Come on guys, let's all just forget this and move, this isn't helping anyone. We're small community and becoming smaller everyday. We should all be helping each other and not attacking each other.
Colts, if you want to learn the editor, I can help and teach you what I know. This way it will allow you to make maps.
Doba, constructive feedback is always welcomed. It's ok if you tell me my map is crap, it will only make me work harder on the next one to make it better.
Guys there is room for everyone in this game. Some just play different than others.
There is no right or wrong here.
As most of you know, my steam is on all the time. If you are serious about learning something hit me and I'll do my best to get you there.
It's easy for anyone to be Internet, I respect the person who is humble and trying to help others.
"Great leaders don't tell you what to do, they show you how it is done!"
I never said anything was crap..nor did I diss anyone simple stated what I saw..It was actually a nice snow night map that would benefit from a second obj...but I guess not... instead I got idiots telling me if I don't like it leave ..then was kicked..that's cool.
Doba, I wasn't saying you did... I said you can say that to me and I wouldn't be offended. In other words I rather have someone tell me the truth about my map(s) to make them better than to have them sit and collect dust because they're crap.
It seems to me everyone enjoys the game differently, There is room for everyone to play and have fun. Our servers are for fun , you can run yours anyway you like.
As for people being kicked , Doba you were kicked for disrupting the game play in our server , you came in the server to further escalate the argument from the forums , I know it and you know it. While you seem to be able to do as you please here , You will not bring it to my server.
As for you Colts you were asked by me not to play in the server because so many people (Not Beer_Me)
voiced their concern over your gameplay to the point that they were not playing there as long as you were there. Its quite simple we play for fun and you play for competition , Why is it so hard for you guys to understand that not everyone wants to play the game your way.
There are 9 pages of people voicing their opinion here and you 2 seem to be the only ones who can't accept this.
I won't say anymore we will let the players decide what they want and you guys have fun your way.
Yah I am not talking about that instance but I remember that as well and I was not removed from your server at that time. But before that I was playing you were not around it was just lobo that I know of in the beer me server 6v6 on breach and I got kicked for simply being better than he was i guess. Oh well its your server but I simply cannot have respect for someone like lobo because of it sorry.
As for map I see no reason to spend hrs learning the map editor on a game that averages maybe 1500 players on at the same time a day. Don't know how it is so hard for you to understand that someone with more experience is obviously going to have better knowledge on the subject of what makes a good map or what small changes need to be done like 2 objectives instead of 1 etc. It's not hard. Nobody makes a perfect map that doesn't need small changes for game balance or tweaks. But I guess its pretty hard to balance your map out if you have no idea/clue what it means or where to begin.
It's pretty simple yet I already know it needs to be said.
Route timings - Are you happy with where each side can meet up sprinting from spawn? Does one side have too many advantages to their routes. Does defense get to all the good places before assault? Does assault get to too many good places before defense or is it even?
Multiple Objectives - If you have a big map you want to have multiple objectives to use the entire map space and increase the number of strategies you can use so it does not feel like the same thing every round. Which makes maps more fun obviously and also more balanced so Defense can't camp one objective all game long they have to guess where your gonna go and will lead to defense having to rotate which makes communication a valuable thing for your map.
3-5 routes/choke points - Can you get to the objective in more than 2 ways? Do you have 3-4 or more routes for each side to take in your map? Is there enough routes/chokepoints so 12v12 does not become a cluster? Is there more than one angle to watch in some routes/spots?
Sightlines - Does either side have a spot in the map where they can see all the routes or every main angle or the entire map for that matter? If so that is bad. Does defense have better cover/buildings/objects on their side of the map that they don't have to fight to gain? Or is it fairly balanced? Do both sides have the same number of good sightlines/spots?
Spamnades - Are there some buildings or rocks or anything blocking the ability to spam nade or can you spam nade any where on the map?
There is a lot more that one can come up with when providing feedback on a map or reviewing a map with a complete layout. If you are making a map and are not asking yourself any of these questions than you should not expect it to be very fun to play unless you get really lucky.
Thank you for your opinion once again, but I think I'd prefer to listen to the people that play here everyday and not you.
Thanks anyway.
youre playing with people that play there no matter what, 1 obj, 5 obj they dont know any better, they still will tell you its a good map.. however youll continue to only play with the same people.. I guess thats fine with such a small player base.. oh well.. we tried
Thank you for your opinion once again, but I think I'd prefer to listen to the people that play here everyday and not you.
Thanks anyway.
lol that about sums it up. There's no hope for you. Your map will never make it if it doesn't fit some of those requirements. It's not my opinion it's common sense. If you look at every single map the AAPG devs have made you will notice something fairly consistent with my check list. But oh well I guess it's like teaching someone how to shoot with their mouse via team speak. Never gonna get it.
Your right , that's my point exactly this is not a contest for everyone only those who play the game the way the developers intended it to be. Enjoy it!
Without any consideration whatsoever for time limit or broader map design principles...
What happens when there is only a single objective victory condition?
Offense must either eliminate all resistance or attempt to draw defenders away from the objective site to win by objective.
Defenders know exactly which location they must defend; any other defender placements need only prevent flanks
What happens when there are multiple objective victory conditions?
Offense can choose to focus on one area... or to split up and probe for weaknesses
Defense can choose to focus on one objective proactively and reactively to others, or defense can choose to split up and try to cover both simultaneously
(This is intentionally a bit simplistic, but let's look at some consequences anyway.)
On large maps especially, single objectives can help focus players in on a particular area, ideally reducing how frequently the last players alive are grossly out of position (generally a frustrating experience for *everyone* involved). Multiple victory objectives on large maps can cause frustration when half the defenders at Location A can't get over fast enough to prevent a loss when the defenders at Location B are overrun by the entire enemy team. A lot of consideration has to go into giving the defenders reasonably safe options for rotating between the objective locations in a reasonable amount of time.
Something to be careful of with a single objective placement is the number of options for covering it that are available to the defenders, especially in open areas with long sightlines. Multiple long sightlines to an objective are hard to clear at all, let alone in a timely manner.
None of this is targeted at any map in particular. In general:
Single-objective maps need to pay particular attention to giving assault good options for flanking/coordinating and limiting how intensely defense can cover the objective site
Single-objective design can focus play in to one region of a large map, leaving more of the outskirts available for flanks or less predictable play
Multiple-objective maps need to pay particular attention to giving defense good options for rotation and limiting how quickly assault can overwhelm one particular position
Multiple-objective design can place heavy emphasis on team coordination as defense reacts to assault's plays and assault tries to identify the holes in the defenders before making a move
One type of design isn't, IMO, categorically better than the other. Either type can be executed well or executed poorly. That said, I do tend to feel that multiple-objective design is more conducive to player communication and coordinated action, while single-objective maps encourage Lone Wolf play on flank routes since direct assaults on the objective are likely to feel suicidal.
Thanks Saccho , that seems to be a fair analysis, there is indeed more than one type of strategy ,
And yes Colts again you make my point very clear , thanks for underscoring that for me.
That would be great if the developers were actually the ones playing the game.
Your ignorance never disappoints buddy!
On large maps especially, single objectives can help focus players in on a particular area, ideally reducing how frequently the last players alive are grossly out of position (generally a frustrating experience for *everyone* involved).
........ .... ....
while single-objective maps encourage Lone Wolf play on flank routes since direct assaults on the objective are likely to feel suicidal.
I feel like these two statements are a little contradicting .. and unfortunately the game doesn't play out as the first states it would.
I agree that players should focus more on one general area ie. The obj.. however the complete opposite happens as described in the latter statement.. people feel going for obj is suicide so they use the outskirts, they camp (while on attack) which leads to that particular part where it says.. [generally a frustrating experience for *everyone* involved).
It doesn't help that 10 out of 12 players per team can have 4x scopes. (At least on some maps, that was the case on the map in discussion]
@ Doba and Colts - you may think multiple objectives is the best way and would always give a better result, but I don't think that is true. I can't remember how many times on Harbor Assault I have seen 1-2 people left on each team, and after taking one objective (X), the team goes after the other objective (Y), but whilst they go, the other team has moved on X and taken it.
OK, so then you take X, then wait on X for the other team. But the other team have decided to camp Y, and the round ends in a goring draw.
Then you've got maps with single objectives like Downtown and Bridge. A well coordinated team on Assault can complete the objective (although Bridge is more difficult with only 4 minutes if defence are good at rush suppression) even though getting to the objective is suicide if there are still defenders alive.
It is not how many objectives that matter, it is the design of the map layout, and how well organised the teams are. Someone who camps will camp if there is 1 objective or 15.
Also, for you to say to a map designer that the map needs a second objective is very simplistic. A map is laid out around where the two teams spawn and where the objective is. Once the map is built, to then add a second objective which is in a balanced position can be a very difficult process, without redoing large parts of the map.
I think this is why people are suggesting you try map making, as some of your suggestions for improvement might have far reaching challenges to the design.
Some maps do it quite well. One of the beer me maps called woods is a great example. It's a mixed objective map. Either blow up a bomb in the middle cave or take the two occupy objectives in the outer part of the map.
