[MRP] Map Change / Revert

[Dan Gardner 346]

13 minutes ago, Garnet said:

Of course you cannot please everybody and that is a fact of life, and the reason why we have had countless iterations of maps. Requesting a rotation is one thing, but being blatantly rude/disrespectful is another.

This is the exact reason I haven't made a post on this thread. There are a thousand pitfalls to making changes for this community, and the thing people keep coming back to is the map. I agree that the map is a bit too open and there are way too many points that you can get caught out and sniped from 1000 different directions (spawn being a big place where there is little to no cover for advance), but it's been like this on every map. I don't think its because of the map itself, but based on the gameplay that players tend to lean towards. A lot of people, if they can't get on an objective, they'll make a decision to help their team by basecamping a route to said objective. This has been a staple on every map and I don't think a map change will be what fixes it.

All we really need at this point is an update to address the issues the map currently has. Add more routes, cover, take away headglitch spots and make them work for the defender, not the attacker, (at least at bases, I'm sure we'd all like things to be relatively even at objectives.) The only problem with this is stated above by Garnet himself. This community reacts in a very harsh and toxic way towards anything that displeases them in the slightest, and when you put that negativity towards Garnet, I can see why he wants to work on more important things and not give effort to the server. Because honestly, we suck.

Hope everything is going well at Uni, @Garnet. Take your time coming back, we'll be here.

 

PS. Maybe even add regular player owned cars that cost a shit ton of money so they don't get spammed. I'm sure people would love having more chances to get a big group to an objective without being sniped. Also if the damage dealt to players driving a vehicle wasn't so high, people would be more inclined to actually run transport and have the war run a little more fluidly.

Edited September 14, 2019 by Dan Gardner
added PS

[CodyDrax 135]

It doesn't matter what changes or gets fixed, there's too many differing opinions and too many people playing for nostalgia for anything to work perfectly. Best recommendation is reverting to whatever had the longest calm, and improving from there. I've been through every map since summer 2017, each one had a map change suggestion post. This isn't new, nor should it be something garnet should be shocked about.

At the end of the day, the community/players will continue to drive the gameplay meta, not the map, which makes me think the issue is never really the map, but how the players use it to their advantage to piss off the other side long enough for them to request a map change. Just my two cents. 

[Ting 368]

and this is y we can’t have nice things

[.lua 234]

A couple of suggestions have headglitching in there, but people need to realize it's hard to remove and if an attempt is made, someone is gonna find a cheeky spot and sit there and this situation will easily repeat again. This happens on every server there is when it comes to combat like this and Garnet can't wave a wand and fix everything. Also if you have the settings to have your scope super zoomed in then this shouldn't be a problem for you, and in regards, if you don't know how I could easily show you as not too many people knew about this when I asked around so.

When I read over a good amount of this it was talking about basecamping which will always be a thing and will never disappear. The reason why people are so inclined to basecamp is because of their playstyle. There are 3 types of people when it comes to the server, the Roleplayer, the hop-on for war guy, and the few ones that sit on the objective to win the war. Basecamp mostly happens when one side is outgunned or numbered so everyone can hop in good spots that they wouldn't be able to if they had hard competition. That's why the close wars are the most loved because people flooding into objectives and having a slaughter. There is also no "mystery" where the opponent's base is, so anyone who does know will stop their opponents from reaching the objective if they don't need any more men on the objective, so any aggressive player who owns an Orsis and will gladly head towards their base. 

Due to these being the most two complained things on the server, that results in people wanting change because they reminisce of playing another map where this "didn't always happen". Once this change for a new map doesn't get done, people get ancy and complain about it for a bit and get annoyed when others think different. There isn't a perfect map, maybe there are more favored but they all contain these issues as it's apart of the game. Players have one of the biggest effects when it comes to combat,(besides weapon statistics) and I believe Ethan attempted to change it during my time playing with his basecamp rule for his faction. He wanted more CQC action so he made his attempt to start it, but people like me who were running out of fuel disregarded his wishes and kept the sniper meta there.

In end resolution, rotation for maps should be put into place. Even though this map had a lot of time and work put into it, people will still get bored and it will become stale. The way to please them is a simple rotation and see how that goes as right now it seems like a toxic warfare on the forums for some reason.

[Vizii 566]

6 hours ago, Garnet said:

 

Overall yes people want cqc and people want long range fights. the server as a whole is a mix of playstyles. i think it would be a good idea to maybe add more to the current map, maybe like more buildings or more areas for chokepoints and such. something i liked on tiaga forest was 5 obj's. that spread out most players. and yes i know the server numbers have been low recently but if there was more thing added to the map and to keep things going for wars and combat it wouls help the flow of players and how they play, some players will rush an obj and some will stay back and snipe. that adds to helping players improve overall and keep consistant with their skills. Yes a whole map rotation would be cool and fun all around but it would get boring after a few rotations depending on the cycle. but keeping it on the current map and adding onto it would help keep things calm for the time being while someone works on a new map. +1/-1

[Hashem 50]

+1 I actually didn't think anyone else thought the same thing as me, but I would understand if the map won't be changed because ik Garnet put a lot of work into this map.

But there are not only CQC and long range engagement problems, the map is geographically flawed too, RU is given a huge height advantage in Embassy, they are closer to the objective and have less obstacles to  be basecamped from.

Kh is a very headglitchy cluster fuck if RU pushes up, and if US push up they can just sit in the river and wait for RU to leave base. And in general KH is closer to US.

Silo is geographically US sided, there is less cover if RU tries to push up to US base(notable to mention Palm Rock+River), and if US pushes up they have much more cover, including GS, Embassy hill, Embassy Rocks, the rocks to the right of RU east gate, and US can sit under RU's bridge.

 

 

[Dillan 750]

I don't think this is as much as a suggestion to change maps, as it is a suggestion for a map rotation system.

[Hashem 50]

1 minute ago, Dillan said:

I don't think this is as much as a suggestion to change maps, as it is a suggestion for a map rotation system.

A map rotation is kinda difficult to deal with, think of doing faction tryouts, it means docs would have to change specifically for each map like every single week(or when the map rotates)

[Pencil 767]

20 minutes ago, