I agree with Doba that there are too many unfamiliar maps. Just as I'm starting to learn a new exotic map, it changes and I don't get to see it again for days. I'm a perpetual newbie! Servers running UMMs need to have a small selection of popular UMMs and a couple of new developments for evaluation.
I suspect that discussions about "camping" "slow play" "tactical play" and other play strategies which annoy players not wanting to be involved with them are always going to have a wide range of non compatible opinions. The expression "It's all fair in love and war" may apply here. If a tactic works, even if the opposition hate it, a squad commander would always have to give it some priority. Boring the socks off defenders and then waiting for them to make a tactical error might not be entertaining but it needs a counter strategy to defeat it. If attackers are not presenting themselves to be killed by defence, they are probably not going to achieve the objectives and they will lose the match. But I think that players should accept that the game isn't just about firing weapons. The reason for objectives is to provide a purpose for the game rather than replay the Gunfight at the OK Corral over and over again.
I think that the weak spot in the game is the triviality of being wounded and death. If you were locked out of the game for a week when killed, you'd certainly play a lot differently. (I'm not say I would want that but it does put running around shooting wildly in its perspective) In real life most soldiers are not willing to exchange their lives for the lives of the enemy. They prefer to kill the enemy with a minimal risk to themselves if they can.
What I like about the Beer_Me server is the very friendly and considerate attitudes of the people that play there. I suspect that this is because it isn't limited solely to CQB maps where selfish scalp hunters tend to congregate. So the type of map may have another effect on the quality of the game. Or is it because they seem to be mainly Canadians.
I think an issue is that people don't want to put their maps out there until they're 100% complete (or close to it). In a way, If rather see people put out shells of maps to see how the map plays. If good, then continue work, make it look nice, add more detail, etc. If bad, go back and change it or even delete it.
Would save a lot of time instead of wasting hundreds of hours developing a map that ends up playing poorly.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
I agree with Doba that there are too many unfamiliar maps. Just as I'm starting to learn a new exotic map, it changes and I don't get to see it again for days. I'm a perpetual newbie! Servers running UMMs need to have a small selection of popular UMMs and a couple of new developments for evaluation.
I suspect that discussions about "camping" "slow play" "tactical play" and other play strategies which annoy players not wanting to be involved with them are always going to have a wide range of non compatible opinions. The expression "It's all fair in love and war" may apply here. If a tactic works, even if the opposition hate it, a squad commander would always have to give it some priority. Boring the socks off defenders and then waiting for them to make a tactical error might not be entertaining but it needs a counter strategy to defeat it. If attackers are not presenting themselves to be killed by defence, they are probably not going to achieve the objectives and they will lose the match. But I think that players should accept that the game isn't just about firing weapons. The reason for objectives is to provide a purpose for the game rather than replay the Gunfight at the OK Corral over and over again.
I think that the weak spot in the game is the triviality of being wounded and death. If you were locked out of the game for a week when killed, you'd certainly play a lot differently. (I'm not say I would want that but it does put running around shooting wildly in its perspective) In real life most soldiers are not willing to exchange their lives for the lives of the enemy. They prefer to kill the enemy with a minimal risk to themselves if they can.
What I like about the Beer_Me server is the very friendly and considerate attitudes of the people that play there. I suspect that this is because it isn't limited solely to CQB maps where selfish scalp hunters tend to congregate. So the type of map may have another effect on the quality of the game. Or is it because they seem to be mainly Canadians.
What an example of a tactic you have used?
People who play CQB maps are "selfish scalp hunters? LoL ok maybe 1/100 players, but lets define everyone who plays this game as one.
Come on guys chill out, it's freaking game for God sakes!!!!! Stop with this personal attack crap. It's bad enough we're small community, no need to make it smaller. To each his own. Everyone plays different.
Canada! Big. Wide. And very very cold. Here in the Great White North it snows 24 hours a day every day of the year. Its frozen landscape is dotted with igloos, homes for the vast majority of Canadians. Penguins and polar bears prowl the permafrost poaching and plundering.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
Come on guys chill out, it's freaking game for God sakes!!!!! Stop with this personal attack crap. It's bad enough we're small community, no need to make it smaller. To each his own. Everyone plays different.
