIVES IT THE SILVER INSTEAD OF THE GOLD. ALL THERE NEEDS TO BE DONE IS A LITTLE BIT OF POLISHING AND THEN IT WILL BE A GREAT MAP. WE ARE NOT SAYING IT SUCKS WHY DID YOU MAKE IT ALL WE WANT IS FOR IT TO BE MODIFIED SO THAT I PLAYS BETTER. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN TO ALL MAPPERS OF ALL SKILLS/AGE/SIZE/SOMETHINGELSE. ALL WE ARE GIVING IS SOME FEEDBACK TO MAKE THE MAP BETTER. [END OF CAPS].

So you see?

[Kolath]

True, or you can change the structural damage to the roof.

Correct.  That will fix the issue with collapsing buildings.  The problem is that if too many walls at the bottom die, the whole building goes down.  You can still have half HP and damage, but if it is to the roof, the buildings will last longer.

At the very least, the invisible walls need to be fixed.  I think it is an issue with some of the hedgerows being burned but still there so it looks passable but it is actually heavy crush! 

[Days of War]

If you can't take some tough criticism than you shouldn't have become a mapper.
Toughen up, you can speak shit about my maps all you want, I don't care because some of them are on top of the most played map list so far me that's considered a success .

Because of game play, not looks. You make some of the most balanced maps.

[Unkn0wn]

The biggest problem with urban maps in vCOH is also seen in Argentan (And Vierville for that matter).

1. Too many buildings still able to be occupied, just look at Lyon, the majority of the buildings should be rubbish.
2. too narrow streets, it's claustrophobic and generally a bitch to move around the city, and the roadblocks sometimes force you to do a massive detour.
3. Sectors (see others)

[Rahx]

The biggest problem with urban maps in vCOH is also seen in Argentan (And Vierville for that matter).

1. Too many buildings still able to be occupied, just look at Lyon, the majority of the buildings should be rubbish.
2. too narrow streets, it's claustrophobic and generally a bitch to move around the city, and the roadblocks sometimes force you to do a massive detour.
3. Sectors (see others)

Thats what an urban map is made for, except for number 3...

Agreed, shitty looking maps tend to be not fun.
Like that airfield map with it's "pulsing glow" all over... That really got me from ever playing it again.

I find Argentan pretty cool.. the only thing what is bad of the maker is to put an ugly picture as loading screen!

[Unkn0wn]

No, look at Relic's urban maps. It's the only way Urban maps work.