Never, this is not FH
Few problems are unbeatable in FH, one anecdote from our most loved/hated map (Pegasus) 2 weeks ago: British get the coffee flag, sadly we loose the flag with the panzer 3 alive ready to camp and kill all our soldiers trying to cross the bridge again (a perfect example of a "damn it, we are screwed" situation), I take the officer kit and spot the tank, one competent guy with a mortar coordinate with me to get a good spot, I finally get it, he destroys the tank, now I spot the area of the german mortars pounding us, he destroys them, no more mortars during 1 1/2 minute...all this done in 30 seconds, we cross the bridge, retake the flag and win with 200 tickets advantage.
I am gonna tell you what don't win maps...start to whine "oh, this map sucks, buaaa", just relax and think about the right strategy, most of times we deliver tools to evade troubles.
See, this is where I think you're wrong. What you're discussing is the ideals BEHIND map design in FH. You have the notion that FH is and will be played a specific way. What I'm telling you is that's not going to be the case in a lot of maps.
Also, I don't think you can say "No, no, the map's fine" based on your own experience playing it if you guys are the guys who designed it in the first place. If you're the designers, you know the flaws, you know the critical weaknesses, the loopholes, the back doors, and the tricks that get you out of an "unwinnable" situation and turn things back around.
Public players don't know these things because they didn't design the maps.
That doesn't make them stupid but it does mean that what you see as the simple and obvious solution to a problem is many times NOT obvious to the pub player. Moreover, what you believe as the way the map should be played or can be played is not necessarily what the pub player is going to do.
Case in point: Push maps. You guys have a certain idea of how these maps ought to be played. I happen to agree with this and think it'd be awesome if they were played that way. But pub players found a way to undermine what you had in your head as the way the map would be played and ended up developing the precapping approach to winning maps. It's not what was intended, it's not what the ideal was, but it's how the map was played in the end.
This is what I'm getting at with my discussion about assumptions of how players will or should play the map. I mean, let's say Sector 318 was an unbalanced map (it isn't -- it's one of the better balanced maps actually). Or let's say on that map, at some point the Allies get stuck in their base with seemingly no way to get out. The FH devs might say "Oh well, in a situation like that, you have to get the spotter plane up and have him spot each of the German heavy tanks and Jagdpanzers, and then have the Priests and stationary arty take them out. Simple."
Except pub players aren't going to do that. They'll be far more inclined to grab the Jackson or the Jumbo and try to singlehandedly take out the enemy tanks. Or maybe they'll grab the P-51 and try to bomb a few of them (maybe they'll succeed, maybe they won't). Or they may even just grab the spotter plane and kamikaze it into the biggest enemy tank they can find, completely defeating the purpose of even having the thing on the map.
That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Now, Sector 318, like I've said, is a pretty even map and usually you don't end up with one side totally locked into its base (partially due to the wide layout of the map and plentiful cover). But that's the kind of situation you have to plan for in designing maps for public servers. You can't assume that a public player is going to say "I know! I'll spot for artillery! THAT's how we'll win." Most of the time, they'll try to solve the problem themselves by directly destroying it -- even if that means repeatedly failing in the attempt while running the risk of losing valuable equipment or simply wasting time and tickets with futile attempts and repeated charges into the meatgrinder.
Likewise, if the way to win the map is "The key here is to make sure that the artillery battery and spotter are really really good. Otherwise, the team is going to lose", or "The key to this map is the M36. If the Allies lose that, the map's all over for them," that's going to be a problem. In a clan match, that'll be a major plus, because the clan will orient its tactics around that crucial object or tactic. But for public servers, you can't assume or expect that stuff like this is going to go well.
Uh, there are few maps where this extreme reliance on one component or another is the case (Hell of Bocage being my favorite EVIL example.)
Face it, the game is just too small to always avoid reliance on individual components for the win. However, even HoB, which I loathe as much as Nuenen, makes a good effort at this; Allies have
-planes
-the possibility for zookers to work together
-sniper rifles
-artillery
-M36
and while I think that, like Desert Rose, the layout isn't thought through (it's largely a foregone conclusion once Axis get all the flags), until that point Allies have a strong disadvantage but they can realistically win it, even though no single one of those factors is absolutely key for Allies.
Quote:
Finally, although I personally advise against making unbalanced maps (Specifically because they lead to these problems), understand that for me a balanced map does not mean two teams with equal equipment, but rather two teams with equal advantages and disadvantages. Those advantages can come from any number of factors, though, which aren't always the obvious "We have a KT on this map" style factors.
Once again, you are mixing up balance with symmetry--stop that, or I'll have to go look for the genital clamps. If one team has a KT, the other team needn't necessarily counter that with a symmetrical heavy tank. A hypothetical example:
-KT > Allied vehicles
-Allied air > KT
-Mobile German AA > Allied air
-Allied scout cars > Mobile German AA
-KT > Allied vehicles...and so on.
