How about a map which could be completed in more than 1 way, like at one point early or midway through the map it split into two separate routes which didn't intersect again, and at the end of both routes was one way of finishing the map each? So depending on a team's tactics it could be two games of 3 v 3 going on at the one time or whatever. Each route would have to be about the same level of difficulty as the other one I guess. I dunno what would happen if a team decided all 6 should go down the same route though lol. I dunno if this is a new idea and actually I've just realised it's a bit OceanFloory but still...
Would this map idea work?...
- Thread starter Useless
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
what you think in that map(s) the attackers will make?
I'm already in the middle of making something like this.
[cliche]
I want to try new things that haven't been done before.
[/cliche]
[cliche]
I want to try new things that haven't been done before.
[/cliche]
Well I think the idea would be that the attackers could go either to one route or the other and once they pick one route, the other gets closed. SO it would be like 2 maps in one with a choice of which route to take. Each route would have a few objectives along its line. I think it would work and would make the map more interesting tactically.
make sure you give the defenders a message then, like:
"the attackers have gone for route 1!"
(note that that is a very very crappy message to give)
otherwise it's just impossible to defend properly... like defending the 2 bridges in golgotha final... only harder, lol.
"the attackers have gone for route 1!"
(note that that is a very very crappy message to give)
otherwise it's just impossible to defend properly... like defending the 2 bridges in golgotha final... only harder, lol.
![[3dgamer]Lord_M](/data/avatars/m/0/575.jpg?1443189741){kind=avatar}
no need for that
make two objectives .. if one is taken, the other gets useless, startpositions change (attackers & defenders) ...thats it
very easy to build, the hard thing is that it must be a hard choice
means the 2 ways must be nearly the same skill etc.
and thats the prob.
making it simillar makes it boring
make two objectives .. if one is taken, the other gets useless, startpositions change (attackers & defenders) ...thats it
very easy to build, the hard thing is that it must be a hard choice
means the 2 ways must be nearly the same skill etc.
and thats the prob.
making it simillar makes it boring
[3dgamer]Lord_M said:
Well I thought it wouldn't necessarily have to be similar routes to be of similar difficulty. Just imagine for example a low route vs a high route. Or a fire route vs an ice route etc. They could be totally different in build and terrain etc but the difficlty levels could be similar just by playtesting each route vs the other. If one route is too easy for a certain reason then remove whatever it was that made it easy, or add that element to the other route.
Obviously the defenders would get the incoming route 1 or 2 message and for both teams the alt route would be shut from then on (any attackers or deffers still in the alt route would auto suicide I guess). As a map it would mean that the def would always have to be on their toes and have different tacs for each route. Like 2 maps in one for more variety.
This is just a thought I had - I'm not a mapper at all but if I was I'd make something like CTF-Underdark, my fave CTF map which has a Heaven side and a Hell side. It's amazing, check it out
So my AS map would have a Heaven route vs a Hell route - one high, one low. Heaven would be all icy and stairs and stuff and Hell would be all lava and caverns 
Guys......I think you all missed the point in here
It doesn't matter if 1 route is easier than the other.....because both teams get the (dis)advantages........they must both attack and defend.....
only thing is that 1 route might not be played alot and won't be very usefull.......though on the other hand......the harder route will always need at least 1 defender......
so just make the 2 routes thing...........don't care about which one is harder!!!
oh btw....make sure the story makes sense! (ie.... 2 objectives would be to either destroy a generator OR deactivate a control-system.....both to take a defense-door down)
It doesn't matter if 1 route is easier than the other.....because both teams get the (dis)advantages........they must both attack and defend.....
only thing is that 1 route might not be played alot and won't be very usefull.......though on the other hand......the harder route will always need at least 1 defender......
so just make the 2 routes thing...........don't care about which one is harder!!!
oh btw....make sure the story makes sense! (ie.... 2 objectives would be to either destroy a generator OR deactivate a control-system.....both to take a defense-door down)
sounds, nice. its possible to do and also pretty easy as lordm remarked but very interesting is there is no real mapping experience about something like this in assault.
still... the defense would have to split up where the attackers can all go one route... that's extremely hard to defend in the beginning.
when i was mapping for ut2k3 i kinda put something like that in.
1 route was pretty ez to defend and the other was a lot harder to defend.
Where it was easier to defend i was working on a "target of oppertunity" for example after 1 minute into the easy route a chopper would fly by, if the attacking team could manage to shoot it it would crash and leave shield + armor + rockets for the attackers.
I stopped mapping it cos i still ain't into ut2k3 but its a nice thing to do anyways.
1 route was pretty ez to defend and the other was a lot harder to defend.
Where it was easier to defend i was working on a "target of oppertunity" for example after 1 minute into the easy route a chopper would fly by, if the attacking team could manage to shoot it it would crash and leave shield + armor + rockets for the attackers.
I stopped mapping it cos i still ain't into ut2k3 but its a nice thing to do anyways.
Here's another idea
A map split into two completely separate parts. Say each game is 6 v 6 so each half / part of the map would have 3 of the attackers and 3 defenders. The 3 attackers in the one half would have to assault the base held by the 3 defenders on the same side and meanwhile, in the other half of the map, the other 3 attackers are doing the same thing. I guess because of the design of the assault mod that all reds would have to attack at the same time and all blues have to defend, and vice versa, though the idea would work better if 3 blues were attacking a red base while 3 reds were attacking the blue base. Then once one of the bases was taken, all the players from the dead base would respawn in the intact base and that would be the single play area from then on.
The two halves would be separated but the teams could still communicate obviously and tacs would be based around which attacker should attack which base depending on his launch skills and the same for def (better snipers would be asked to def the base where there was more sniping oppourtunities).
