Ideas for UnderRedux (Pics)

[RoundShades]

This thread is about ideas to improve existing one-lane-stalemate map design. Starting with UnderRedux, which I edited and took more time than I like to disclose since it wouldn't cooperate thanks to the original map's tucked-in landscaping (it's a mess behind those rocks). As shown below:

1) This map is a GDI map. Not many of these exist. I don't want it to be a Nod map, but rather, a FAIR and DYNAMIC map. I want it to be like original, but original had glaring issues. One base entrance. Tank-Structure Line of Sight unfairness. A lot of useless parts of the map.

2) The easiest change that buff's Nod, is to the GDI bunker infantry path. Leading into GDI base has more AGT coverage than necessary, it requires 2+ smoke grenades to make the distance from path to WF, and is difficult to even get to that path from the AGT opening. Nod's equivalent, the path by the metal ramp up on cliff, is not covered by Obby, though the perch itself is. I added/extended cliffscape to cover the path to WF. An SBH can run the gap, if they are hella lucky, but it is more trivial with just a single smoke. Below are pics:

3) With LOS, GDI can kill Ref or Air from moderately far from Obby range (and pretty good into field), while even if Nod took field, they have to be right up against the entrance, and only see a sliver of WF to shoot at. I moved the WF, a little to the left, and nicked a bit of thickness from the rocks at GDI entrance. The sliver of WF is a little bigger to hit, and you don't have to be far into the entrance to hit it, about halfway back to the GDI bunker. Pics:

4) The 1 base entrance thing. I looked at the map, and creating an opening through the face of the mountain, up to the hill passage, is... well... not hard for GDI, but slightly harder for Nod. ...I still managed to do it, as seen below. This provides an "out" for GDI and Nod tanks despite being under siege, as the lower entrance has LOS of buildings but the rock-holes do not provide something for a tank to shoot at. Even if both openings are camped, it divides out the enemy so one or the other can be overrun, and then either flank the other or outright bypass it to attack the enemy base instead. The openings CAN provide a faster land route base-to-base to commit to a suicide-rush on the Obby/AGT with tanks or APC/Buggy, but that is for both teams and opens up better possibilities. Besides, there are still AT mines. Pics:

5) The tunnels are narrow, 2 defenders at bottom of tunnel, can keep at bay 6 attackers, between explosives and various other means. I have NOT done this yet, but I either need to do some more work de-skirting the gosh-darn buried landscape, so I can give the tunnels 2 lanes side by side, or connect the mid-section of the tunnels to opposite team's tunnels or directly to the silo's area. That way, there are 2 paths, despite c4 still being crowded it still leaves opening to fight in one tunnel while bypassing another, requiring much more manpower to stalemate these darn things. Technically, I may be able to do both, double-lane the tunnels, and open a path straight to silo. The field route always has the benefit of... leading to the field, and gains less infantry density and threat once a silo path is open, but the silo path could just not happen and force at least some fighting through the field path.

6) While I expanded the WF route, the bunker routes provide... inconsistent cover? I mean, it's there, but in the most random of places going GDI to Nod. A few nooks or elevated places people don't even know to climb much less look. These are good enough as is, but felt like asking if random stacks of pipes would help these paths anyway.

[Redline]

Its really hard to see the grading and landscape changes due to the white snow.

Maybe pictures in Lighting Only mode (Alt+6)

I do like the idea of 2 vehicle entrances. I wouldn't touch the infantry tunnels for now. Tunnels are...annoying to fix. Be careful of the Line of Sights on these new paths for AGT/OB. Maybe make them single file vehicle skinny for easier balancing.

[RoundShades]

Its really hard to see the grading and landscape changes due to the white snow.

Maybe pictures in Lighting Only mode (Alt+6)

I do like the idea of 2 vehicle entrances. I wouldn't touch the infantry tunnels for now. Tunnels are...annoying to fix. Be careful of the Line of Sights on these new paths for AGT/OB. Maybe make them single file vehicle skinny for easier balancing.

Nod's is single file vehicle skinny, just barely able to fit a Mammy tank. Fits Nod's vehicles better than GDIs

GDI is double-wide. Fits GDI's vehicles more than Nod's.

Neither provide additional opportunity to shell a base. Basically making them either "suicide entrances" or "strictly exits". They are great for pouring flames in from the side into GDI, and Med tanks into the side on Nod, and both even allow a buggy/humvee to reach obby/agt/bar/hon probably, but nothing can sit at the entrance and get shots in on anything else. That is strictly the lower field entrance.

