Server Type Interest Poll

[yosh56]

1 hour ago, Fffreak9999 said:

We actually had a good match on Snow yesterday, Nod lost airstrip in first 3 mins of game, but still won the game over 30 mins later.

2 hours ago, Madkill40 said:

I was there.... It was not an amazing victory in the least.. Just bad GDI spamming Meds at LCGs and not comprehending 'this isn't working'... Right.. and 60 people in a single chokepoint. 

[Madkill40]

Idea to make AOW differ from Marathon, what about a strictly attack and defence map variation for AOW? One team holds out for 30 minutes whereas the other team tries to eliminate the other teams' base, add a few core objectives based on current in-game tactics and so on. Less on mappers to balance a map entirely. This would be very different from the standard base vs base gameplay.

On an unrelated note:

@Henk I have a proposition, would you be interested in letting me modify Snow to create a second vehicular access point? Or perhaps share a design proposal with you for CNC-Snow? Nothing too drastic a change, just a little something to ease congestion of the two chokepoints. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Madkill40

[Calvin]

I think the rotation is working out very well so far  Snow isn't that bad it's usually over within 10 mins and sometimes in 1 hour not that under doesn't have that problem >.> 

[Henk]

On 2017-4-26 at 10:55 PM, Madkill40 said:

 

@Henk I have a proposition, would you be interested in letting me modify Snow to create a second vehicular access point? Or perhaps share a design proposal with you for CNC-Snow? Nothing too drastic a change, just a little something to ease congestion of the two chokepoints. 

post your proposal here: https://renegade-x.com/forums/topic/74012-map-cnc-snow/?page=2

 

Or in PM. As you can see in that topic I've had some ideas for a second vehicle path but I don't think they'd be well balanced

[dtdesign]

21 hours ago, poi ❄ said:

I think the rotation is working out very well so far  Snow isn't that bad it's usually over within 10 mins and sometimes in 1 hour not that under doesn't have that problem >.> 

I agree on the rotation, things have become really interesting lately.

All though being on huge clusterfuck, Snow is actually quite decent: It has some constant back and forth, both in terms of vehicles and infantry, the side-ramps to the bunker added a lot of variation.

Under on the other hand is just a horrible timesink where most of the time people just siege the vehicle entrance (read: not actual buildings) and the infantry chokepoints are crowded with 1k toons of the sieging team. It's really a bummer that the map design makes it super easy for one team to cage-in the other. I'd rather play Walls three times in a row than one round on Under.

[yosh56]

I like Under .... 

 

Also 

1 hour ago, dtdesign said:

Most of the time people just siege the vehicle entrance (read: not actual buildings)

That's because Nod can't hit any buildings without going all the way in... 

[Madkill40]

14 hours ago, yosh56 said:

I like Under .... 

 

Also 

... Nod can't hit any buildings without going all the way in... 

That AGT should probably be moved a little further away from the Weapons factory, to the side.

Weapons factory moved backwards.

Increase the curve of the GDI exit/entrance.

Although with that being said I have seen Nod winning on Under more than GDI has been winning on Under.

[RoundShades]

On 4/26/2017 at 5:54 AM, yosh56 said:

Because we definitely need to play 30v30 Snow ..... ever. 

When @ShrewdTactician ever gets the player-count based map rotation working, you should totally add it so snow is a 12-24 player thing. It really can't handle much more than that without some map expansion.

[RoundShades]

1 hour ago, Madkill40 said:

That AGT should probably be moved a little further away from the Weapons factory, to the side.

Weapons factory moved backwards.

Increase the curve of the GDI exit/entrance.

Although with that being said I have seen Nod winning on Under more than GDI has been winning on Under.

Before base defense changes, I was working on an adjusted Under. Believe it or not, if you move WF and delete the most initial rocks of the GDI/Field rockwall, you open up more of an angle compared to AGT, and can hit it from GDI Field-Bunker too. It really works.

Another thing that had me interested, was extending and flattening the WF Infantry HillPath, with a few more rocks at the end of it's rock-wall, to reach the WF with reasonable AGT gunfire (not enough to kill, enough to do ~100 damage).

One last thing that had me interested, but took more landscape sculpting, was creating a snow-hill to both base-field walls, and putting a sloped opening in the wall. Thus, 1 vehicle opening, leading directly to top of hill, and 1 leading to tib field. That way, siege can be flanked or bypassed or surged through just 1 opening. The holes I made, barely fit vehicles (1.5 mammies), but gave a vehicle opening without an additional "structure hitting angle" because the openings go straight to the advanced base defense line of fire. However, the holes are entrances CLOSER to the advance base defense, making them great for APCs or a rush on the base defense itself.

I consider start working on it again, but it seemed less and less necessary over time.

[Madkill40]

3 minutes ago, YagiHige said:

Before base defense changes, I was working on an adjusted Under. Believe it or not, if you move WF and delete the most initial rocks of the GDI/Field rockwall, you open up more of an angle compared to AGT, and can hit it from GDI Field-Bunker too. It really works.

Another thing that had me interested, was extending and flattening the WF Infantry HillPath, with a few more rocks at the end of it's rock-wall, to reach the WF with reasonable AGT gunfire (not enough to kill, enough to do ~100 damage).

One last thing that had me interested, but took more landscape sculpting, was creating a snow-hill to both base-field walls, and putting a sloped opening in the wall. Thus, 1 vehicle opening, leading directly to top of hill, and 1 leading to tib field. That way, siege can be flanked or bypassed or surged through just 1 opening. The holes I made, barely fit vehicles (1.5 mammies), but gave a vehicle opening without an additional "structure hitting angle" because the openings go straight to the advanced base defense line of fire. However, the holes are entrances CLOSER to the advance base defense, making them great for APCs or a rush on the base defense itself.

I consider start working on it again, but it seemed less and less necessary over time.

I want to check this shizzout.

[RoundShades]

15 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

I want to check this shizzout.

I... think I have the file around here somewhere. It's definitely not a fully fleshed map, but it's playable? Did you want a copy of it or something?

I also had a forum thread about it, with pics of what I did to it. You can check it out too. Will edit with link.

 

[Madkill40]

Just now, YagiHige said:

I... think I have the file around here somewhere. It's definitely not a fully fleshed map, but it's playable? Did you want a copy of it or something?

I also had a forum thread about it, with pics of what I did to it. You can check it out too. Will edit with link.

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean and would like to take a look at your edited version.

[RoundShades]

7 minutes ago, Madkill40 said:

I am having a hard time visualizing what you mean and would like to take a look at your edited version.

Nothing special, but you do see that there's the "possibility" of "splitting" the base-front into 2 paths instead of 1. Anything with 1 tends to be cancer, XMountain makes it work with 2 midfield paths and a lot of infantry cover to handle vehicles from up top.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxV7twU3YaeUcDVCRU9Ta2hjQzQ/view?usp=sharing
 

[ShrewdTactician]

2 hours ago, YagiHige said:

When @ShrewdTactician ever gets the player-count based map rotation working, you should totally add it so snow is a 12-24 player thing. It really can't handle much more than that without some map expansion.

is that a gental nudge that I should work faster? 😀 

[RoundShades]

19 minutes ago, ShrewdTactician said:

is that a gental nudge that I should work faster? 😀 

Factually, you have received Yosh's nudge. It'll come, but I fear the possibility that it take any longer to go from finished to imported, than it should.

It was a nudge, for when it comes, to push it into default game with default values. Most servers, use default until they feel otherwise, so making it default and giving it default numbers, takes any guesswork away from the server as to "which maps, which numbers".