Largely symmetrical maps like Breakthrough, Zitadelle, or Zielona Gora (disregarding obvious arguments about infantry weaponry qualities) can be fun, but asymmetrical, yet balanced maps like Pegasus add to the mix. Naturally, even in the symmetrical maps, terrain factors massively into the equation (witness the crazily skewed bleed ratios for Eastern Blitz and Zitadelle.)
I think what it comes down to, Solo, is that you are extremely pessimistic in your assessment of what pubbie players are capable of. Yes, more often than not they're sitting around picking lice off each other and chewing on the furniture, but I've been playing this game for about 3 years now (and many other online multiplayer games since 1991) and have witnessed more than enough really high-quality games with great teamwork. Once again, please do not always assume "lowest common denominator." Yes, devs need to balance the need to avoid a too-steep learning curve with the danger of making the game too moron-proof, but assuming that pub players will always be too dumb to figure out challenging maps f*cks it up for the rest of us.
And no, Knight, you're too young to drink. Maybe after you get your driver's license and join the army I'll tell you about the birds & bees.
Now what were we arguing about again?
Last edited by Fuzzy Bunny; June 2nd, 2006 at 11:03 AM.
i dont see any maps in fh that require the extra special effort to win you mention. yes there are some maps that are tougher on one side then another, and in some cases tougher on one side, and really light on the other.
but none are impossible or require this special teamwork that you descibe. just having some basic teamwork is usually enough for the disadavantaged side. like Lobo mentioned even on a maps as one-sided as you say pegasus is. just a couple guys with their act together can make the difference and win the map.
so sorry but i dont agree, none of fhs maps are overly unbalanced as to make them never win-able for one side. to make nothing but balanced maps as you say, would give us mostly boring vanilla map style play.
Public players don't know these things because they didn't design the maps.
Ok, I am the co-creator of Pegasus so I know all the technical details, included respawn times and all stuff under her skirts, but all things are in the logic places, ArminAce had the habit of hide kits in strange places, hehe, but I disagree with this mapping decision, that's the reason I modeled the armories, I have not special almighty powers as co-creator of the map to be the only one to find a frikking officer kit placed in an armoury near the glider where british start the round.
I understand a map like this one will be horribly umbalanced the first week, but playing it our players will learn all its tactic keys and the map will play balanced soon. I disagree a map must be done so a guy new to it understand all the factors to win it at first sight, this happens in very basic games, but FH is for adult players. The fan pack is a perfect example, the first days some maps were horribly umbalanced but now the players know them better and most of them are not so umbalanced now, the new guys must hear the vets and all will be fine, with a great reward for players because they master tough levels, not easy walks in the park.
Once again, you are mixing up balance with symmetry--stop that, or I'll have to go look for the genital clamps. If one team has a KT, the other team needn't necessarily counter that with a symmetrical heavy tank. A hypothetical example:
-KT > Allied vehicles
-Allied air > KT
-Mobile German AA > Allied air
-Allied scout cars > Mobile German AA
-KT > Allied vehicles...and so on.
Largely symmetrical maps like Breakthrough, Zitadelle, or Zielona Gora (disregarding obvious arguments about infantry weaponry qualities) can be fun, but asymmetrical, yet balanced maps like Pegasus add to the mix. Naturally, even in the symmetrical maps, terrain factors massively into the equation (witness the crazily skewed bleed ratios for Eastern Blitz and Zitadelle.)
I'm not mixing up balance with symmetry. Quite the contrary if you've read my prior posts. Balance doesn't come purely from equipment available. A major part of balance comes from three other factors that are often overlooked -- positioning, bleed rates, and ticket ratios.
Omaha Charlie Sector is a balanced map, despite starting off with the Allies at a serious disadvantage in terms of position and available equipment. I mean, the Allies start that map with:
- Infantry weapons roughly on par with Axis infantry weapons.
And that's it as far as equipment.
BUT, they also get a relatively slow bleed, and over two times the number of tickets as the Axis.
The Axis start with the positional advantage, but have far fewer tickets and can be overwhelmed. Plus, once they lose the initial positions at the bunkers, I believe they also start to bleed, AND spawn farther back at which point the fight becomes much more symmetrical. In fact, arguably the presence of Allied halftracks skews slightly in the Allies favor.
That's the kind of balance I'm looking for. Not a symmetrical balance as far as equipment (IE: We each get one heavy tank), but rather balance from a wide variety of factors. (IE: You get a KT, I get a position overlooking your troops' approach to my flag, coupled with some mortars and a howitzer, you get 1/4 more tickets than I do, I get you stuck with a bleed rate that will eliminate that advantage until you take a specific flag, at which point the rate slows to 1 ticket per minute and a half, etc.).