Unfortunately, the only downside of the map is that one of the two occupy objectives is impossible for D to defend (assault can take the obj before D can get there), so they essentially focus on Y and Z. Either way, it's really neat and provides some really good gameplay.
You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
@watcher.. dude sorry you can't compare harbor which is activated with two maps running extraction...complete different thing.. and I agree extraction would work much better on these maps than 1 bomb site
Thanks Saccho , that seems to be a fair analysis, there is indeed more than one type of strategy ,
And yes Colts again you make my point very clear , thanks for underscoring that for me.
That would be great if the developers were actually the ones playing the game.
Your ignorance never disappoints buddy!
The developers do play the game maybe they just don't play on your server I guess.
@ Doba and Colts - you may think multiple objectives is the best way and would always give a better result, but I don't think that is true. I can't remember how many times on Harbor Assault I have seen 1-2 people left on each team, and after taking one objective (X), the team goes after the other objective (Y), but whilst they go, the other team has moved on X and taken it.
OK, so then you take X, then wait on X for the other team. But the other team have decided to camp Y, and the round ends in a goring draw.
Then you've got maps with single objectives like Downtown and Bridge. A well coordinated team on Assault can complete the objective (although Bridge is more difficult with only 4 minutes if defence are good at rush suppression) even though getting to the objective is suicide if there are still defenders alive.
It is not how many objectives that matter, it is the design of the map layout, and how well organised the teams are. Someone who camps will camp if there is 1 objective or 15.
Also, for you to say to a map designer that the map needs a second objective is very simplistic. A map is laid out around where the two teams spawn and where the objective is. Once the map is built, to then add a second objective which is in a balanced position can be a very difficult process, without redoing large parts of the map.
I think this is why people are suggesting you try map making, as some of your suggestions for improvement might have far reaching challenges to the design.
Thats because when you start taking an activated objective like that in an Assault vs Assault manor it should go back to neutral as soon as someone starts it that would stop your issue. Also Harbour Assault is a terrible example both teams are attacking. Same with downtown and bridge...They are basically both straight lines through the map. Lets me make this clear for you not every map needs 2 objectives the BIG ones I hope you know what a big map is are the ones that need 2. Also with an extract the flag game mode you generally only need one extraction. Assuming the flag is in a neutral zone. That neither side wins by being able to get to it quicker than the other.
Comments
Colts, if you want to learn the editor, I can help and teach you what I know. This way it will allow you to make maps.
Doba, constructive feedback is always welcomed. It's ok if you tell me my map is crap, it will only make me work harder on the next one to make it better.
Guys there is room for everyone in this game. Some just play different than others.
There is no right or wrong here.
As most of you know, my steam is on all the time. If you are serious about learning something hit me and I'll do my best to get you there.
It's easy for anyone to be Internet, I respect the person who is humble and trying to help others.
"Great leaders don't tell you what to do, they show you how it is done!"
My Portfolio / Site
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
My Portfolio / Site
Yah I am not talking about that instance but I remember that as well and I was not removed from your server at that time. But before that I was playing you were not around it was just lobo that I know of in the beer me server 6v6 on breach and I got kicked for simply being better than he was i guess. Oh well its your server but I simply cannot have respect for someone like lobo because of it sorry.
As for map I see no reason to spend hrs learning the map editor on a game that averages maybe 1500 players on at the same time a day. Don't know how it is so hard for you to understand that someone with more experience is obviously going to have better knowledge on the subject of what makes a good map or what small changes need to be done like 2 objectives instead of 1 etc. It's not hard. Nobody makes a perfect map that doesn't need small changes for game balance or tweaks. But I guess its pretty hard to balance your map out if you have no idea/clue what it means or where to begin.
Route timings - Are you happy with where each side can meet up sprinting from spawn? Does one side have too many advantages to their routes. Does defense get to all the good places before assault? Does assault get to too many good places before defense or is it even?
Multiple Objectives - If you have a big map you want to have multiple objectives to use the entire map space and increase the number of strategies you can use so it does not feel like the same thing every round. Which makes maps more fun obviously and also more balanced so Defense can't camp one objective all game long they have to guess where your gonna go and will lead to defense having to rotate which makes communication a valuable thing for your map.
3-5 routes/choke points - Can you get to the objective in more than 2 ways? Do you have 3-4 or more routes for each side to take in your map? Is there enough routes/chokepoints so 12v12 does not become a cluster? Is there more than one angle to watch in some routes/spots?
Sightlines - Does either side have a spot in the map where they can see all the routes or every main angle or the entire map for that matter? If so that is bad. Does defense have better cover/buildings/objects on their side of the map that they don't have to fight to gain? Or is it fairly balanced? Do both sides have the same number of good sightlines/spots?
