8 replies to this topic

[Traigus]

I could not find this already listed, I'm sorry if i'm copying someone else.

I know no computer code is simple.

However, I was playing on River city last night and someone asked "which way should we go..." and I realized that generally there would be 3-5 normal fights on the map based on mech speeds and which way people chose to go.

Then I realized there could be so many more withotu a ton more work.


Why not randomize which base our team spawn at?

1.) Base locations are set on the CQ maps already, IN Assault they can be in the same places on CQ (but only the ones we spawn on with show up that match).

2.) random set-ups would help scout role. Who knows where the other team is?

3.) The same geography turned 90 degrees + mech speeds make the same maps play differently, and cause unused portions to suddenly become viable places to go.

4.) 12 vs 12, could be split spawnacross 2 points each.

5.) Some points may be disallowed due to maps and LOS (Theta on River City, maybe on caustic)

6. PGI could add more bases, and which ones appear on any map could also be random. Maybe sometimes they cluster a bit, and are more defensible? Spawns coudd be locked out by distance so nobody spawns 500m from each other

7. Maybe in the future new lobbies people with command consoles can pick where to spawn (or vote if there is more than 1) at the lance level. lances without a console are randomly dropped.

8.More (feel free to add)

As I see it for , far less work than making new maps, PGI can extend the value and options we have on the current maps.by having the bases and or, our team spawns be randomly generated on map start.


Don't forget to vote in poll.

Thanks,

Edit: for typos.. Poll fixed so everyone can see it.

-T

Edited by Egomane, 09 April 2013 - 12:56 AM.
Yes, No and Abstain are the only allowed answer in question one of a suggestion poll

[Caswallon]

Perfectly good suggestion.

Yes might take a bit of work I also know very little coding so can't say how hard it would be, but I think a way of doing it is to ADD two more Nav points to each map.

Then have only a random 5 activate.

Two of these that met a minimum distance from each other would then become legit Drop/Start points?

Another variation that would make scouts all the more useful would be to NOT display which nave points are active until they had been sensor scanned. Likewise the enemy base should NOT show up as such until its eyballed at relitivly close range as well.

Hows that fit in the "Information Warfare" model you want to use PGI?

[Causticus]

I voted no for a couple reasons. It basically comes down to this: map design affects game balance. It would be much more difficult to design balanced maps that are playable from multiple possible drop points. Map devs would be able to make more quality two-way maps in the same time as trying to make four-way or six-way maps.

[White Bear 84]

Shouldnt be to hard to create the same maps just with the spawn locations and cap points at different locations.. ..even just a few different iterations would make a difference. Some maps just have areas which go to waste with the current setup, like the icy lake behind cap in frozen city, the far reaches of tourmaline desert and alpine, the caustic lake in caustic valley etc etc.

[Traigus]

Causticus, on 08 April 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

I voted no for a couple reasons. It basically comes down to this: map design affects game balance. It would be much more difficult to design balanced maps that are playable from multiple possible drop points. Map devs would be able to make more quality two-way maps in the same time as trying to make four-way or six-way maps.

Good point.

That's why I said use the existing cap points. In theory the map makers created lanes from every point to every other point as the maps exist now... we just use the 3 from Gamma to Sgma 75% of the time.

Pick any map, You have to be able to capture from any other point (assuming you are fast enough on the big maps.

Try it in a light in testing grounds., or in a real match. There are tons of spots and areas we never fight, but could, and would if we were going from C to D, not A to B all the time, especially in Assault

Edit: typos.

Edited by Traigus, 08 April 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[l4Dl]

Caswallon, on 08 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

Yes might take a bit of work I also know very little coding so can't say how hard it would be,

Very easy,

Spawn locations are usually vector3 locations (x,y,z).
You have a set "pool" of available spawn locations per team/map (vPlayerSpawnLoc[0] = D3DXVECTOR3(-50.0f,0.0f,5.0f); )
You then create a random integer, and place the player at that location.


So yeah, 5 minute job max.
If you define each spawn location on a per map basis, around 30 minutes, + 60 minutes testing.

[defcon won]

I'd at least like to see "Bline Siege" (what it was called in Ghost Recon) added as a game type.
No telling where the enemy attacker spawns in, and they need to scout to find the defending team and their base.

Ideally, for 2 teams with bases, both attacking and defending at the same time, you would have a system like in Chromehounds where the maps are big enough that each team has 2-5 options to choose from for their base in a pre-game lobby showing the map. That way no one ever knows where the opposing team is coming from or WHICH possible base it is you need to take out. Destroying being preferable to standing in a square of course.

[Bobzilla]

I think this would work well on the larger maps, the smaller ones would need to be changed cause you can see across most of it.

[FrostCollar]

I think it needs some new map design, as some current maps like Forest Colony simply don't have space for different drop locations. In general it's a great idea though.