Conquer Club

Siege Maps

Have an idea for a map? Discuss ideas and concepts here.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Siege Maps

Postby DoomOmen on Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:43 pm

I posted this in the suggestions board, but I am posting it here too. I will leave the thread verbatim. Hopefully it gets some attention from map makers here.

Concise description:
First off, I will state this: I am not sure whether a new gametype would need to be setup for this to work or just new maps to be designed with this in mind. I have no talent for coding or mapping, so I do not know the answer to this. I will just continue on under the assumption that it will require both a new gametype option and new maps to support it.

I am proposing a new gametype primarily for team games (I suppose it would work as a free-for-all gametype too) in which maps contain territorial sections that are symmetrically/evenly divided up between players on a team. The goal of the game is obviously to control all territories, but the way the initial drop would work, this would mean invading another team's already fortified "base".

Specifics:
Here is a very basic and very poorly rendered example of a map design that would work for this, this particular case being a four team doubles:
Image

If you are only playing a two or three team doubles game, just imagine that the unused "bases" would be filled with neutrals. I realize the map design would have to be different for triples and quadruples games. I also realize that map choices may have to be restricted when creating a game of this gametype in order for this to work. This map, for example, would not work for triples, but could work for quadruples, so a map like this may have to be restricted when a person chooses to create a Triples Siege game. I am hoping that this alone is not enough reason to stop this idea from being implemented.

Now, in my image above, the 3s obviously represent the players and teams. Notice that each team -- Team 1 being red/green, Team 2 being blue/yellow, Team 3 being pink/turquoise, Team 4 being orange/grey -- is symmetrically placed in a specific area. The lines represent what territories can attack each other. Notice that each team can hit each other team from a certain spot. A setup like this takes out the randomness of the initial drop, thus eliminating one aspect of the luck that this game requires.

There is a lot of complaining about how prevalent the luck factor is in this game. Not much can be done about the dice or how quickly someone acquires playable cards, but something can be done about the initial territory drop. I have just recently returned to this site after a two year hiatus, so I am still learning the new maps. I believe some maps drop players in specific territories evenly at the beginning of the game, and that is the basis of this new gametype.

I already know what one of the complaints will be: "It looks like you already hold an area bonus right from the start, so whoever goes first gets a huge advantage." I am aware of this and already know how to prevent this. My idea is that you get no area bonuses within your own home base, but only area bonuses from within an enemy base. The only problem with that is that I don't know if it is possible to to code a map to allow for this -- some players being able to acquire a specific area bonus while others cannot.

That aspect alone would create a whole new set of strategies. Whether or not to prevent an enemy from getting bonuses in your base that you cannot benefit from by holding them yourself. And if you do want to prevent them from getting those bonuses, how hard do you try?

This will improve the following aspects of the site:
This would create a whole new way to play team based games and even free-for-all games.

You would get to have a home base to launch your attack from right at the start instead of spending the majority of the game creating a home base to launch from.

You have the challenge of breaking an enemy in a fortified base, and the winner will be determined by who has the better defensive and offensive schemes.

Providing a symmetrical drop at the start of the game eliminates one aspect of the luck inherent in this game.
Last edited by DoomOmen on Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Major DoomOmen
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:56 pm

Re: Siege Maps

Postby Thomassaurus on Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:26 pm

It looks like a good idea but i'm afraid most of the stuff on this map can't be done:

You can't get a team to start next to each other, each player would start on a random base.
I don't think you can start with all your troops grouped together in a base. If you have more than 1 starting territory they will be randomly placed.
map like this may have to be restricted when a person chooses to create a Triples Siege game. I am hoping that this alone is not enough reason to stop this idea from being implemented.

This wouldn't be allowed.


I think this could be a good game without these options, maybe need some changes though.
For one thing the bases would be to hard to hold, you should make it so there are less entrance to attack each base.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Thomassaurus
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:39 pm

Re: Siege Maps

Postby TaCktiX on Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:14 pm

Thomassaurus wrote:You can't get a team to start next to each other, each player would start on a random base.
I don't think you can start with all your troops grouped together in a base. If you have more than 1 starting territory they will be randomly placed.

Not true. With the magic of starting positions, most of those territories could be non-randomly filled. A perfect non-random drop is presently impossible, but we could always add a battlefield, neh?
map like this may have to be restricted when a person chooses to create a Triples Siege game. I am hoping that this alone is not enough reason to stop this idea from being implemented.

This is a major concern, and will be a handicap against the map. There are cases where some game settings have been restricted (consider Feudal War remaining 6 players, or my own Research and Conquer being allowed to have only 6 players), but the map was very novel in idea or theme. Since the theme you are aiming for here is relatively luckless gameplay (except those pesky intensity cubes), you might be able to get away with it.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class TaCktiX
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:24 pm
Location: Rapid City, SD

Re: Siege Maps

Postby Coleman on Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:17 pm

Perfect symmetry doesn't always make for good maps. I know many symmetrical maps have passed before, but I've never been a big fan of them. The concept is interesting though.
Warning: You may be reading a really old topic.
User avatar
Sergeant Coleman
 
Posts: 5402
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Siege Maps

Postby natty dread on Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:33 pm

You need to come up with a theme for your map. Also I agree with Coleman, symmetry can make for boring gameplay...
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Siege Maps

Postby DoomOmen on Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:22 pm

I thought a perfect drop was possible. Doesn't City Mogul drop players in specific sections?

I am not actually making a map, I don't know how. I wish I did, then I would make some of these maps myself. I only made that image to serve as an example for the type of gameplay I am looking for. Basically I would like to be able to play team games in which all teams already spawn into a home base and must attack other teams' home bases to achieve victory.

What makes this concept interesting to me is that each team starts on equal footing, and from there on out, it is pure strategy (minus the omnipresent luck of the dice) that decides the game. One team may be defense heavy, another team may be offense heavy, or another team may be content to sit back and let other teams duke it out.

As it is now, everyone drops randomly, on most maps, and most of the strategy you are required to come up with is dependent on whether you got a good initial placement or not. This would eliminate that issue.

Tacktix wrote:
DoomOmen wrote:map like this may have to be restricted when a person chooses to create a Triples Siege game. I am hoping that this alone is not enough reason to stop this idea from being implemented.
This is a major concern, and will be a handicap against the map. There are cases where some game settings have been restricted (consider Feudal War remaining 6 players, or my own Research and Conquer being allowed to have only 6 players), but the map was very novel in idea or theme. Since the theme you are aiming for here is relatively luckless gameplay (except those pesky intensity cubes), you might be able to get away with it.


Right, this could be an issue. A map made for quadruples or doubles siege may not always be able to also work for triples siege, so these maps would have to be restricted to only quadruples and doubles siege. My concern is that mappers wouldn't want to make maps for quadruples or doubles siege because of this, and that would kill this idea right away.

In actuality, however, any map could be made to work for doubles, triples and quadruples. Take the map on the image I posted above for example. If that map were played on a triples siege game, the base labeled Team 4 would be filled with neutrals. Instead of the territories connected to other bases by lines being able to attack each other, just make the map to where each of those border territories can attack all other border territories. Symmetry issue solved. I changed the image in the first post to reflect this idea.

In fact, if all Siege maps were made that way, there wouldn't be a single one that wouldn't work for doubles, triples and quadruples.
Image
User avatar
Major DoomOmen
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:56 pm


Return to Melting Pot: Map Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users