|
The Question of Challenge Ok, in an effort to be more diplomatic and NOT to rant and rave as I usually do about what I dislike about maps, I'd like to start a thread here to discuss the concept of "challenge" in maps. In general, folks like a challenge, I think. They don't always want the task in front of them to be a pushover. But I often find that the concept of "challenge" can become diametrically opposed to the concept of "balance." People want a challenge but they also want to know that they have a chance (like, more than a 30% chance) of succeeding. The trouble is finding the balance between "challenge" and "balance" and what's required to acheive both. To my way of thinking "balanced" maps are maps where there may be DIFFERENCES between the two teams, but the differences ultimately balance out. For example, my gold standard for a "balanced" map is Breakthrough. The germans have a major armor advantage, but the British get more tanks (I think) and have a lot of air cover. The Germans have decent air defenses, but not tons of it. So, it's balanced but not identical for the two sides. Positioning and bleed rates are about equal, too. A "challenging" map is one (by my definition, anyway) where in order to win the map, the team will have to overcome some reasonable obstacle. It's not impossible, but it isn't easy. "Balanced" maps are often "challenging" because they require a fair amount of work for one side to win. So, again with Breakthrough as the example, in order to win, either side has to effectively use its advantages and work to minimize its disadvantages. Other maps are "challenging", but in a different way. I often refer to these as "see-saw" or "teeter-totter" maps. With these maps, often one side starts out with a MAJOR advantage, but if they lose it, the map is basically over for them. For example, the new Zitadelle map is an example of a "teeter-totter" map. The allied tanks are, compared to the German tanks, weak. They have weaker guns and their armor is only strong enough to take maybe 2 hits from most of the Axis armor. To compensate for this general disadvantage, the Allies get (a) a lot of relatively fast-moving armor, and (b) excellent initial positioning and artillery. BUT if they lose their positions with the artillery, they're screwed. They basically have to hold those positions long enough that, if and when the Germans take them, there is enough of a ticket difference that the Allies can still wear the Germans down. Another example is Omaha Charlie Sector. The Germans have a major positioning advantage, offset by the Allies' HUGE ticket count. If the Germans can hold the bunkers long enough, they'll wear down the Allies and win. If they lose the bunkers too early, they lose the round. The back portion of the map usually is ignored completely because all the action centers around the bunkers and beach. So, essentially the map hinges on who controls those positions. Other times, "teeter totter" maps can rely on a single piece of equipment, rather than a position to maintain balance. A map where the Allies have, say, 10 tanks, and the Germans have maybe 5, but two of them are "supertanks" (IE: Tiger, KT, Panther). If the Germans lose (or god forbid allow to be captured) one of these tanks, they're in SERIOUS trouble. Then there's maps that are "challenging" in a different way -- these are the maps where one side has a huge advantage which can only be countered by a specific combination of factors, usually requiring a TON of teamwork -- not just teamwork in the sense of one squad that manages to work together, but teamwork requiring pretty much the entire team to work as a crack company. Examples of this are Hell of Bocage and (I think -- I'll need to play it a few more times) Cretan Village. These maps typically place the defenders in a pretty easy position where they have to REALLY screw up in order to lose. The challenge, therefore, exists essentially only for one team -- the attackers. They face a major uphill battle (sometimes literally!), while the defenders basically have no challenge to speak of. Often these types of maps may also be "see-saw"/"teeter totter" maps, too. The defenders have no challenge UNTIL they lose the all-important position/piece of equipment, at which point they're likely to lose (unless they've held out long enough to bleed the enemy down). Personally, I don't like most see-saw maps. I find them to be frustrating regardless of which team I'm on. When I'm on the winning team, I'm usually bored because we're winning very easily. When I'm on the losing team, I'm annoyed because it feels like nothing we're doing makes a difference and we might as well just pack it in and move on. The "challenging" maps that require incredible amounts of teamwork are almost always irritating to me as well. Again, if I'm defending, it all feels too easy and like there's no challenge at all. If I'm attacking, the map feels like an exercise in futility and I wonder why I'm bothering to play. These types of maps may be great for clan play or for play between people who all have VOIP programs and can coordinate, but for general play on a public server, they almost always go the same way, and usually by a wide margin. What I'm trying to get a sense of is: - (1) What types of maps does the FH community like, and do they like maps that are challenging in the sense of one team requiring TONS of teamwork, or maps that are see-saw maps? - (2) What do you consider an acceptable level of "challenge" in a map and at what point does that challenge become too much for you? - (3) Given the choice between an uphill battle and an even fight, which do you prefer? - (4) What types of servers/matches do you usually play in/on (IE: pub servers or clan servers/matches/tournaments)? Just wondering what folks think. |
