DUST Search - maps maps maps, or is it just me

VicBoss wrote:

the skirmish maps i think are much better as attacker and defender. I know it is a bigger pain as every map can be symmetrical (kinda) and are simpler to set up and run. However when attacking a point like in the first build i was in (non symmetrical skirmish maps) i liked better for these reasons. for those that were not there there were 2 initial points, A and B that when capped moved down to a different part of the map that was more urban where there were C D and E to cap and hold till the mcc got there to cap area. If not MCC gets exploded.

Anyway reasons

Makes attacking and defending different
feels more like your attacking when you are and defending when you are
feels more realistic, perimeter defense then main center defense
gave maps more area and a more open feel
allowed for almost two different style maps per map
different strategies needed for each set of objectives
gave defense more flexibility in ideas on how to defend both sets of objectives

cons
maps are probably harder to make
some find them to long and complex
and thats all i can think of now

So, is it just me? /topic

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 135	Posted - 2012.11.01 22:24:00 - [1] - Quote the skirmish maps i think are much better as attacker and defender. I know it is a bigger pain as every map can be symmetrical (kinda) and are simpler to set up and run. However when attacking a point like in the first build i was in (non symmetrical skirmish maps) i liked better for these reasons. for those that were not there there were 2 initial points, A and B that when capped moved down to a different part of the map that was more urban where there were C D and E to cap and hold till the mcc got there to cap area. If not MCC gets exploded. Anyway reasons Makes attacking and defending different feels more like your attacking when you are and defending when you are feels more realistic, perimeter defense then main center defense gave maps more area and a more open feel allowed for almost two different style maps per map different strategies needed for each set of objectives gave defense more flexibility in ideas on how to defend both sets of objectives cons maps are probably harder to make some find them to long and complex and thats all i can think of now So, is it just me? /topic
Vincam Velmoriar Villore Sec Ops Gallente Federation 103	Posted - 2012.11.01 22:51:00 - [2] - Quote VicBoss wrote: the skirmish maps i think are much better as attacker and defender. I know it is a bigger pain as every map can be symmetrical (kinda) and are simpler to set up and run. However when attacking a point like in the first build i was in (non symmetrical skirmish maps) i liked better for these reasons. for those that were not there there were 2 initial points, A and B that when capped moved down to a different part of the map that was more urban where there were C D and E to cap and hold till the mcc got there to cap area. If not MCC gets exploded. Anyway reasons Makes attacking and defending different feels more like your attacking when you are and defending when you are feels more realistic, perimeter defense then main center defense gave maps more area and a more open feel allowed for almost two different style maps per map different strategies needed for each set of objectives gave defense more flexibility in ideas on how to defend both sets of objectives cons maps are probably harder to make some find them to long and complex and thats all i can think of now So, is it just me? /topic This should probably be in the feedback section, but I agree with you. Mostly because when planetary conquest goes live, it makes much more sense to have an attacker and a defender, as one corp will control it and another will seek to control it. If the district/plannet is not owned, then having two MCC's makes sense. Otherwise, there should be an attacker and a defender, and it should be slightly tougher for the attacker, imho.
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 135	Posted - 2012.11.01 22:56:00 - [3] - Quote ya this is not in feedback mode yet but just throwing ideas and wondering if anyone agreed
The Infected One CrimeWave Syndicate 126	Posted - 2012.11.01 22:58:00 - [4] - Quote Agreed.
Ten-Sidhe Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 414	Posted - 2012.11.01 23:09:00 - [5] - Quote Yea, we need attack and defender. Once locations are owned they will have to defend them when attacked, so maps don't have to be fair to both sides. The easy to defend ones will be more desirable, those worth sending troops at in meat grinder fashion, so it kinda self balances in persistent world. A non-mmo fps can't get away with this. We also need more mods since a 120 million isk mcc can't be blown up in every none ambush match once players have to start paying to replace them. The current is probably best for testing balance of other stuff though.
VicBoss Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 135	Posted - 2012.11.02 02:08:00 - [6] - Quote This is true alot of things, like the money system, right now are in for beta and thats why they work
VK deathslaer Tritan-Industries Legacy Rising 149	Posted - 2012.11.02 02:57:00 - [7] - Quote I agree with the OP. When the RC (release candidate) comes out for planetary conquest there should be all points taken for the defenders. But battles should be progressive and intensely engaging. For instance a district is huge and it isn't quite fitting to have 1 map per district. So the attackers should go through a series of maps on the district with varying play modes. and they can pick which maps on the district to probe out. So a capital on a district is a Skirmish style on map that is huge. and before you get to that said skirmish mode you have to blow through defensive points. just my .02 isk


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page