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
Posted (edited)

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
delems

This is my final answer.

First, without any question is swap Antwerp S Central CP with Antwerp C CITY CP.    That is most important terrain change on map imo.

 

Then remove all the CPs in ABs:

binche, boullion, carigan, DenHaagE, DenHaagW, dizy, eghezee, haybes, lislet, mechelen, mettet, morbach, nivelles, rochefort, rozoy, saint saens and tongeren.

And while in those towns, try and make sure no facilities are within 100m to 200m of another facility.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater

^^^ only thing I would add is that any CP that is geographically wrong should be moved (the spawnable should always be the closest facility to the linked town). Always be on the same side of a river, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Agree, so many towns have terrible CP placement - not at all where they should be, even Gomont has CPs placed in wrong location.

CPs need to be close to the town they have same name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

I made a poll about that in the forums, I.e. if players wanted to see the spawnables pushed at the far edges of town. 

Some feared the energy required to uncontest the town, or the time required to capture one which could be stretched out. So still expect variety.

Pushing depots appart from each other is probably good for the GamePlay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

They don't have to be that far away; in town, edge of town or just outside town is fine.

They just have to be on the same side of town as their link town.

Look at Gomont for how not to do it.  (and good example of CPs way to close to each other)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd

I suspect the reason they are 'sometimes not orthodox'  in their layout, is to allow them to be 'sometimes a variation' to the typical town capture. Sometimes it's a PITA, - but I'm all for some variety in methods of taking towns. It'd be dull if they were all cookie cutter arranged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
10 minutes ago, fidd said:

I suspect the reason they are 'sometimes not orthodox'  in their layout, is to allow them to be 'sometimes a variation' to the typical town capture. Sometimes it's a PITA, - but I'm all for some variety in methods of taking towns. It'd be dull if they were all cookie cutter arranged.

 

41 minutes ago, ZEBBEEE said:

Some feared the energy required to uncontest the town, or the time required to capture one which could be stretched out. So still expect variety.

I with delems here. Variety? Totally awesome. Different layouts of towns, CPs closer, farther, whatever.

The linked spawnable, OTOH, should 100% of the time be on the side of town (and river if applicable) as the linked town.

I was in some town looking for the spawnable where it should be... it was on the opposite side of town. Just dumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZEBBEEE

I agree with you, I've been arguing for this since forever and Doc applied that design in his latest towns. It would make flanking less useful at the start of a battle, hence keep players on one side of the town mostly. Easier to contest and hold, less easy to make our way through. Everyone wins compared to a town where the spawnable is 50 meters of the AB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Oh, forgot one VERY important town link.

Must get link from VdV to Mourn; that should be done after Antwerp fix;  second most important terrain item to fix.

PS See Breskens for another town with wrong side CPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
delems

Seems 2 key terrain updates didn't get in this patch:
1) Swap Antwerp S Central CP with Antwerp C CITY CP

2)  Link from VdV to Mourm (or new town in between with links)

 

Also, seems no town changes where CPs are in AB :(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fidd
On 10/2/2020 at 6:49 AM, delems said:

Seems 2 key terrain updates didn't get in this patch:
1) Swap Antwerp S Central CP with Antwerp C CITY CP

2)  Link from VdV to Mourm (or new town in between with links)

 

Also, seems no town changes where CPs are in AB :(

That's rather assumptive on your part? It remains to be seen if your notion of all cp's being nearest to a linked-town is good idea  - or not. Personally I'm all for variety in town set-ups, spawnable at different location to "nearest link" - fine, ditto spawnables in the AB. All these confer variety and different problems to solve. That's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
Posted (edited)

I ALWAYS thought about the fight aspect of each town as it was created. I was married to this thing. When I started back in the beginning of this century, a lot of towns were just 4 buildings on a cross road with an AB and 2, 3 or 4 depots. Period. Surrounded by a green desert with a golf course beyond. "Object limits" was thrown at me constantly, but I broke the rules all the time as I took over terrain because I had an eye on the future when more objects would play ok but dev time might not be granted to rebuild what was a paucity of good battle design regarding towns and their environs. This caused some friction between me and those above me but I was bullish. 

When some years had passed and my approach had led to greater density and "fight zone" stylings with respect to towns and their surroundings ... the reason I got the reputation for doing a lot "on my own time" (which is an understatement) was I went back and redid the center (the beginning of the world) to "bring it up to snuff" so to speak, and worked outwards until it better matched the later approach at the edges of the map. I knew I was never going to get official dev time for this task, but it was very important to me that it be done.

There were always huge restrictions incumbent with having 20 building types to employ in creating 400 towns and cities (or however many, I can't recall exactly) ... many of which were designed by the artists/coders to only work in one application. This applied to trees, bushes and roads not to mention other severely restrictive options available as well. I had to be pretty adventurous in my thinking. I'm sure this is still the case and might help explain to the current terrain person/persons a little of why things might seem mysterious as to my methods. It was a rabbit hole and there were times I could have used a caterpillar with a hookah.

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
On 9/6/2020 at 4:08 PM, tater said:

 

I with delems here. Variety? Totally awesome. Different layouts of towns, CPs closer, farther, whatever.

The linked spawnable, OTOH, should 100% of the time be on the side of town (and river if applicable) as the linked town.

I was in some town looking for the spawnable where it should be... it was on the opposite side of town. Just dumb.

Sometimes this HAD TO BE because of where the edge of the supercell was. Linked depots must remain in the same cell as the town proper. No town could cross a cell boundary, but of course a player cannot see where those boundaries are. This was a code restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tater
1 minute ago, DOC said:

Sometimes this HAD TO BE because of where the edge of the supercell was. Linked depots must remain in the same cell as the town proper. No town could cross a cell boundary, but of course a player cannot see where those boundaries are. This was a code restriction.

That is really interesting. I suppose in that case some of those towns then might need be shifted more "into the cell" to fix those CPs? (no room on NE corner, so move the whole town slightly W?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sideout

we were doing squad night the other day............does that mean i cant get the large green leaf back that we could all hide up in?

dang.............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TR6AL
2 minutes ago, tater said:

That is really interesting. I suppose in that case some of those towns then might need be shifted more "into the cell" to fix those CPs? (no room on NE corner, so move the whole town slightly W?)

Yes , some towns do get shifted or restricted in direction . They can not get shifted but rebuilt to better suit the location .

There are lots of towns that do go over the supercell line.  

Thanks for info Doc ..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOC
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, tater said:

That is really interesting. I suppose in that case some of those towns then might need be shifted more "into the cell" to fix those CPs? (no room on NE corner, so move the whole town slightly W?)

We started with a strict lat/long observation that adhered to the real world map in the beginning. Eventually it was obvious to me that some liberties had to be taken because of code limitations like the one I mentioned. Back when I was doing it, destroying a pre-existing town to further develop it (ie: recreating it with a small move to accommodate this code restriction) was not possible without breaking everything around it, and thus rebuilding that ... which would then break everything around them, thus requiring .... you get the picture. So when I did alterations (expansion of design/more stuff to improve the quality of the town and the fight for it) occasionally things like depot placement would not be logically ideal, from an unknowing players perspective.

Things may well have changed today, regarding this process. I cannot comment on that. 

Edited by DOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TR6AL

@DOC

On 10/3/2020 at 4:28 PM, DOC said:

Sometimes this HAD TO BE because of where the edge of the supercell was. Linked depots must remain in the same cell as the town proper. No town could cross a cell boundary, but of course a player cannot see where those boundaries are. This was a code restriction.

Is this also for FB's or just depots? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...