Intro: I've been IRLing pretty hard these last few months but I'm kinda back now and rest assured I'm still working on my open projects in Empires, most importantly my small commander map emp_harbor. I'm writing this out because I had an interesting idea a while ago and I've been wanting to flesh it out a bit. The state of current asymmetrical maps In terms of asymmetrically balanced maps, most of ours are born of the same concept. A slow, linear flag map where one side has access to tanks and has to race against the ticket counter clock to take the last flag. The underdog team has the advantage of map construction in their favor and deploys turrets and mines like they're going out of fashion. This has been a pretty successful model and shows that games of infantry vs tanks can still be fun. The annoying parts are usually the repetitiveness, frustration when the offensive team either wins far too fast or flounders on the first flag the whole match, and just general constriction and weapon spam since all the combat is taking place at the relatively small "front". A guerrilla style alternative gameplay concept A guerrilla style map would be similar to this, only opposite in some aspects. For the sake of concept let's imagine that BE is the conventional force, i.e. they get their tanks, and NF is the guerrilla force (the backstory and style for BE and NF lends itself pretty well to this). BE's objective, instead of capping flags in a linear order, is to venture out into the map and hunt down NF "bases". These bases could be flags, ammo caches, bunkers, or even hidden armory buildings, the idea being that they are small, in defendable positions, and can spawn in a variety of places (think like the ref points in emp_bush). NF will have spawn points near these bases like they have spawn points near the flags on Escort. BE will have to force their way through NF's defenses and destroy the cache or armory or bunker by conventional means or by some kind of placed explosive entity. Key differences So this concept differs from the escort concept in that: A) BE isn't guided by the map to their objectives, instead they have to choose which area to attack and search for the cache themselves. B) The action isn't limited to only one active objective, BE can attack on whichever and however many fronts they like. C) BE will only ever control a small part of the map, i.e. their starting base, with the rest of the map being possible NF base locations. D) Openness is the defining feature in a guerrilla map, as opposed to constricting, linear hallway type of map in the escort concept. E) NF have much more freedom of movement and ways to attack BE, instead of spawning on a besieged point and effectively only blocking the way with their corpses. But this concept is very similar to the escort concept in that: A) BE aren't worried about defending themselves or their base, only attacking the NF bases. B) The asymmetrical balancing meas BE's strength is their vehicles and NF's strength is the layout of the places they're defending. C) Infantry still go head to head in close combat near the bases, and BE ultimately needs infantry to clear the bases. D) As BE progresses the resistance gets harder, but if BE breaks past NF's defenses of turrets and mines, they can build up momentum as NF stumbles to retreat. A host map for this concept So let's imagine a map design that would be a good host to this concept. BE will definitely have to have a main base much like they have in escort. The actual layout of the rest of the map could go three ways. A fully urban map such as streetsoffire, homeland, or fogtown, a partially urban map like manticore or cyclopean, or a fully rural map like midbridge or insurrection. Homeland and insurrection themselves seem to be perfect for this kind of concept, but for a new map design I think partially rural and partially urban is the best way to go. A guerrilla map would, in my view, ideally be a fullgrid rural map with 4 or 5 interesting and detailed locales, such as a few rows of damaged apartment blocks, an abandoned airstrip, a power plant, an old NF bunker system, and a radar tower area. What's important in my view is that there are several complex areas that BE needs to assault, with enough terrain between them to make each area a different front for BE, and be distanced enough from BE's base to keep reinforcements from being near-instantaneous. For the terrain of the map I'm imagining a map like cyclopean, replacing the vast open middle area with terrain more like the east side, slightly hilly with trees, and height variation that makes combat interesting. I think it's important that NF can destroy or ambush reinforcements coming from BE's main as well, so vehicle paths with features like bridges or parts that have to be carefully navigated are to NF's advantage. Of course BE will have routes to every area in the map, but these routes should not be direct, and certainly shouldn't be linear. Winding roads as well as plenty of surrounding terrain that can be traversed should allow BE forces to get where they want to go without necessarily guiding them or forcing them a certain way. This is why I think the type of terrain we see on cyclopean is a good fit for this concept. BE Obviously, BE will start in a base much like their starting base on escort. This base will give them adequate protection but won't be impregnable, and won't give them much control over the surrounding area from the inside. This base could be in the corner of the map, or could be right in the middle, all that matters is that this is BE's staging area and when they leave the base they are in "contested" territory. Preferably I think they should have several decent vehicles spawned in the base in the beginning of the round, maybe 2 APCs and 2 AFVs to give them a bit of initiative. Further vehicles will have to be built at the VF with team resources and individual wages earned in the fight. Research should probably be limited to about what it is in escort, but I think it would be interesting to give BE access to artillery and heavy tanks, because even though those obviously aren't fit for escort they could have a role