Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Oh, it's absolutely true that your team and your opponent count for a lot. But I have to strongly disagree with you about all maps being balanced independently of who's playing which side. Some maps are flat out harder for one team than the other -- often considerably harder. On those types of maps, your team matters, but often the DEGREE of teamwork required for the disadvantaged team to win is rather an unrealistic expectation for public servers. For clan or tournament play, absolutely. For people who all work together on teamspeak or Ventrilo, sure, it's doable.

But for average pub players? Those maps are usually foregone conclusions which in some cases only further magnify how important an MG42Maniac or a couple of Evil Foods guys can become (or how a group of Little Jimmy Smacktards can totally screw your team up). On maps like that you need the exceptionally skilled players to win as the disadvantaged team, and if you're the team with the advantage, it takes having Jimmy Smacktards on your team to get you to lose.

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

I think what Solo is pretty much saying is this.

When you get a good team any map is good because you can work together, but on a pub only the balanced maps are fun because otherwise the team with the advantages is going to win simply because both sides tend to be equally bad.

And let's face it, most combat in this game is on public servers. And try as we might you are NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER going to get all pubbers to work together. There will ALWAYS be a lonewolfer, there will ALWAYS be smacktards, there will ALWAYS be team killers, and there will ALWAYS be just plain idiots. The devs have said a few times that they have plans to make it impossible to lonewolf. BULL S**T. I say to you, it is impossible to make it impossible to lonewolf. Someone is going to lonewolf even if it doesn't benefit themselves or their team simply because that is how they play.

When designing maps I hope mappers take into account the fact that you are rarely going to get a team the truely works together, even in team-oriented games like FH. It does happen, I've seen it happen, but it is rare.

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Can you sink it with the mortar kit?

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Well, that's my opinion overall, yeah (although I do think lonewolves can be corralled some by things like ABC code or similar deterrents), but mostly I'm trying to understand the opinions of those who disagree with me. I mean, I guess they're out there but I'm trying to get a sense of why they like being on the team that loses 75% (or however much) of the time on maps like that, or even if there ARE people out there like that.

The see-saw maps thing I kind of get. You never know for sure who'll win and who'll lose, but you don't care if this round goes ridiculously easy for you because next round might be ridiculously hard, etc.

But the uphill battle maps where you basically have to have clan-like coordination to win, those I really just don't get. I think they operate on kind of an idealized notion of how the game will be played which almost never actually ends up happening.

I've also said in the past that mappers who have that goal in mind should do two versions of maps -- a public version and a clan version (which could be denoted by, say, Carentan(p) or Carentan(c) for example). Often, very minor changes are what can make a huge difference. Removing a river/bridge crossing and filling it in. Adding engineer/satchel kits. Removing a single tank from one side. Adding a few APCs for another. Changing the bleed or ticket ratios. Little things like that can often change an "Oh my god WHY do we even try" style map into a "Oh this map! This one's cool" style map for pub players.

Put simply, a mapper should always assume the worst kind of teamwork when designing a map. Never assume people will play as a real team, and figure most of them will act as individuals, running in an uncoordinated fashion towards the next flag, usually one-by-one. The only saving grace there, usually, is that they won't all be running along the exact same path if you give them different options.


The one exception to this is a push map that actually forces gameplay along specific routes, but has bleed and such adjusted to allow for a good, tough game. Once flanking, precapping, and things like mobile APC code is created for these maps, the push maps should play exactly how the FH devs want (which I personally think would be really cool if played right).

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

1. So far, at least, me, I like the feeling of throwing mountains of inferior equipment and players at much better experienced equipment and men (a la Charlie Sector & The Storm). I like the feeling of being a whole team of buddies, just fighting and fighting and nearly on the losing side of the map because of these dis/advantages.

2. I'd say that the Attack on Carentan map is probably the highest challenge the players can take without becoming sick with the spawn rate (in this map the rape is offset by the fact that the anti basecamping line is quite close to the first flag). Sure it's hard, and you will die usually about 4 times before you get the flag you are attacking. But eventually, it IS possible.

3. Assaults or even maps? See my opinions on #1.

4. About even both ways, after a lot of seasoned teamwork I begin to yearn for some disorganized, rambo style play. But after a while I also begin to hate the people who refuse to work together, thereby making themselves a pushover. So that's when I can go to a clan server, and join the team that has no clan members on it for a real challenge.