I ought to add "spotting volumes" and stretch them out a bit, so spotting volumes ping closer to "lower GDI field" or "upper GDI hill".

Tunnels are a pain to sculpt in the editor. That doesn't make them less "necessary", the tunnels are only semi-functional right now, if a team is determined or large enough, they are a stalemate. A team should at least have a chance to make it down to the PP in Nod tunnel (not happening ATM), or GDI PP (only if GDI is carelessly unfocused on the tunnel).

Really, the WF being hittable from farther, and the WF being reachable from the bunker infantry path, were the biggest 2 requests. I felt like what I did with the vehicles was an "asshole's selfish pitch" because one vehicle entrance style maps are fucking annoying. Especially if they don't have some evasive cover to play around with, like Islands has. At least with Islands, you have 2 lanes with 1 entrance, so if you don't want to tangle with 3 tanks on one side you just fucking drive around the rock, they can't shoot you and you just keep on driving not giving a fuck.

Field is in a similar position, wondering what it could use, without giving it the literally fucking identical treatment, because I don't want identical maps where it can be avoided. Field's tunnels are fine, but it suffers from lack of interesting infantry play to interact with a base, as well as single-entrance single-field map design. Rocks would spruce things up, but not much, and a dual-divided vehicle route would make it either XMountain with Base Defenses if both same side, or MesaII if opposite sides. Under, I kept "recognizable" too, I don't want to make Field entirely different. I just want Field to be "better" while "similar".

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Let me get this straight. Under, a map where Hotwires and Technicians are barely a viable option due to the amount of infantry walking freely in the field, now gets a new vehicle route? I can understand that maps like under can take long because building destruction is more difficult, but there is nothing wrong with this on it's own.

Yes, the Airstrip and Nod Refinery were easy to attack, this should be fixed but your guys' standpoint on sieging makes no sense at all. A game where teamwork is paramount, has a map where teamwork is so relevant that people can't take it, and start whining. ...What?

There is a difference between a challenging map and an imbalanced map. The Airstrip and Refinery are too easily attacked, this needs to be rebalanced. Hotwires and Technicians die too easily on the field, this needs to be rebalanced.

Sieging has become too difficult. Let's take Field, where there is a infantry only ramp at the front of each base entrance. Free infantry can jump off and throw timed c4's on top of vehicles, where they are out of reach and are guaranteed to explode. Did not want to destroy the vehicles, but the repairers instead? No problem, just throw a remote c4 on their head! Need a good view to find out where the best spot is to place an airstrike? Don't worry, this has been taken care of!

Sieges do not necessarily make maps shorter. However, they at least give a team the chance to properly attack an enemy base and plan a rush.

Oh wait a minute, did i forget to say that both stalematey base-defence maps are GDI favoured? Well, i would wonder how this could happen. Let's take the fact that repairers are barely a viable option, therefore GDI gets a more natural advantage with their superior armour. The main counter of GDI's armour, the Artillery, has an arc which shoots too high in close ranges, especially aiming upwards towards your opponent. They will miss a lot, therefore GDI will encounter less resistance fighting the enemy! Now GDI has an even bigger advantage.

Allright, let me get this straight. I appreciate the fact that you try to fix a map that needs some rebalancing. However, what i dislike is the approach that is being made towards the rebalancing of maps. Incorrect assumptions are being made, leading to new issues.

[RoundShades]

Again, the extra opening, is just playing "devil's advocate". I could just as well put it back. Thanks for sharing feedback on it though.

It was already planned to move WF over so it can be hit from farther into field + with more vehicles at once by Nod. Kenz3001 and the whole community agrees, and it's what makes the map a flop currently. Nod has no opportunity to shell GDI base in a really threatening manner, and has to resort to "dumping flames on the AGT", which is parried by AT mines and 6 hotwires inside.

Moving WF over, as well as extending cliff facing, fixes a random map design that prevents Nod from even remotely easily accessing the WF on bunker route, since AGT will kill you halfway just crossing the gdi front infantry area, and the rest of the way trying to close the double-smoke gap between the end of the path and the WF. Agent and everyone else massively requests this also.

The second base entrance, was AFAIK just my own whim, but figured it was a whim worth checking. It helps Nod and GDI, get out of base, if held-fast in base. Reason is same as Field, an organized team can sort of kind of get out with good effort, but a Pub can't, and generally 100% of the time is spent with GDI hitting Nod. A good Nod team against a bad GDI team can do the opposite, don't get me wrong.