^^^ I hear using this thumb is the new like button.
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
Listen guys, I like Canadians. My son is a Canadian!
I didn't mean to imply that all CQB player were selfish scalp hunters. I didn't even say that. I merely said that such players tend to congregate on CQB maps. I define selfish scalp hunters as players who never support their team mates, never stop to revive a team mate. Will never attempt to achieve an objective. Will seek to gain kills whether or not they are relevant to advancing the objective. Will camp on opfor bodies to kill medics. Will spray fire and granades regardless of whether it hits friend or foe. Haven't you come across players like that? I would bet that they are mainly found on CQB maps and almost never on large scale rural maps. It's not that I care whether players behave like that. If I know they are all going to be on maps like Inner Hospital or Bridge, I just don't play on maps like that. Perhaps because, to be honest, I just don't seem to have CQB capability. Possible because I'm an old doddery guy and possible because my computer has technical issues which seem to compromise very fast play.
But I'm not complaining, just discussing the maps I do prefer and seeing if there are kindred spirits who enjoy slower tactical play. When the play runs slower there is much more time to communicate and assist other players with battlefield intel. In real life the ultra fast CQB missions are planned and rehearsed with a specialist team again and again and all participants know what they are supposed to be doing and what they can expect their team mates to be doing and the whole thing works in seconds and is over before unsuspecting opfor realise it. AA doesn't work like that. And it takes a little while to encourage solo players to co-operate with their team members. In CQB maps there just isn't time to get that to work and most players run around doing their own thing. Some of them do it very well but I just don't find it very satisfying. I always experience a slight twinge of disappointment when the "neutralised" message comes up even if the team has won. I always feel a sense of satisfaction when my team wins and the "achieved the objective" message comes up. I'm sure we all play for our own amusement and as I said earlier, that's why I asked about large scale rural maps, because I like them.
The one common mistake I'm seeing with map makers is the attacking team has to come out of a tight entrance, corridor, rock pass etc... into a large open area where the defending team has over 20 places to hide which includes bushes.. (aka Inner style) its ridiculous.. creates massive unbalance..
Look how CS does it.. a similar map setup but defense has a limited number of places to hide. This works.. and one reason why CS maps get so much praise
I agree, that outdoor maps would be better served if there were less places to hide. Although let's be honest, outdoor maps don't exactly leave the most space for limiting hiding spots. I think the terrain can be used in a way to limit which areas players can use though. Mountains can be made more steep so players can't get on them. Cliffs can also be used to make valleys. Although allowing players on top of those cliffs, doesn't do a lot to fix the issue. Buildings, trees, and other objects can be used to cut the amount of area and the angle that a player can view from one spot. Really, there shouldn't be any one spot where a player can see across the map or have a full open view of an entire open area. It gives a good sniper/marksman too much power.
On another note, the map editor isn't all that hard to learn. It would be quite nice if people, especially comp players, would learn it and put out some maps. People seem to make it out like they know exactly what makes a perfect map. If you do, then spend some time and make a map. I was honestly expecting that once the map editor would come out, the comp community would get together and try to make top notch comp maps. I haven't seen that at all. You don't need to be putting out Wolverine quality work in terms of detail and such. A good design with basic textures and such would get the job done.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
People seem to make it out like they know exactly what makes a perfect map. If you do, then spend some time and make a map. I was honestly expecting that once the map editor would come out, the comp community would get together and try to make top notch comp maps. I haven't seen that at all. You don't need to be putting out Wolverine quality work in terms of detail and such. A good design with basic textures and such would get the job done.
Indeed, couldn’t agree more.. I mean, if you know whats best.. what works.. want the best.. then darn well make the effort and show us how to make the best
I'd love to see one, never mind play one!