Re: The Question of Challenge What does "the FH community" like? You're funny. (1) see-saw and teamwork maps can be one and the same. (2) "challenge"--see my rant about "balance". It must always be possible for either team to gain advantage proportional to its ticket count, position on the map and time left in the game. (3) definitely uphill battle, if there is a reasonable chance of winning (4) pub |
Re: The Question of Challenge Can you explain what you mean by your "balance" principle a bit better? In reading it and thinking about it a bit more, I'm starting to think maybe I've misunderstood you. Are you using challenge and balance interchangably all hinging on your definition of balance? Plus, how do you manage your definition at the start of the map on an uphill battle style map? The line between "balanced" and "no chance of winning" seems basically razor-thin on maps like that, and requires a lot of things to fall into place to make that chance happen. By the way, when you say "reasonable chance of winning", what do you mean in terms of both how often each side wins and what's required in order for the disadvantaged side to win? What makes it "reasonable"? |
Re: The Question of Challenge Gah, clash of the essay-writers again. Nup. I posted this huge-ass rant about "balance" a while ago. Basically, a manifest based on too many years of playing online games. Remember this? :-) http://wolfgaming.net/vB/showthread....hlight=balance Once again: 1. each side at the beginning of the map has a realistic chance of winning (not equal, just realistic.) 2. no single weapon or element is without a counter that has a realistic (not easy, just realistic) chance of being successfully used 3. at any point during a game, a side has the possibility of gaining an advantage that is at least in proportion to its position in the game 4. it is not possible for a team to get into a situation that it has no realistic chance of getting out of. 5. a losing team should receive advantages, but not enough to destroy the winning team's chances of winning, and vice versa #1 is clear--no forgone conclusions. #2 should also be obvious--both sides have ways of dealing not only with the other side's uber weapons, but also with strong fortifications, etc. So single river crossings that can be camped too easily are a no-no unless there are back ways that can't be hermetically sealed off, you get the idea. Same with requiring the sort of teamwork you can't honestly expect on a public server to counter a heavy, near-invincible enemy unit. #3 means that a team with 50 out of 500 tickets left and no flags shouldn't necessarily have the right to the possibility of winning (although that should be stasticically possible, however improbable) but should be able to manage a breakout or inflict proportional damage on the enemy #4 see the river crossing example for #2. So either side being totally, hopelessly boxed into its uncap is a no-no. #5 means that the disadvantaged team should get some sort of help, such as shortened supply lines, more spawning vehicles, whatever. However, this shouldn't be enough to destroy the winning team's success. A great example of this is the C-47 on Market Garden, while a bad example is the Allies' loss of air power (and the Axis' monopoly on it) when Axis caps the airfield on Desert Rose. I'm choosing my words _very_ carefully here; "realistic chance" means that a team, given average pubbie players on both sides, does not need a miracle to do a certain thing--this can be winning a map, just getting out of base and capping a flag, or killing a certain enemy unit. Challenge is a different concept from balance. For example, some maps are hard as hell to win as a given side, but still balanced. You are right, the line is pretty thin. It is incredibly difficult to design a balanced scenario, especially given that many of the elements often cited as "balancing" out the other side's superior weaponry (great example: artillery on Hell of Bocage) seem placed there with too much focus on their theoretical possibility rather than on the effect you could realistically expect them to have on the game. "Axis has a lot of tanks? Oh, I'll give Allies some artillery, that'll do it". |
Re: The Question of Challenge Variety is salt of life, all maps like Breakthrough and I would quit playing FH (hey, I like the map, but not all maps like this one) |