Overall, point is, that is a 1-facet mechanic that only favors GDI. Not just because of their armor in absence of repairs, but because of difference in damage-vs-repair on light-vs-heavy armors, and because of the rpg-esque mechanic HaTe always discussed being that 3 meds defeat the survival threshold of 1 artillery, so 1 artillery does more damage to 1 tank than the tank does the artillery, but 3v3 and the artillery die before dealing critical damage to a med and lose damage and fail to kill more than 1 med. "Glass Cannons".

Also, this is assuming both are in the open. Problem is, much like Field, when a team is trapped in base, when you leave with tanks, you have to have no more than 2 tanks max, engage 5 tanks, because the 5 tanks already occupy the wide mouth of a base entrance, while the 2 tanks are trying to squeeze out their base. Even if a team with 7 tanks try to leave base against a team with 5 tanks, assuming both have 2 repairmen, the 7 tanks will be forced to fight 2 at a time colliding into the backs of each other, while fighting at least 3 enemy tanks or more simultaneously.

Now, Under's base entrances aren't even that far apart, enough for a med/light to point-rush out of and simply drive past and up the hill while field is occupied with only a little damage, but close enough together for 7 tanks to try to either flank 5 tanks hold up in front of a base, or to engage both entrances at once and spread their firepower out more, making it more difficult for repairmen to stay alive in a 2-directional attack (not impossible, make your tanks form a "V-shape").

The added lethality from a med-rush across hill to obby, well, at least the tanks die instead of camp, more interesting, and the added lethality from a flame/stank rush across hill, Nod needed some opportunity to earn a kill against a base formerly unattackable by tanks, and the added lethality from apc/humvee/buggy, both teams could always use something to keep on their toes and progress gameplay in case of a double-ko'ed vehicle factory scenario (like field, both team's vehicle factories are frontline targets).

In a skilled game, you can kill structures with 12 rocket soldiers via burst damage. The point is, in an average game, there just has to be 5+ threats open to a base, not too many but not too few, and they shouldn't be too terribly easy for 1 man (GDI c4 the airstrip for instance) but should be just right for 2 (smoke or AGT-distract the WF). Having just 3 open threats to a base, with 20 people on each team, mean 12 focus on field and stalemate it, 4 clog the f'kn tunnels and stalemate them, and 4 constantly traverse the bunker path which is unreliable af but still ends the game most often 2nd only to GDI Tanks eventually doing their job. Under, in that situation, is a no-hope map, unless Vertiso is in it and on my team, or I somehow coax randies to follow 8-tight on a plan which is almost never the case. In a PUG, well, the map is seldomly played, but even then it is barely-balanced to give Nod a chance and even then still favors GDI.

[Ryz]

Good work, I must say I like the idea for an extra base entrance, but I can imagine that people who like the map to be close to the original do not like it.

In the beginning UnderRedux was a great map, but as soon as people knew the sneaky roads it became a stalemate fest. Usually every base entrance is camped and the natural way of this map is GDI shelling the Nod base from the field, while it's hard / almost impossible for Nod to mobilize people as soon as the base entrance becomes free. Trust me, we tried on Under a week or so ago and it took hours...

On PUG's, where the coordination is likely better, I think I never saw Nod winning.

Why not:

Make the changes to the map you are making now

Save this as a map

And make another map with the same changes as mentioned above, but with an extra base entrance.

I like the river on Lakeside, maybe you can use something like this on the back of both bases to come with a whole new way of attacking / defending?

[Redline]

No river. If you want rivers like lakeside you build the map around them. It's very difficult as I learned to throw rivers in after the landscape and rocks are placed.

Like I said too many changes and hardcore under fans will riot. If those fans exist...

[XD_ERROR_XD]

Again, the extra opening, is just playing "devil's advocate". I could just as well put it back. Thanks for sharing feedback on it though.

Also, this is assuming both are in the open. Problem is, much like Field, when a team is trapped in base, when you leave with tanks, you have to have no more than 2 tanks max, engage 5 tanks, because the 5 tanks already occupy the wide mouth of a base entrance, while the 2 tanks are trying to squeeze out their base. Even if a team with 7 tanks try to leave base against a team with 5 tanks, assuming both have 2 repairmen, the 7 tanks will be forced to fight 2 at a time colliding into the backs of each other, while fighting at least 3 enemy tanks or more simultaneously.

Now, Under's base entrances aren't even that far apart, enough for a med/light to point-rush out of and simply drive past and up the hill while field is occupied with only a little damage, but close enough together for 7 tanks to try to either flank 5 tanks hold up in front of a base, or to engage both entrances at once and spread their firepower out more, making it more difficult for repairmen to stay alive in a 2-directional attack (not impossible, make your tanks form a "V-shape").