to play in this concept. BE will be moving out from their main base to whichever locations they choose, looking for NF resistance. When they do encounter this resistance, they would (one would hope) focus on that area and try to eliminate the base. Since their only spawns will be in their APCs or at their main base, a good BE team would have APCs nearby for spawning as well as revivers and good squad leaders. Moving into the fray with their vehicles will help them against NF's advantageous positions but will mean subjecting themselves directly to NF's defending grens and 9mine traps. NF Now, NF's bases will be scattered around the complex areas, with some possibly in the rural areas too. I'm thinking there should be 12-15 possible locations with only 3 or 4 of these spawning, decided at random when the game starts like the ref points on bush. Now NF won't be able to spawn on these bases, but in every area where they have a base they will also have a spawn point. If they have a base in a destroyed block of apartments, their spawn point for the area will be active, ideally close but not too close to the bases. In my view it's less important for NF's spawn point to be placed randomly than it is for the base itself to be random, since the idea is that BE should not know exactly where the base is until they've investigated the area. BE will know that NF have a base in the area if NF are spawning there, and will have to assault NF to reach the point they are defending. So while BE will have to assault the areas from the outside, coming from their main base, NF will be spawning in the buildings and have an advantage against BE in the streets, and be able to pop up and surprise them, or flank BE's vehicles while they are focused on finding the base. This is what gives NF the guerrilla advantage. Thoughts, comments, and additions are welcome. I just wanted to throw this concept out their even though I'm not working on it (yet). Kinda inspired by the Insurgency game mode in project reality, a good example because it manages to be fun and avoid the repetitiveness that most maps and game styles end up with.
1st) Your much mentionend openess. When I think of "open" maps, I initially think of duststorm, mvalley or moors. Obviously those maps would be unfit for unsymetrical balance, so I guess when you speak of open, you mean the attacker is free to choose his path. 2nd) Areas. Defending and attacking are usually seen as equally hard as long as we speak of a small area with multiple ways into it (escort). As soon as multiple areas can be attacked, the attacker will be put into an initial advantage as the defender either spreads his forces over all or some of the areas or will have a tough time guessing which area will be attacked (assuming all areas are equally worth) 3rd) Mobility. In case you set up a ticket system equal to that of escort (I assume you do since you didn't mention it to define your idea of guerilla style maps) The defender will need means to transport his troops. Seeing how APCs act as spawnpoints and all other NF vehicles are two seated, you should allow NF to get jeeps since killspawning burns too many tickets. (And his a horrible gameplay concept on that note) His routes to ambushpoints, bases or other chokepoints should be of shorter travelling time than those of the attacker since both defense and ambush usually need more preparation time than attacking. 4th) Guerilla. It means to use one's superior knowledge of the terrain, people and other environmental factors of the battlefield to one's advantage. Unless everybody who ever played the map will be put into the defending side, there will be no such superior knowledge. All thats left is the advantage of having the superior position, of which the attacker will always be aware. The only way to avoid this is to add so many ways to ambush and so many defensive positions to the map so that the attacker can impossibly know which of those will be used by the defender. All in all I think it impossible to make a good map as you described, let alone an actual guerilla map. I welcome you to prove me wrong by creating such map and will give you cookies if you actually do.
On a similar but not completely ontopic note; I've always liked the idea of a convoy gamemode, NF is infantry and all that jazz, BE gets vehicles but rather than cap flags, they have to escort their commander through the map. Obviously there's a few inherent problems with that, like griefing but I suppose you could do an escort and give BE a time limit and simply make their CV invincible. A similar map design would work for this idea too. A start and a finish, but multiple routes for BE to attack/push their CV through. Anyway back to your idea, I think it could work but you gotta be careful, make sure the fronts are clearly defined and NF has good mobility between them, because it's gunna be really hard for NF to hold 5-6 bases at once I'd say they should only really have 3 areas to hold, mainly because a big thing I see happening is BE doing a huge ass push into one area while they send like 1 or 2 scouts to the other few bases and ninjacap until NF is stuck at one base. a tropicvendetta styled system at each flag could work, BE caps, then an alarm sounds, then 30 seconds later the flag gets locked into BE if NF don't defend in time, that way NF have time to respond, especially if it's only like 1 or 2 people attacking a flag. It'll also be really sketchy with less than 20 players, even then it'll probably be shit. I like the idea of objective based maps but you're gunna have to work on this hard to make it fair. All that said, semi-open non-comm maps can work amazingly, the old version of shadows is a testament to this, it's one of the most fun maps in empires, mainly because the gameplay is completely different, this emergent convoy based gameplay is REALLY cool when it happens and really fun for both teams. Who else enjoyed doing laps and trying to catch your opponents convoy while still capping flags as you go? Killspawning isn't a mechanic, at best it's an exploit that's just accepted because you can't fix it without shoehorning some stupid ass system in the game.