Re: The Question of Challenge I'll try to chip in but in a different manner by discussing what maps I like and dislike with a nod to what I think you want. Iwo Jima - The Allies have superior weaponry in tanks, infantry weapons and ships but the layout of the map is such that there is a struggle to take it by the Allies or retake it by the Axis. I think more people playing favor the Allies but this map provides good fun. There is no vehicle (outside of maybe the DD) that cannot be destroyed. Balanced & challenging. Any of the "cross the bridge" maps I hate. Absolutely. You are locked into factors beyond your control to determine the fate of your team. Challenging and positionally unbalanced. El Alemein is balanced but I don't consider there to be a challenge in the proverbial sense because the outcome is entirely determined by your air forces. If they are both poor/good it boils down to tank warfare and possilbe an edge to the Axis due to better tanks. I play on pub servers and this is a major factor in the outcome of maps. Your team can be your challenge, even on a balanced map. I guess this is why I tend not to like challenging maps like the bridgers. Berlin Streets (old) is both balanced and challenging. It all depends entirely on your team because here, there are no new strategies under the sun. If I determine I am just fodder to aircraft or a group on Teamspeak I won't play. I feel like I've got to have an equal chance to kill my enemy. If I having a bad game or perhaps a touch too much to drink then so be it but there has to be parity in the map. This is the biggest essay I can manage at this time... :) |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
|
Re: The Question of Challenge I'd like more maps like Cretan Village, that's really challenging in SP. Hell, the bots throw in grenades into houses, something they don't even do in BF2. Now that's what I call challenging map. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Maybe it's just me but I feel that FH is perfectly balanced in most maps.. I don't blame losing or winning on the map itself nor on the teams but rather on the players.. Fact is, if your team sucks your out of luck and are going to lose, nothing you can do to prevent this. You can completely balance out the maps, but it only takes one MG42Manic or one Alfonso in a plane on the opposite team to complete ruin your day. |
Re: The Question of Challenge In terms of HOW maps play, I'm not saying I want nothing but Breakthrough style maps. But it is a good example of a balanced map where winning the map really comes down to good strategy for BOTH sides, good teamwork, and you have a lot of options as to how to win (and no clear single path to victory that can be easily blocked). By contrast, I love a well-done push map (when played right, that is, but less said the better on that). I think Saipan is one of the best in this regard, and Tobruk is also very well balanced. Both present different approaches to challenges, but it's relatively rare that you play the map and just want to throw your hands up and say "Oh for f#%$ sake, why bother?!" I'm hoping my experience on Cretan Village is due to poor strategy by the Axis (IE: they should've gone for the northern flag instead of the town, or should've split their force and sent a small detachment north), or poor use of their support forces (mortars and bombers). If that's all that was wrong, then I think this map could probably turn out to be a pretty good one. I can see how the "Some like vanilla, some like chocolate. >shrug<" response applies to the see-saw style maps, but I really can't fathom why people like maps that are serious uphill battles -- at least on pub servers -- since those battles seem to go a certain way the vast majority of the time they're played. And Gen'l Knight, I agree with you about pub servers: your team often is challenging enough without having to face a stacked deck as far as equipment/position/bleed/ticket numbers/etc. goes. Hence, my confusion as to the appeal of these maps (unless people just love being on the defense team and practicing their marksmanship with relative ease, which, even then I don't get since that gets pretty boring for me after a while). |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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 Quote:
|
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 Quote:
|
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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
More complicated maps requiring teamwork (new Midway, e.g.) are rarely won by the disadvantaged side, but I've seen it happen (although the stupid bleed bug when Axis kills all their objectives prevented us from getting the real ticket win. Lame.) A few days ago, I won my first round ever of Coral Sea as Axis, when I decided to form up with Torque doing formation torpedo bombing; a third guy joined us, and Allies had no chance--their carriers were down within minutes. Same with Pegasus and many other really difficult maps; you'll always find enough situations with good team players to make them worthwhile. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Solo, I really can't understand your perpetual concern, that's our plan, but it's tricky to find that kit or vehicle wich transform an umbalanced map in balanced, this can be done perfectly just releasing to public the maps and getting feedback from players. I am sure you will agree with me we have always tried to solve balance problems in each FH1 version, and 0.7 has almost all the maps balanced, with some sad mistakes because we are just humans, not almighty HAL9000's. So we want challenging, historic and tough maps, but balanced, if one map is not balanced is a mistake, not an evil plan to ruin your gaming experience. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Right, but I think the assumption ought to be that teamwork will be minimal at best when designing maps that you intend to have played on public servers. Otherwise, expect the servers to eventually drop them because they end up inevitably being a pain in the ass for one side. One other thing I'd like to suggest to mappers: try not to design maps that can end in utter baserape. Nothing is more frustrating than playing a round and eventually being locked into your main (or one final spot) unable to leave and not really able to fight back either. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
To keep flogging my favorite dead horse, the key word here is "reasonable". Usually, pubbie players run around doing their own thing, but pretty often recently I've seen enough people get their sh** together to bring away a great win on a difficult map. I'd hate to see that sacrificed so the short bus crowd can get their jollies every time. Quote:
|
Re: The Question of Challenge Hmm, im with solo on this one, devs shouldnt design maps with the idea that one team needs to field extreme teamwork if they want to win (that, or the other team needs to be very crappy). And then go on about how balanced it is. "Balanced" doesnt mean that "one team has a chance of winning if they really try hard", if it were balanced, one team wouldnt need to try any harder than the other. Now that is not the case on some maps, i dont mind, but dont say its balanced when its not, just admit the odds are skewed towards one team and be done with it. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Oh I know, Lobo. I've never really thought that you guys are ACTUALLY out to make bad maps (despite my occasional frustrated outbursts on a map -- my apologies by the way). The thing is a lot of the maps I see that end up being really frustrating for people are maps that some of you guys seem to think are just fine. "They just need some teamwork is all." I mean, you guys play on pub servers. You know how people there play. All I'm saying is your mappers have got to take into account the mindset of the pub player in designing maps. Most of the time, from my experience, pub players have the following traits: - A pub player will always run to wherever the action is. - Unless they have a major advantage or nowhere else to go, they will not sit still and defend. - Pub players do not move in formations, units, or anything of the sort (at least in FH1. In BF2 they may be a BIT better, given the squad system, but even then they may just use the SL as a moving spawn). - Pub players are more likely to attack individually as they spawn, rather than with massed firepower (IE: on a map like, say, Nuenen, the pub Allied players are more likely to push forward one by one, only to be chewed up by Axis defenses, instead of charging en masse). - When faced with a path of less resistance, the pub player will take it, regardless of map design, intent, etc. (IE: precapping). - Pub players are more concerned with winning. Some rank personal score higher than this. - Pub players as INFANTRY will charge forward incessantly. In a tank -- especially a decent one that is uncommon (IE: Panther, Tiger, KT) -- a pub player will often hold back on attacking. In other words, their survival instinct only kicks in when they have something precious (IE: a KT) to protect. An individual life/ticket/spawn round as an infantryman means nothing to them. This also relates to why pub players bail from powerful tanks -- they figure they'll shoot the enemy on foot and then repair the tank, rather than die in it. - Although I personally love the concept, pub players don't get push maps. Or to the extent they do, they don't WANT to play maps that way. They don't like being forced to win one way and one way only. And if one piece of equipment is THE balancing factor for the team, that's generally going to be a problem because what if some idiot who doesn't know the "right" way to play the map gets it? IE: a map where the artillery or a particular tank are the crucial factors and some clueless player grabs it and dies. What then? With all that in mind, you've got to figure how pub players will approach your map. With a lot of the maps where one team's on offense and the other on defense, pub players will trickle in one by one and get cut to ribbons, rather than charge as a group. They'll often not support each other, or will run off on their own so you can't support them. I'm hoping some of this will change with FH2, given the squad system. I'm also hoping map designs will take this kind of stuff into account and figure, for example, locations where you have to push across a bridge are going to be skewed to lose for the attacking team MOSTLY due to the behavior of pub players. If they're in a tank, they'll stop on the bridge and die (IE: see Arnhem or Hell of Bocage). If they're on foot, they'll just charge forward one by one and get shot (again, see Arnhem or Hell of Bocage). But situations like this CAN be alleviated. For example, removing the river in Hell of Bocage and simply creating a flat field removes the ability for the Axis to camp one or two choke points. Likewise, giving Allies expacks or satchels instead of the Bazooka kit makes it possible to actually hold the town or other spawn locations. On Arnhem, maybe something like creating a special PIAT kit for that map that only has one or 2 rounds and can't reload would allow Axis tanks to cross more easily. Or just make that one more of an infantry map with limited tank support. Stuff like that is what I mean by minor tweaks. I recognize a lot of this can't be known until maps are actually released to public servers, but I'd suggest actively updating maps over time instead of waiting until the next release to redo all the maps. Like, if you know there's a small fix you can do, just officially release THAT map rather than a huge map pack plus new features. This will help do two things: (1) keep maps feeling fresh, and (2) keep more maps in rotation when problems are identified, rather than have them pulled until whenever the next release comes out. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
It can be thoroughly balanced, even if it is not symmetrical. The important parts of the definition of balance: A harmonious or satisfying arrangement or proportion of parts or elements, as in a design. (Merriam-Webster.) This is what is relevant for game design. "Even" = a world of El Alameins, Breakthroughs and Prokhorovkas. HOW UTTERLY DULL. And Solo, sorry, you're wrong. Many pub players _do_ get push maps. In fact, far more than enough "get it" to ignore the clamoring from the unwashed hordes for entirely symmetrical "omfgz0rz, they have teh KT, I want more teh big Allied IS-2 pantz0rz" maps. Or "omfgz0rz, they have teh t00 many bazooksaz, make my pantz0rz invincible!". Look at all the whingeing that went on when EA removed squad-hopping from BF2 with 1.3. It was a good decision, but the arcade w**kers whined whined and whined some more. Do you want FH to pander to that sort of mediocrity? I've always considered it a bit more highbrow, in the sense that it presents people with a challenge, i.e. a problem to be solved. I have NO SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER for people who whine instead of approaching it as a nut to be cracked logically (waves "#1 Lobo Fan Club banner" here.) To be fair, I agree 100% (sigh, see my manifesto again) that a good player in a team should be able to gain _some_ advantage in every map, even when his team is filled with dribbling morons. This means that even if you're surrounded by baboon-level IQ twits, getting pounded to rubble by campers, you should at least be able to have a go at killing some bad guys, even if your team is too blitheringly incompetent to win a map. It does not mean that the map should be designed around your blitheringly incompetent team. Great example: Nuenen. I _loathe_ that map with a passion, as I find it way too easy for Axis to just camp the approaches to the city; there are also too few rewards for Allies for capping the first flag. This is my opinion, it does not reflect on the quality of the map per se. There's a player on WOLF who's mastered conservatively camping in the jagdpanzer; that's all I ever see him do. He usually ends the game with about 40 kills and 2-3 deaths; for some reason, I almost inevitably seem to be the only guy who bothers grabbing a zook and sneaking around to nail his ass to a telephone pole, while our Shermans are being turned into popcorn left and right. What's with that? Many FH players _are_ intelligent and adaptive and can handle problematic maps which can't be won by the obvious "solution" of throwing more tanks and dudes at the problem until it goes away. |
Re: The Question of Challenge [QUOTE=FuzzyBunny]Solo, I don't think that's a good basis for map design. There are maps that are very frustrating, but tremendously cool when you _do_ get a good enough team together that can pull it off. It's the difference between a drunken one-night stand in a cheesy motel, and splitting a bottle of Dom in the roof suite of the Bauer-Grunewald with a $5000 call girl. I am glad that the lowest common denominator is not pandered to. To keep flogging my favorite dead horse, the key word here is "reasonable". Usually, pubbie players run around doing their own thing, but pretty often recently I've seen enough people get their sh** together to bring away a great win on a difficult map. I'd hate to see that sacrificed so the short bus crowd can get their jollies every time.[QUOTE] Oh, I'm not saying "Assume every pub player is a complete moron who will run as far away from his other teammates as possible". I'm saying "Assume that pub players won't generally work together, and will move independently rather than in groups." Most of the time that's the truth. That's how it works on pub servers. The team will all move in the same GENERAL direction (assuming they have a limited number of directions to move), but for the most part they won't be doing things like covering each other, backing each other up, moving in any kind of formation, etc. They won't specifically coordinate attacks that often either. That's not to say they'll run in circles banging into things, though. It just means that if the way to win is "Charge with a group of at least 5 tanks moving in a diamond formation", that's pretty unrealistic. 