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
I've been around level design in one way or another since 1998. I've made some good maps and lots of bad one, however, through all my years of doing this....., this if by far the hardest game to map for. It's almost impossible to make a decent layout with well balanced game-play. They way the weapons are set-up right now, it's pretty much hit or miss with layout. Unless we have control over what weapons, scopes and grenades are in our maps, it makes it ALMOST Impossible.
Tbh, yes I know this is crazy, for the sizes of the maps and gameplay for this game, I think rpg and grenade launchers are need to slow some of these powerful scopes lol.
Interestingly enough, I remember even as far back as a year or two ago, people saying that there will never be great maps for this game because of the weapon/scope/grenade issue. The one size fits all method just doesn't work for this game. This isn't CS where there's the economy system so that people are forced into different weapons and strategies based on how much money they (or their team) have. Going based on the CoD style of the free-for-all in all maps is not the way to go in this game.
Luckily, the game allows you to get rid of scoped weapons (for the most part), so that helps a bit. In my McKenna map, I got rid of the DM and Sniper class. Unfortunately, I left in the AR class, so there can be scopes there.
Grenades are another issue. I remember maps like Sandstorm not having them. It was a smart way to change the way the maps played.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
That's why I don't put much into when people say cs this cs that. It's is completely a different game. We can all agree that's dust and cache are the most popular maps in cs and mostly used for comp play, right? They are what you call well balanced. I can guarantee if I build them brick for brick the same for AAPG, they'd play completely different and be lopsided.
Trouble is with mapping, if you focus too much on the negatives to something.. you lose inspiration to want to create in the first place, at least that's how I feel.
I'd probably prefer to have a solely riflemen setup if I knew it meant the map would suffer with use of scopes, but honestly.. that stinks of a bandaid fix to me and is dumbing down the game for the sake of what an ACOG?.. Since it's doubtful things will change on the fireteam/loadout front.. just how do you develop a map to account for all these variety of things? and have that map be successful and not be discarded as OP for defense/assault, or badly imbalanced?
That seems to me like the million dollar question. If anyone knows the answer PM it to me so I can start making awesome AAPG maps
If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.
I agree, that outdoor maps would be better served if there were less places to hide. Although let's be honest, outdoor maps don't exactly leave the most space for limiting hiding spots. I think the terrain can be used in a way to limit which areas players can use though. Mountains can be made more steep so players can't get on them. Cliffs can also be used to make valleys. Although allowing players on top of those cliffs, doesn't do a lot to fix the issue. Buildings, trees, and other objects can be used to cut the amount of area and the angle that a player can view from one spot. Really, there shouldn't be any one spot where a player can see across the map or have a full open view of an entire open area. It gives a good sniper/marksman too much power.
On another note, the map editor isn't all that hard to learn. It would be quite nice if people, especially comp players, would learn it and put out some maps. People seem to make it out like they know exactly what makes a perfect map. If you do, then spend some time and make a map. I was honestly expecting that once the map editor would come out, the comp community would get together and try to make top notch comp maps. I haven't seen that at all. You don't need to be putting out Wolverine quality work in terms of detail and such. A good design with basic textures and such would get the job done.
I don't know where to begin with map editor nor do I have the time or patients, maybe if this game was more popular and I knew my map could potentially be successful and used in an active comp I would learn it but there is no competitive community on the NA side right now, There is an average of 1,028 players on at once, last month was 1,049 and in september it was 705. When game first came into open beta it was more popular for one month than it is now at an average of 1,326 players on at same time. At this point in time I just don't see why I would want to spend hours taking a chance on making a map and learning the map editor. If that average players on at once was more like 15k-20k or more than I would maybe consider. I would be more of a suggestions to your map layout add route here push spawn here etc that type of thing. General balance inquiries.
Interestingly enough, I remember even as far back as a year or two ago, people saying that there will never be great maps for this game because of the weapon/scope/grenade issue. The one size fits all method just doesn't work for this game. This isn't CS where there's the economy system so that people are forced into different weapons and strategies based on how much money they (or their team) have. Going based on the CoD style of the free-for-all in all maps is not the way to go in this game.