This qualifies as balance, but not symmetry in terms of equal equipment. Symmetry was DICE's version of balance, and while it does acheive balance, it often does so at the expense of accurate performance of the equipment, or by shoehorning an historically inaccurate weapon into a particular timeframe (IE: a 1939 polish map where the Poles get their equivalent of a BAR 1918A2 -- they had one, you know, and the Germans get an STG44. HELLO! '44!!).
Well, then we're in agreement, and can probably nod our heads and smile when I say that maps like Adak are unbalanced, purely due to initial unit positioning and ticket bleed ratio, but maps like Pegasus are not, no? I still don't see how the vast majority of current FH maps are somehow unwinnable for this mythically stupid pubbie player.
Plus, I think the sort of weapons example you mentioned was less due to an attempt to "symmetrically" balance things than a combination of DICE laziness and an attempt to appeal to more arcade weenies.
Some maps really do require a fair amount of teamwork for one side to win while being comparitively light on the other side (IE: Hell of Bocage). Other maps, while not apparently requiring teamwork end up just playing...wrong...because of how public players (even veterans!) play the map (IE: Arnhem -- how many times have we seen Germans just get stuck on the bridge because someone won't drive across it and you get a traffic jam?).
I'm also not arguing for balance in the sense of boring, vanilla, mirror-image balance. I'm arguing for advantages and disadvantages that roughly balance out, but are not necessarily mirror images which require making weapons all operate the same or somesuch.
Lobo,
First, I LOVE the armories and kit placement since about, I guess, 0.65 or so. It's such a nice change of pace from the old "treasure hunt" approach to finding kits. Big kudos on that. I'm also not saying that maps have to be made with bash-you-on-the-head simplicity in mind. Rather, maps should offer several different tactical approaches. For example, on Hell of Bocage, placing a few infantry and anti-tank kits in the houses at the first town spawn might actually make the difference on that map. An engineer kit or two might be all that's needed to balance that map. Literally.
Think about it. Allies can obviously get their first, but their big problem is always following up with enough armor to hold off the inevitable German advance. Bazooka kits are often unattractive to players unless they spawn at a flag already under attack, because bazooka kits are so specialized and limit one's ability to fight infantry. But making the engineer a spawning class on that map would probably skew it in favor of the Allies or remove any real challenge from the map at least. A limited number, however, could be used to hold the town, thereby creating an opening for Allied armor to advance. It's not like the Allies don't have ENOUGH armor on that map. The problem is getting it to the right place in one piece. And once the Germans take that town, it's game over Allies usually (unless you've got a hotshot pilot helping you and even then the buildings offer a lot of cover for the enemy).
I also didn't mean that you knew all the technical loopholes in terms of the hidden kits or something like that. Rather, because you designed the map, you already thought in advance "What are the likely ways people are going to fight here, and what have I given them to do that job." Thus, certain strategies will appear obvious to you. Likewise, if those strategies require the coordination of two players, you shouldn't necessarily expect that to happen all the time, certainly not initially.
Fuzzy,
Honestly, I haven't played Pegasus enough to comment, really. I've played it for literally like, 10 minutes at the end and all I did was spawn in, see someone, take a pot shot or two, and then the map ended. >shrug<
there is no such map that possibly can be made, except maybe a perfectly flat open terrain, that is noobtard proof.
any teams chances can get screwed by a noobtard. all it takes is one knucklehead to drive the carrier out of bounds, or block the bridge on any map and a team is done for. there is no mapping technique to fix this, however gunshops have some helpful tools...but i digress..
And no, Knight, you're too young to drink. Maybe after you get your driver's license and join the army I'll tell you about the birds & bees.
I'd like to take a run at those years again lol...
FH players equate to university level students, at least at this stage of the game. They are not like grade schoolers looking just for recess - most are thinking, learning, strategy-developing war mongers. You'll get the lone wolfs - you always will. Infantry guys will run together, tanks team up (that is a thing of beauty when it happens), infantry covers armor, etc. But I'd say the percentage of non-team players is very low in this mod than other games. Thank you devs, you have worked this into the strategy and it becomes the unseen wisdom that defines the action.
Sometimes a lone wolf is required. When everyone (who are worried about their stats) sit in their tanks on a hill and fire away when a basic charge would take the flag and stop the bleeding, a lone wolf can inspire his fellow toad stools into glorious action. Hell, he may get lucky and do it himself.
Bottom line is we is smarter than the average bear. If there is a way to accomplish the goals of a map, we will find it, We may find ways that the devs and mapmakers haven't thought of.
Even though there are some maps I don't particularly care about (which, trust me, are very few indeed) I don't disavow them for we are not all created the same. My poison may be someone else's champana~.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
FH2 Suggestions 
Re: The Question of Challenge 
Linear Mode