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. 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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Fuzzy please explian, or point me to that post you made somewhere. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Forget that Fuzzy, talk to us about that bottle of Dom and the $5,000 hooker... :naughty: |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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:
-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? |
Re: The Question of Challenge 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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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!!). |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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. |
Re: The Question of Challenge BadSeed, 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< |
Re: The Question of Challenge 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.. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Quote:
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~. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Of course, and I'm not asking for maps that design for noobtards. there's a big difference between a noobtard and an otherwise disorganized pub player, though. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Some guys organizing the work with chat can make wonders if the rest of team accept guidance. Hopefully FH2 with all the commander and squadleader jazz will force natural born teamplay, I really hope, we will be swimming in the warm Shangri La fonts. It's funny the most annoying whiners are always the classic John Battlefield Rambo who complains because he can't take full Ramelle with his blazing MP40 all by himself. Few maps suck, usually players do, but the whiners are usually the most incompetent of village, the good players are busy thinking how to solve a problem, FH is not Mohaa deathmatch, it's about a team effort. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Yeah, trouble is the BF1942 engine was never really designed to encourage teamplay as much as it was designed to SUGGEST it. Like, "Do it if you want, but go ahead and blaze away like a Rambo Noobie if you want." I too hope that BF2's engine and teamwork capabilities, from squads, to point structure, to the commander, to VOIP will really help avoid a lot of the problems we see in FH1 maps, simply because people will work together more. I'm just suggesting that, for future map design, to keep certain things in mind. Pub players will be less organized in general, although FH2 players will hopefully be a bit better. I just don't think you can assume teamwork will happen inherently, though, when designing maps. I think you have to assume people will move GENERALLY for the goals of the team, but in a lot of cases will still be doing so all by themselves. Even if they're running near another player, they'll be mostly focused on themselves rather than on coordinating with other players. That's ok and all, but it means that maps have to keep this in mind so that the disadvantage/advantage disparity isn't too wide. |
Re: The Question of Challenge Here is why Battlefield and it's mods usually don't have pubbers doing teamwork. They are huge. The maps I mean. Even the smallest BF maps are HUGE in comparison with games like Call of Duty or Counter-Strike. And because they are so huge people spread out more. Because they spread out more people tend to work alone. There are exceptions to this and there are alot of people who will try to work together. The problem is they spread out over the servers and enough of them don't hit one server to get good teams going. I play CoD:UO mostly now(played FH for a long time but for some reason B1942 and its mods started taking literally ten or more minutes to load maps.) and the maps are small enough that even though alot of people run-and-gun they still manage to work together, map size forces them to. They need to stick together for purely size reasons but because they need to stay relatively close together they usually start working together. I'm not saying the FH should start switching to smaller maps. Big maps and lots of vehicles are the reason I played and will be playing the FH series. I just hope mappers keep this in mind. Don't design maps that any little nooblet can run and gun and lonewolf on. But take into account that you are OFTEN going to have atleast half of each team either lonewolfing, smacktarding, or comitting various other team destroying actions. Design maps so that you don't need perfectly coordinated teams to win but also design them so that a team that has NO coordination can't win. |
| All times are GMT -7. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.