Luckily, the game allows you to get rid of scoped weapons (for the most part), so that helps a bit. In my McKenna map, I got rid of the DM and Sniper class. Unfortunately, I left in the AR class, so there can be scopes there.
Grenades are another issue. I remember maps like Sandstorm not having them. It was a smart way to change the way the maps played.
getting rid of scoped weapons for the most part is not good enough there should be solid design into what you want to allow on your map. What guns? Do you want to allow FOGS? flashes? nades? ETC.
America's Army proving grounds went for a cod clone instead of sticking to its true roots of having highly competitive skillful gameplay. In AA1/2 a small map like lockdown or cross fire for example would of had no nades. Also almost every one of these 6v6 would have no scopes. Im fine with one m24 but right now you go into a 6v6 Inner hospital you could have 6 out of 12 guys using scopes via DM role, AR eclan/susat or w/e and Sniper Role m24/m14 scoped. Thats ridiculous 50% of the server on 6v6 can be using high powered scopes. Lawl. On top of that you all want these big maps and there is one thing that is gonna be huge and stand in the way of making a big map good and that is REVIVES. You take out the sniper who is destroying your team but your way too far away to secure what do ya know he gets revived well your shooting someone else imediately knows where you are because you just killed him and takes you out. Big maps and open space maps are not going to be fun at all with revives. Good luck.
Comments
I suspect that discussions about "camping" "slow play" "tactical play" and other play strategies which annoy players not wanting to be involved with them are always going to have a wide range of non compatible opinions. The expression "It's all fair in love and war" may apply here. If a tactic works, even if the opposition hate it, a squad commander would always have to give it some priority. Boring the socks off defenders and then waiting for them to make a tactical error might not be entertaining but it needs a counter strategy to defeat it. If attackers are not presenting themselves to be killed by defence, they are probably not going to achieve the objectives and they will lose the match. But I think that players should accept that the game isn't just about firing weapons. The reason for objectives is to provide a purpose for the game rather than replay the Gunfight at the OK Corral over and over again.
I think that the weak spot in the game is the triviality of being wounded and death. If you were locked out of the game for a week when killed, you'd certainly play a lot differently. (I'm not say I would want that but it does put running around shooting wildly in its perspective) In real life most soldiers are not willing to exchange their lives for the lives of the enemy. They prefer to kill the enemy with a minimal risk to themselves if they can.
What I like about the Beer_Me server is the very friendly and considerate attitudes of the people that play there. I suspect that this is because it isn't limited solely to CQB maps where selfish scalp hunters tend to congregate. So the type of map may have another effect on the quality of the game. Or is it because they seem to be mainly Canadians.
Would save a lot of time instead of wasting hundreds of hours developing a map that ends up playing poorly.
What an example of a tactic you have used?
People who play CQB maps are "selfish scalp hunters? LoL ok maybe 1/100 players, but lets define everyone who plays this game as one.
Oh and btw I am canadian.
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
My Portfolio / Site
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
My Portfolio / Site
^^^ I hear using this thumb is the new like button.
I didn't mean to imply that all CQB player were selfish scalp hunters. I didn't even say that. I merely said that such players tend to congregate on CQB maps. I define selfish scalp hunters as players who never support their team mates, never stop to revive a team mate. Will never attempt to achieve an objective. Will seek to gain kills whether or not they are relevant to advancing the objective. Will camp on opfor bodies to kill medics. Will spray fire and granades regardless of whether it hits friend or foe. Haven't you come across players like that? I would bet that they are mainly found on CQB maps and almost never on large scale rural maps. It's not that I care whether players behave like that. If I know they are all going to be on maps like Inner Hospital or Bridge, I just don't play on maps like that. Perhaps because, to be honest, I just don't seem to have CQB capability. Possible because I'm an old doddery guy and possible because my computer has technical issues which seem to compromise very fast play.