Spamnades - Are there some buildings or rocks or anything blocking the ability to spam nade or can you spam nade any where on the map?
There is a lot more that one can come up with when providing feedback on a map or reviewing a map with a complete layout. If you are making a map and are not asking yourself any of these questions than you should not expect it to be very fun to play unless you get really lucky.
Thanks anyway.
youre playing with people that play there no matter what, 1 obj, 5 obj they dont know any better, they still will tell you its a good map.. however youll continue to only play with the same people.. I guess thats fine with such a small player base.. oh well.. we tried
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
lol that about sums it up. There's no hope for you. Your map will never make it if it doesn't fit some of those requirements. It's not my opinion it's common sense. If you look at every single map the AAPG devs have made you will notice something fairly consistent with my check list. But oh well I guess it's like teaching someone how to shoot with their mouse via team speak. Never gonna get it.
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
What happens when there is only a single objective victory condition?
What happens when there are multiple objective victory conditions?
- Offense can choose to focus on one area... or to split up and probe for weaknesses
- Defense can choose to focus on one objective proactively and reactively to others, or defense can choose to split up and try to cover both simultaneously
(This is intentionally a bit simplistic, but let's look at some consequences anyway.)On large maps especially, single objectives can help focus players in on a particular area, ideally reducing how frequently the last players alive are grossly out of position (generally a frustrating experience for *everyone* involved). Multiple victory objectives on large maps can cause frustration when half the defenders at Location A can't get over fast enough to prevent a loss when the defenders at Location B are overrun by the entire enemy team. A lot of consideration has to go into giving the defenders reasonably safe options for rotating between the objective locations in a reasonable amount of time.
Something to be careful of with a single objective placement is the number of options for covering it that are available to the defenders, especially in open areas with long sightlines. Multiple long sightlines to an objective are hard to clear at all, let alone in a timely manner.
None of this is targeted at any map in particular. In general:
One type of design isn't, IMO, categorically better than the other. Either type can be executed well or executed poorly. That said, I do tend to feel that multiple-objective design is more conducive to player communication and coordinated action, while single-objective maps encourage Lone Wolf play on flank routes since direct assaults on the objective are likely to feel suicidal.
And yes Colts again you make my point very clear , thanks for underscoring that for me.
That would be great if the developers were actually the ones playing the game.
Your ignorance never disappoints buddy!
I feel like these two statements are a little contradicting .. and unfortunately the game doesn't play out as the first states it would.
I agree that players should focus more on one general area ie. The obj.. however the complete opposite happens as described in the latter statement.. people feel going for obj is suicide so they use the outskirts, they camp (while on attack) which leads to that particular part where it says.. [generally a frustrating experience for *everyone* involved).
It doesn't help that 10 out of 12 players per team can have 4x scopes. (At least on some maps, that was the case on the map in discussion]
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
OK, so then you take X, then wait on X for the other team. But the other team have decided to camp Y, and the round ends in a goring draw.
Then you've got maps with single objectives like Downtown and Bridge. A well coordinated team on Assault can complete the objective (although Bridge is more difficult with only 4 minutes if defence are good at rush suppression) even though getting to the objective is suicide if there are still defenders alive.
It is not how many objectives that matter, it is the design of the map layout, and how well organised the teams are. Someone who camps will camp if there is 1 objective or 15.
Also, for you to say to a map designer that the map needs a second objective is very simplistic. A map is laid out around where the two teams spawn and where the objective is. Once the map is built, to then add a second objective which is in a balanced position can be a very difficult process, without redoing large parts of the map.
I think this is why people are suggesting you try map making, as some of your suggestions for improvement might have far reaching challenges to the design.
Unfortunately, the only downside of the map is that one of the two occupy objectives is impossible for D to defend (assault can take the obj before D can get there), so they essentially focus on Y and Z. Either way, it's really neat and provides some really good gameplay.
#Support Comp Mode
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCN4YhM6jUB2MxVj8i3b9rhw
The developers do play the game maybe they just don't play on your server I guess.
Thats because when you start taking an activated objective like that in an Assault vs Assault manor it should go back to neutral as soon as someone starts it that would stop your issue. Also Harbour Assault is a terrible example both teams are attacking. Same with downtown and bridge...They are basically both straight lines through the map. Lets me make this clear for you not every map needs 2 objectives the BIG ones I hope you know what a big map is are the ones that need 2. Also with an extract the flag game mode you generally only need one extraction. Assuming the flag is in a neutral zone. That neither side wins by being able to get to it quicker than the other.