Let me quote something here:

"Furthermore, the 'siege' strategy is completely possible to counter, just like any other offensive strategy such as a flame rush, sneaking Hotwire or Stealth Black Hand nuke attack is possible to counter.

If someone is sieging you with artillery and the like, here is what you do about it: Get tanks, go out there and kill their tanks.

If you try to do this and you fail, then it is an absolutely undeniable fact that one of the following statements is true:

1. The opposing team has greater tankskill than your team. It does take a good deal of skill to use a tank effectively in a firefight against enemy tanks.

2. The opposing team has better teamwork than your team, in the sense that they are focusing more players into the overall sieging effort. This can take the form of a Technician repairing you, another tank covering you, and so on.

3. Both of the above

To make the point more apparent, let's summarise the above conjecture.

If you try to rush their sieging units and fail, then one of the following is true:

1. the enemy is more skilled than you

2. the enemy has better teamwork than you

3. both of the above

So, if the enemy has more skill or more teamwork or both, then surely the enemy DESERVES to be beating you. Claiming the sieging tactic to be "lame" or whatever you want to call it is asinine, because it is perfectly possible to counter it. If you have a greater level of skill and teamwork to your opponent, you WILL counter it. If you have a roughly even level of skill and teamwork, you have a fighting chance of countering it. If you don't have the same level of skill and teamwork, you'll fail.

Now, many players will say it does not take skill to shoot a building with, say, an Artillery. While this is true, the statement completely lacks its necessary context and therefore it is bunk.

It does not take skill to put C4 on a building's MCT. The skill and strategy is required to get you there in the first place and defend it if necessary once it's placed.

It does not take skill to attack a building with a flamer or stank. The skill and strategy is doing it at the opportune time.

It does not take skill to lay a beacon down. The skill and strategy is doing it at the opportune time and defending it effectively.

So, what about tanks? It doesn't take skill to shoot a building with a tank. The skill comes into play when your opponent tries to stop you. If a skilled player has a tank sieging a building, and an unskilled player rushes them to try to make them stop, the skilled player will win, and the sieging player can go on sieging. If an unskilled player has a tank sieging a building, and a skilled player rushes them to try to make them stop, the skilled player will win, and the siege will be broken.

Correct usage of tanks can truly demonstrate a player's skill. Tankfighting is one of the most skilful aspects of this game.

So: a quick summary. If someone's sieging you, get your team organised, get tanks, and do something about it. If you try this and fail, the enemy is better than you. Instead of whining about the fact your enemy is "pointwhoring", learn some sportsmanship and accept the fact you lost fair and square thanks to a more skilled, better organised opponent.

In a nutshell, if someone can stay there the entire game hitting a building with a tank, it is not the tank user who has no skill and teamwork. It is the enemy."

In a skilled game, you can kill structures with 12 rocket soldiers via burst damage. The point is, in an average game, there just has to be 5+ threats open to a base, not too many but not too few, and they shouldn't be too terribly easy for 1 man (GDI c4 the airstrip for instance) but should be just right for 2 (smoke or AGT-distract the WF). Having just 3 open threats to a base, with 20 people on each team, mean 12 focus on field and stalemate it, 4 clog the f'kn tunnels and stalemate them, and 4 constantly traverse the bunker path which is unreliable af but still ends the game most often 2nd only to GDI Tanks eventually doing their job. Under, in that situation, is a no-hope map, unless Vertiso is in it and on my team, or I somehow coax randies to follow 8-tight on a plan which is almost never the case. In a PUG, well, the map is seldomly played, but even then it is barely-balanced to give Nod a chance and even then still favors GDI.

You are kind of proving my point here. i'm not gonna give examples on how to do it, but this quote should explain it:

"So, if the enemy has more skill or more teamwork or both, then surely the enemy DESERVES to be beating you. Claiming the sieging tactic to be "lame" or whatever you want to call it is asinine, because it is perfectly possible to counter it. If you have a greater level of skill and teamwork to your opponent, you WILL counter it. If you have a roughly even level of skill and teamwork, you have a fighting chance of countering it. If you don't have the same level of skill and teamwork, you'll fail."

I'm not bashing your map here. I think you're doing great work. But some of the standpoints behind them make no sense at all to me.

[RoundShades]

Well don't get me wrong. But if a team is good, they shouldn't have problem being good on multiple fronts, no?

The short is, this is definitely aimed at making it easier for a winning and better team, as much as it is making it easier for a losing team. For one, it's not 2hr suffering. For two, if they happen to be Nod, it's not a waste of effort.