Damn I wish I was a mapper so I could do some of my ideas but unfortunately I'm too thick to understand it
Here's what I mean - both attacks going on at the same time. Brilliant diagram innit?
A map split into two completely separate parts. Say each game is 6 v 6 so each half / part of the map would have 3 of the attackers and 3 defenders. The 3 attackers in the one half would have to assault the base held by the 3 defenders on the same side and meanwhile, in the other half of the map, the other 3 attackers are doing the same thing. I guess because of the design of the assault mod that all reds would have to attack at the same time and all blues have to defend, and vice versa, though the idea would work better if 3 blues were attacking a red base while 3 reds were attacking the blue base. Then once one of the bases was taken, all the players from the dead base would respawn in the intact base and that would be the single play area from then on.
The two halves would be separated but the teams could still communicate obviously and tacs would be based around which attacker should attack which base depending on his launch skills and the same for def (better snipers would be asked to def the base where there was more sniping oppourtunities).
Damn I wish I was a mapper so I could do some of my ideas but unfortunately I'm too thick to understand it
Here's what I mean - both attacks going on at the same time. Brilliant diagram innit?
if u had 3 players attacking each side u realise if anyone dies they will spawn at either side tho could be a bit of a fuxor for any tactics or at least be a bit confusing.... u could have a single room wiv teleports so peeps could stay fighting on the same side/area...like overlord spawn room...
also u could have all the objectives from each base linked up to 2 counters so when one base has all if its objs done, spawns change or teleports for that side turn off, or whatever etc
it is very do-able your idea, tho i'll stay out of it and leave it to cypress and humph, i get confused enough building normal(ish) AS maps
also u could have all the objectives from each base linked up to 2 counters so when one base has all if its objs done, spawns change or teleports for that side turn off, or whatever etc
it is very do-able your idea, tho i'll stay out of it and leave it to cypress and humph, i get confused enough building normal(ish) AS maps
Muttley said:it is very do-able your idea, tho i'll stay out of it and leave it to cypress and humph, i get confused enough building normal(ish) AS maps
Hmm there must be a way to define where people spawn depending on where they started attacking. Or a way to make sure that if 3 players are already in one half of the map when u respawn, that u will always respawn in the half that only has 2. And this will of course usually be the half in which you just died. Is there a way to define where a player respawns depending on the zone he died in? Like if I die just before the air vents in Astheno then I'll spawn at the start but if I die just after they're breached then I spawn in the vent. This must be applicable to a map split into halves too though a mapper would need to figure out a system.
Yeah this would be the idea - both teams of 3 attack their respective sides and the first team to conquer their side of the map would then automatically respawn in the appropriate area in the other side (which would depend on what spawnpoint the weaker team had last activated). It would mean that in each game both sides of the map would have to be beaten instead of everyone just piling into the easier route, which is what would happen in my previous idea let's face it
The only problem with this whole thing is that both teams would surely have to be even and the number of players on both teams must be divisible by 2. Otherwise imagine a pub game with 5 defenders and 4 attackers. 2 attackers spawn in one half and the other 2 would automaically spawn in the other half because that would be the rule. But then there would be 1 game of 2 v 2 going on and one of 2 v 3. I dunno how big a problem this would be in pubs actually - maybe not too bad since pub games are often uneven anyway. Only 3 players in the server would be a disaster - 1 v 1 on one side of the map and the third person either attacking the map with no-one to stop him, or sitting waiting in defence until the other half is beaten.
If you have any way to develop this idea I'd love to hear it because if it works it could open up a whole new style of mapping.
playerstarts --> the techy name for where u spawn are only split into attack and def ie. team1 attack and team0 defence, zones have no effect on them afaik, i cant see a way of coding it so it splits each team into specified playerstarts unless u had 2 levels or 4 teams it wouldnt do it i dont think. U dont want to use teleports cos people wont play by the rules i assume maybe theres a way to force them too hmz..
maybe u could ask headcase, phear or someone like that wiv lots of coding know how about creating something to help your idea work...
There must be a way around it i reckon, i'll put my thinking hat on, im a bit hungover so it could take a while... U do have favourites teleports which can transport u to other maps and servers but i think that might be going a bit far... I'll go and look at the actors and see what there is that might be useful
maybe u could ask headcase, phear or someone like that wiv lots of coding know how about creating something to help your idea work...
There must be a way around it i reckon, i'll put my thinking hat on, im a bit hungover so it could take a while... U do have favourites teleports which can transport u to other maps and servers but i think that might be going a bit far... I'll go and look at the actors and see what there is that might be useful
I remember when I wanted to the create an assault map thinking this would be a cool idea. Although, I figured it would be a waste of time as 99.9% of the time the attackers would just all go the same way, thus rendering the second half of the map a waste of time and effort.
However, one idea which I thought would make for a cool assault objective, would be a timed objective. Not like the ones in RoAR's assault but something like this:
Attackers need to disable the power to something (like an electric fence or a defense turret), although after they do it they only have 1 min (for example) before the power is restored. If they fail to get through the gates/past the turret within that minute then they have to go back and disable the power again.
I always thought it would play really well tactically, but it may end up leaving the map uncompletable.
However, one idea which I thought would make for a cool assault objective, would be a timed objective. Not like the ones in RoAR's assault but something like this:
Attackers need to disable the power to something (like an electric fence or a defense turret), although after they do it they only have 1 min (for example) before the power is restored. If they fail to get through the gates/past the turret within that minute then they have to go back and disable the power again.
I always thought it would play really well tactically, but it may end up leaving the map uncompletable.