Re: 1st When I said 'open' I meant it in a way contrasting to the very linear way maps like escort or even maps like slaughtered and canyon are constructed. The terrain would not be flat and featureless like duststorm, but also not made of pathways defined by large impassable walls on either side. Rather, the type of terrain I'm imagining is a lot like the terrain you find on cyclopean, specifically the west and northwest parts. Re: 2nd and 3rd BE will definitely have an advantage in that aspect, especially on their first assault and if they're a well organized team. It might be a good idea to have the main base stay closed for a minute or two in the beginning of the game like on escort, but BE will still definitely have the advantage when they focus their attack on one area quickly. However this is why I think having NF's bases hidden and randomized is so important. BE can assault the area relatively fast, but to defeat the base they have to find it and physically destroy it, as well as contend with the NF forces still able to spawn in the area. If it were an actual base in a classic game, it would be easily taken down by any moderately sized BE force, but this is different in that the objective is harder to achieve than simply piling tanks and infantry on a flag or destroying a few buildings. These areas to assault would also be much farther away from BE's main base than the first flag on escort is, which makes it harder for BE to hold a coherent attack. That being said I think it's okay for BE to be able to assault and clear the first position more easily, especially when it has to be done with organization and teamwork. The objectives themselves should all be equally important I feel, but some may be more suitable as a first target because of proximity to the BE base, or ease of assaulting, or any other reasons. As for giving NF jeeps to transport themselves around the map I think that fits perfectly. I don't like killspawning any more than anyone else but since it's already sometimes a common thing on maps like escort I don't think it's completely avoidable. As for tickets I think I would balance the map by giving BE a limited number of tickets so that if they themselves lose too many tickets without taking an objective, they lose. They might have a slight bleed, especially if they haven't taken any objectives yet or are down to 10 or 20 tickets to prevent 0 ticket stalemates. NF should have enough tickets to not have to worry about dying, but if 2 out of 3 of the objectives are taken then they would get a slow bleed too. Re: 4th I agree that it won't be a truly "guerrilla" situation, since both sides will inevitably get to know the map well enough, but I think that since BE both doesn't know the exact location of their objective and has to fight their way into very cluttered, complex, easily defendable territory where the NF have spawns and have the advantage of being inside the buildings and fortifications instead of assaulting in from the streets, that NF will have a significant advantage and make good use of guerrilla tactics.
I did not realise you were talking to make the NF bases randomised, I apologise for that. Indeed that helps NF organising their defense before an attack and helps initially, but it does not totally counteract the points I made. Since you can not randomise the entire map (you can't, can you?) there will always be a finite number of possible bases for NF. As soon as BE checks all those locations it will discover the NF bases on the sole fact of encountering resistance. The situation will be back to what I based my arguments on. Please explain the objectives a little more. Does BE have to capture flags or do they just have to purify the map from NF bases? Would there be a way for NF to reestablish their original presence in an area formerly liberated by BE?
This thread has become so large so quickly, that it actually warrants me unplugging my laptop and taking it with me whilst I take a shit, so I can read it. I just wanted to inform you of this. I will now be unplugging my laptop. Ok, so that was relatively successful. The time it took me to read the thread perfectly matched up to how long I needed to defecate for. In short, I don't think it will work. The ideas are all good, but Empires maps simply aren't big enough. You're going to end up with areas too close to eachother. Empires maps can essentially be divided into a 3x3 grid, whereby whichever square you're in, you can attack any of the neighbouring ones. This doesn't lend itself to separated areas by anything other than a terrain wall. Honestly, the gameplay ideas are sound, but I can't see it working without you effectively bastardising the idea to get it to fit. If we had maybe double the mapsize, it would be incredible, but it just can't do what it needs to with these map sizes.