The problem isn't being good. The problem, is 1 tank lane of attack, and 2 infantry lanes, 1 that is shoulder-wide, for 20 people a team, is literally impossible, for anyone to be good enough, to reliably accomplish the requested objective in 2 hrs time.

Even if a team "isn't gud nuff to fite back tankz", the "gud" team isn't good enough to actually win. On top of that, this "gud" team is always GDI. Meaning, the map does not allow Nod to use most (any?) of their utilities. Flamers, require field. Artillery, require field and MRLS are more effective on this map. Artillery, by map design, are worthless to attack GDI base with. If not, they wouldn't boast a win/loss rate of 80% on this map wouldn't they? Stanks require an exit. SBH require the AGT not to have a football-field of width to gun them down across in order to reach WF. Even Meds, to reliably do something that game besides sit in front of Nod base and shell for 2 hrs until they get lucky damage or hotwire-c4 on Air/Ref, need an entrance to bumrush, they could do it from front but have little motivation to risk the tanks for it.

Really, it isn't about giving a gimp team an advantage. It's partially about giving Nod any hope at all of winning besides a fluke or terribly imbalanced player-stack, and partially about making a team show true skill by having multiple options of attack and necessary lanes of defense. If a team was good, it takes much more skill to cope with multiple threats than to dominate a single lane of attack. It's why most MOBAs avoid single-lane design. Also why it's harder to "stay alive on complex" than it is to "score a kill on complex", because Complex has 3.5 short vehicle paths, rather than 1.

[Ryz]

No river. If you want rivers like lakeside you build the map around them. It's very difficult as I learned to throw rivers in after the landscape and rocks are placed.

I understand, I am not saying there should be a river, but just something like it or an extra path for vehicles.

[Fujiwara Chika]

If I may, I would suggest moving the cover between tunnel and GDI PP so that it's easier to get through. The Nod PP is much easier to cross through in comparison, not to mention the Obelisk having to charge, leaving adequate time to get through. Meanwhile, through the GDI path, the AGT isn't going to stop firing, making it even harder. I think this'll balance it out for infantry paths.

[RoundShades]

The GDI PP cross is a partial gateway to GDI Ref and GDI WF and back of GDI Bar. It's now the same in reverse too, the Bunker Infantry Path is a partial gateway to GDI Ref, GDI PP, and back of GDI Bar. GDI still has optimal vehicle combat in this map, I just made it harder for them to dominate, I did nothing to the line of sights GDI has outside Nod base. I just gave Nod options that doesn't mandate having to have their old front door clear anymore.

Update:

Not much new. Mainly cosmetics. Thought I was crummy at them, and I am... but I managed to satisfy what I wanted with the structures I did move, moving their landscape materials and high-low with them. Also added "particle emmiters" (frosty snowy wind flurries) to the holes I added to the rock faces, making them more noticeable. Added little material to the gap I made smaller to the GDI bunker path opening in front of AGT so it's more obvious a place you traverse.

Still need to widen the tunnels for both teams. Likely to double-lane them. If only you knew what kind of a mess it was behind those rocks, the map wasn't smoothed pretty underneath and it isn't going to make it easy on me...

EDIT: After borking and unborking GDI base, I pulled the WF forward and Ref forward (not sure if this increases harv rates, should be negligible), should give a broader width of WF to hit with Artys. Now I am actually going to try to work on the tunnels for reals.

[Madkill40]

As the Under map has had changes since this thread whatever progress was made will likely have to be remade using the latest version of CNC-Under... 

Although moving the WF into an easier view might just give CNC-Under that Ol'CNC-Field siege feeling, an extra opening does seem like a more viable option but the whole dynamic of Under is and has always been a bottleneck for both infantry and vehicles.

[RodrigoM]

On 5/1/2017 at 6:37 AM, Madkill40 said:

As the Under map has had changes since this thread whatever progress was made will likely have to be remade using the latest version of CNC-Under... 

Although moving the WF into an easier view might just give CNC-Under that Ol'CNC-Field siege feeling, an extra opening does seem like a more viable option but the whole dynamic of Under is and has always been a bottleneck for both infantry and vehicles.

Any updates Madkill?

Edited November 9, 2021 by RodrigoM

[Madkill40]

Those further-away infantry paths could be converted into a vehicle path, forcing either team to spread their defenses out at the front and allowing a building or two to be hit in the process but still allows the Obelisk and AGT to be useful.

The Reborn revamp of Under with its backdoor vehicle entrance was sickening and ruined the map, however a backdoor infantry entrance with a cliff-edge to follow round the rear of the map would be an interesting addition as well.