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Easily, sorry for the off-topic. Less than 10 hits; I've done it in 4 (dunno if he was hurt before, though.)

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

It's simply imposible to make maps working both for pub and tournament playing, but as I always told you most of the FH mappers will never acept to create maps kindergarden style just because some players refuse to play with a minimum of teamplay, coordination, devotion for team goals instead personal ones and brain.

I am sorry to be tiresome, but the perfect example is Pegasus. For the God sake, just with some guys trying to organize mates in chat is posible to suceed over that chokepoint. But what happens most of times?, the whiney kids start to complain: who elected you commander? / no, buaaa, they are killing us, I don't want to attack the flag / ah, shut up Patton, let's hide in a hole boosting my stats with my uber marksmanship skills and all that jazz. Sorry man, Pegasus in FH must be a hell, other bridge, swimmers and all that vanilla nonsense is out of the discussion, just real Pegasus mayhem'n'havoc or better we don't make the map.

I think also we are bashing too much the pub playing but we have tons of FH players who are very good in terms of teamplay, and mature enough to be willing to play adult and challenging maps, hell, I have played some tough rounds in pub servers. I think we must educate and trust in our players, and not accept the minimum common denominator

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

i like variety, in all different ways. it would get pretty boring if all maps were clones of one playstyle or setup. people have different concepts of what they consider "a challenge" aswell. so it really is subjective and comes down to personal tastes. and thats why variety is good, as it supplies everyone with something that tickles their fancy.

as for some maps been heavily stacked in favor of one team and it requiring extra effort and teamplay to win, these maps in most cases are done this way to reflect the actual situation of the real battle, as this is a realism/historical mod. some battles were meatgrinders, Tarawa is an example of a map that should be extremely hard to win as allies with huge deathrates to be expected.(it isnt though.... :( )
simply because thats how it was IRL, they lost 5000 marines taking Tarawa. they took the island but operationally it was considered a failure, and became the template of what-not-to-do when assualting islands.
i think the main reason some people dont like these maps is because of stats, im not accusing anyone of being stat-hos but at the same token no one likes horrible stats, me included. thats why i would like a no-score-system mod, as then i could assualt like a maniac (which tbh i love doing), without having to have my 20-74 score pasted for all to see at the end. because it doesnt mention my glorious assualt to take the game winning flag, just shows my crappy score.
unfortunately, i feel personal scores HEAVILY influence how people play games. if people play these maps to win them, rather than have good stats, then they generally play the best of all the maps in FH, imo. some of my best most memorable rounds have been on these style maps. because when they are played right they are just awesome, like been in a movie almost.

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Stacked in favor of one team is fine; once again, as long as the other team has a real ("realistic") chance of winning.

Re: The Question of Challenge
 

Yeah, it's finding that tipping point for "realistic chance" that's the real trick, though. And while historical accuracy is great and all, just because "that's how the battle was" shouldn't dictate how the map gets designed. If that's the case we might as well give up on playing ANY historically based game because we all know how it ends.

It's fine to reflect the historical difficulties faced by a side, but that doesn't mean that a map has to be a foregone conclusion. Iwo Jima is a good example of this. The Japanese have crap as far as infantry weapons go. They're FAR outclassed by the Allies in that regard. They've got lousy tanks and lousy small arms. BUT, they have the ticket bleed and positioning on their side. With a minimum of coordination, they can win.

That's a good example of what would otherwise be a one-sided battle, which reflects real-world advantages and disadvantages, while maintaining enough game balance to make it worth playing and possible to go either way.

And as far as making a map for kindergarteners, I don't think you have to make it quite that dumb. Like I said, usually one minor tweak is enough to do the trick. Add a specific kit type. Add or remove a particular piece of equipment. Tweak the ticket numbers. Adjust the bleed rate.

It's not as if you have to give everyone clown cars and nerf bats to make a map playable on a public server. But mappers have got to recognize that when their maps are NOT playable, they're gonna get removed and people won't be playing those maps. Then all their work will have been for nothing. If I was making maps, I'd want the maps to be played by folks and enjoyed, not complained about and removed from server rotations.