Well I think it would be best if the "bases" are small weapons caches hidden in areas that are protected from shelling by tanks or nade spam, while still discouraging camping around them. To destroy them, BE would have to do enough damage to them, say slightly more than the damage of two sticky grenades, and NF wouldn't be able to damage them. Alternatively, there could be a buildable block of dynamite that BE engineers have to place on the cache to destroy it. With either of these methods, the aim is to make it fairly easy for BE to destroy the cache, but taking more time and requiring more effort than just running in and RPGing it once. The cache might make some kind of radio noise so BE can tell when they're in it's immediate vicinity. I think NF shouldn't be able to rebuild a cache once it's been lost, but if you think they should and have any ideas on how then I'd like to hear it. So I'll describe a hypothetical round on a hypothetical map in my eyes: BE starts in the middle of the map in their little base, and there are five notable locations around the map: city, power plant, bunker, missile silo, and forest. There are 15 possible cache placements around the map, 3 for each location. When the map loads 3 locations are chosen, and one of the three possible caches in each location is chosen. This means that 3 out of the 5 locations will have a cache in them, and NF's spawns will be active for only those 3 locations, and hypothetically those 3 locations are city, bunker, and forest. BE isn't given any indication which of the locations has caches* (I'm sure they can glean some information from ghosting or teamswitching but it's not as if it's hard to find out which locations are active), so they set out from main to random locations in a disorganized way. NF have their team fairly evenly distributed between all 3 areas. Pretend this is a 20 vs 20 game, so that's about 7 guys at each base. A BE APC and AFV coordinate loosely and move to city together. The AFV is ahead and drives into city, and promptly gets 8mined, so the APC stays out on the outside of the city and everyone gets out and starts running in. Now, BE has told the rest of the team that they know NF is at city, so most of the team gradually shifts focus to city. NF already has one or two level 3 turrets up and cameras and radars around the place, but BE has the advantage of numbers and can spawn in their APC outside city. NF holds them off and kills plenty of BE from the upstairs windows and destroyed buildings in city, as well as making good use of mines. BE have a bit of team res and most of them have some wages so they start bringing in a few more AFVs and APCs over to city. NF in the meantime gets reinforcements from the other flags either by jeep, killspawning, or people spawning at city when they die. BE destroy most of NF's turrets with mortars and cannons from the edge of the city and push in with scout hide and start killing NF more effectively. NF's defenses are pretty overrun so the fight becomes a standard infantry fight, BE coming in from the north side of city and NF spawning in the southeast. A BE scout find the cache in a building in the middle of city but can't destroy it quick enough before he's killed by NF. He tells the team and his squad runs in and takes it out. An alarm sounds for both NF and BE so they know the cache has been taken out, and BE get a ride from their APCs back to main or to another location. NF run, take a jeep, or respawn at the other locations they have and prepare to defend again. Kind of pointless to make up hypothetical gameplay but I hope it illustrates what I'm trying to describe. Oh I'm aware how restrictive map size is in this concept, but I think it can be worked around. I've got a few map layouts that could work a bit. The size of maps is a pretty subjective thing, for instance StreetsofFire and Canyon are both pretty much the same size on the grid but streets plays like a much bigger map. At any rate that's why I'm trying to flesh this out, to figure out if it could really be squished into an empires map and be fun.
Would it be a bad idea to artificially increase the mapsize by adding teleporters to some locations (e.g. the entrance of a building with no windows or which is at the very border of the map and only the outer part of the building actually being on the map) which move the player to parts of the map which are actually underneath the map he was before? Or is mapsize restricted upwards more than into the other two directions?
Anyone play MW2? How about a map like the Exodus mission? The one where you work with honey badger. I could make the CV have countermeasures, be on a fixed track, and have a turret attached.
you know i try to wrap my head around something similar to this for ages. i think the closest you can archieve is a dual escortish map where there are flag controlled one-way tank passages with infantry combat areas following a winding single tunnel map layout. you remember that dev texture (or tron style) map emp_concept - well concept bc, before i realized how much work displacements would be, i wanted to create what i described above.
I thought about that myself, but you hit minimap problems when you start messing with that kind of thing. Also Flasche, we never got to play emp_concept because you never added a skybox texture, so the map just messed your view up. It's a shame really, it looked kind of interesting.
i never added a skybox texture? hmm ... edit: does this work trickster? its all i have - there IS a skybox included, its just plain blue http://dl.dropbox.com/u/331067/4trickster/emp_concept.7z this is how its supposed to look (before id have changed it) only the water and 3dsky are a bit shit, but i have no vmf anymore. i also think there is some special thing with the resource nodes like its getting more the closer to the enemy it is or smthg. (another small hint is taht you can wall yourself upwards 2 "blocks" and 2 blocks is also a full walls width) edit2: feel free to use whatever you want for whatever purpose from this map. only if you release a map based on this layout give me credit so i can feel good :D edit3: but i warn you, this map will probably be a worse stalemate then emp_stalemate. if its getting a high res map, please put 0.1 income modifieres if thats possible ...
Varbles - sick idea actually and I disagree with Trickster, I think you could make it work. The one thing would be detail - how much you would really get in close while you are making the map, and how much revision you put into it, so that you don't develop any of the OP places and situations that ruin these "deviation" empires maps. You could totally make it work though, and I'd be down to help with any conceptual feedback or whatever along the way. You still gonna remix Mearth too?
