Jump to content
Welcome to the virtual battlefield, Guest!

World War II Online is a Massively Multiplayer Online First Person Shooter based in Western Europe between 1939 and 1943. Through land, sea, and air combat using a ultra-realistic game engine, combined with a strategic layer, in the largest game world ever created - We offer the best WWII simulation experience around.

ZEBBEEE

TOP 10 towns that need architectural re-work?

Recommended Posts

Kilemall
3 hours ago, tr6al said:

This exercise is about finding 10 towns that have bad game play and see about adjusting them to improve player experience. 

This will not be  standard for all towns to look the same as each town is and will stay different . I am trying to create more variation to towns , but only 10 atm . They could be anywhere outside the usual towns that get constantly played in and make them more useful as well as  interesting , causing them to actually get fought over instead of walked into . 

I have played for around 15 years and know there are badly designed towns and well designed ones and wish to improve things .

Nothing more , nothing less  

 From what I can tell the map and towns where created under a time crunch and as they functioned , where left as is . 

I can leave well enough alone but there are some really bad towns out there and I want to adjust some . I can't do them all and need to see if what I do has a good effect so I can continue with others .   

VG to read on maintaining variation.  The general rules of thumb some people were laying on along with preferences to how a fight goes to their tactical preferences is an issue.  Of course, that's part of the town design- the simple act of how the spawn building is related to it's associated capture building and access/camp potential means you can greatly affect how battles go from different directions, and of course the nodal variation means it won't always be a simple east-west take/defense either.

Have you talked to Doc about his theory of town design?  I think he worked very much on ideas of how to build a fight and probably had perceptions even we long time players don't see- or saw things as a builder that didn't prove out when put in player's hands.

Like I said I have no fast and hard rules about any of this, just that how terrain and supply feeds into the battle design space you are making should be considered and vice versa, how one town's ease of being taken or defended and in which directions matter very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall
5 hours ago, tater said:

The talk is around modifying 10 towns. Definitionally this is a tiny subset, seems worth doing a few things that are perhaps minor changes, others more radical to see what happens.

While I agree diversity is better than all being the same, some stuff has never made a lot of sense to me. CPs so close together you run into one to defend it from the depot, and it's the city, or some other CP, not the one you meant to check cause they are literally next to each other. Some clarity on what belongs to what I think is decent where possible

Spreading out to me (done right) actually has a chance to USE the big ole map, which is mostly "white space" right now, never used. Not everywhere, but there are certainly areas of the map where it would be cool to see some out of the box thinking.

That said, many of the proposed change areas are more around the landscape than the town itself it seems.

Yes, but perceptions and lessons learned early on with the first 10 would be applied to the next 100.  I always pay CAREFUL attention to the beginnings of a design or in this case revamp effort, early standards and bad assumptions can cripple you when the project scales up.

I'm sure many of the crazies can be cleaned up, but I'd say leave some danger close/crazy in, again variability.

Spread out towns do have the potential of playing up more space and fights featuring tank control.  But it doesn't need to be every town, just like some towns have facilities on both sides of the river and some don't.  But lack of infantry movement ability over more then say 20% 'tank towns' would drive the bulk of players to frustration crazy.  Gotta think about everyone and business cases.

Terrain is inherently part of town design, can't ignore and exclude either or consider separately.

Quote

True. Of course I don't think these things were likely thought out originally at all.

This I'm less sure about. We know the interactions because everyone has been playing the same map forever. Certain things are best because it was designed without thought, and it just worked out that certain attacks make more sense. Rear attacks std in one town contrary to any sense of reality—but because the bushline goes right into town on that side, away from a spawnable, and the other sides are harder to approach.

So while I'd agree not to change ALL the towns at once, changing 2 here, 1 there, another somewhere else will have very little game breaking effect.

A good idea based on your concerns would be to take make sure any substantially changed towns (large spacing changes, etc)—or possibly linked pairs of towns if the changes are designed to go together—be done in areas that are not super important. Not cutoff towns at the edges, etc.

I don't know that all towns were serendipitous 'how battles played out', there were a LOT of arguments particularly about town linkages where it was clear CRS had a definite philosophy and vision about how maps and town taking would evolve, which would lead me to believe there was more artifice involved then just 'dumb luck'.  OTOH plenty of times where Doc was bleary eyed making these towns in his personal spare time, so a lot likely where 'ehhh good enough'  without game master architecting going on.

I would be very interested from Doc recollections to see to what extent he designed towns with that strategic element in mind.  @DOC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tr6al
4 hours ago, Kilemall said:

I would be very interested from Doc recollections to see to what extent he designed towns with that strategic element in mind.  @DOC?

As would I .

When designing and building towns ( I have done a few that are not in game ) it takes a fair amount of time unless you are in a hurry . What I have found that really takes the time is building a town up to a certain point , and then coming back to it later . You see things differently and then the changes begin .

The process of building a town will have changed . I start now by placing the depots  and cp's , then fill in with other buildings creating the town feel and size.  Without the depots being in game previously the process would have been different . 

 I am not going to build many towns from scratch in the near future but will be adjusting some.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
5 hours ago, Kilemall said:

Terrain is inherently part of town design, can't ignore and exclude either or consider separately.

True.

As a "not tanker" I see the berms perpendicular to the tanks as maybe some design attempt to make a leapfrogging series of hull downs for tanks, but given the way I see tanks explode regardless of that (sometimes by inf using those same berms) I'm unsure.

The brush is a place where the ww2ol terrain paradigm really fails. Inf should not be able to run through bushes, and while vehicles might be able to push through some, it should be more of a choice to push through than driving at road speed. I say this as someone who mostly plays inf, and I know exactly how negatively this would impact inf movement. I tend to prefer more deliberate play, however.

The lack of the ability to climb—and by this I mean hopping over a low wall—is also a big issue. That's why I proposed adding a PPO to climb small walls. Fairly quick to place, and it automatically expires after a very short time. Then loads of walls could be added for cover, and they could be deliberately crossed without making them all have tank sized gaps in them. Heck, tanks could be given such a "ramp" PPO designed to cross terrain elements. Yeah, tank stops, addresses obstacle at 90 degrees, and it takes a but for it to set—the idea here is that the crew is looking the thing over, then just driving over the thing, or breaking through it—PPO is a stand in for that. Tank one maybe lasts a little longer (looks like a pile of rocks?) so a group of tanks together could use one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

It would be cool to have the entire map in the same scale, AND have all the buildings as things that could be dragged around (layers in PSD?). Then people could doodle ideas.

To be clear, I mean as a photoshop file so we could noodle some designs in a consistent way at a detail enough to make sense.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kilemall

Oh one other thought- obviously fixing broken towns is at the top of the list, but I would think redoing towns we play in constantly to change up the play now would be high on the list too.  High payoff to fresh content and puzzles.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
42 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

Oh one other thought- obviously fixing broken towns is at the top of the list, but I would think redoing towns we play in constantly to change up the play now would be high on the list too.  High payoff to fresh content and puzzles.

Yeah, that's why I actually think some of the more novel ideas might be nice to test in places that change hands often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...