But I'm not complaining, just discussing the maps I do prefer and seeing if there are kindred spirits who enjoy slower tactical play. When the play runs slower there is much more time to communicate and assist other players with battlefield intel. In real life the ultra fast CQB missions are planned and rehearsed with a specialist team again and again and all participants know what they are supposed to be doing and what they can expect their team mates to be doing and the whole thing works in seconds and is over before unsuspecting opfor realise it. AA doesn't work like that. And it takes a little while to encourage solo players to co-operate with their team members. In CQB maps there just isn't time to get that to work and most players run around doing their own thing. Some of them do it very well but I just don't find it very satisfying. I always experience a slight twinge of disappointment when the "neutralised" message comes up even if the team has won. I always feel a sense of satisfaction when my team wins and the "achieved the objective" message comes up. I'm sure we all play for our own amusement and as I said earlier, that's why I asked about large scale rural maps, because I like them.
Look how CS does it.. a similar map setup but defense has a limited number of places to hide. This works.. and one reason why CS maps get so much praise
This AA style needs to stop.
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
On another note, the map editor isn't all that hard to learn. It would be quite nice if people, especially comp players, would learn it and put out some maps. People seem to make it out like they know exactly what makes a perfect map. If you do, then spend some time and make a map. I was honestly expecting that once the map editor would come out, the comp community would get together and try to make top notch comp maps. I haven't seen that at all. You don't need to be putting out Wolverine quality work in terms of detail and such. A good design with basic textures and such would get the job done.
Indeed, couldn’t agree more.. I mean, if you know whats best.. what works.. want the best.. then darn well make the effort and show us how to make the best
I'd love to see one, never mind play one!
Tbh, yes I know this is crazy, for the sizes of the maps and gameplay for this game, I think rpg and grenade launchers are need to slow some of these powerful scopes lol.
My Portfolio / Site
Luckily, the game allows you to get rid of scoped weapons (for the most part), so that helps a bit. In my McKenna map, I got rid of the DM and Sniper class. Unfortunately, I left in the AR class, so there can be scopes there.
Grenades are another issue. I remember maps like Sandstorm not having them. It was a smart way to change the way the maps played.
My Portfolio / Site
I'd probably prefer to have a solely riflemen setup if I knew it meant the map would suffer with use of scopes, but honestly.. that stinks of a bandaid fix to me and is dumbing down the game for the sake of what an ACOG?.. Since it's doubtful things will change on the fireteam/loadout front.. just how do you develop a map to account for all these variety of things? and have that map be successful and not be discarded as OP for defense/assault, or badly imbalanced?
That seems to me like the million dollar question. If anyone knows the answer PM it to me so I can start making awesome AAPG maps
I don't know where to begin with map editor nor do I have the time or patients, maybe if this game was more popular and I knew my map could potentially be successful and used in an active comp I would learn it but there is no competitive community on the NA side right now, There is an average of 1,028 players on at once, last month was 1,049 and in september it was 705. When game first came into open beta it was more popular for one month than it is now at an average of 1,326 players on at same time. At this point in time I just don't see why I would want to spend hours taking a chance on making a map and learning the map editor. If that average players on at once was more like 15k-20k or more than I would maybe consider. I would be more of a suggestions to your map layout add route here push spawn here etc that type of thing. General balance inquiries.
getting rid of scoped weapons for the most part is not good enough there should be solid design into what you want to allow on your map. What guns? Do you want to allow FOGS? flashes? nades? ETC.
America's Army proving grounds went for a cod clone instead of sticking to its true roots of having highly competitive skillful gameplay. In AA1/2 a small map like lockdown or cross fire for example would of had no nades. Also almost every one of these 6v6 would have no scopes. Im fine with one m24 but right now you go into a 6v6 Inner hospital you could have 6 out of 12 guys using scopes via DM role, AR eclan/susat or w/e and Sniper Role m24/m14 scoped. Thats ridiculous 50% of the server on 6v6 can be using high powered scopes. Lawl. On top of that you all want these big maps and there is one thing that is gonna be huge and stand in the way of making a big map good and that is REVIVES. You take out the sniper who is destroying your team but your way too far away to secure what do ya know he gets revived well your shooting someone else imediately knows where you are because you just killed him and takes you out. Big maps and open space maps are not going to be fun at all with revives. Good luck.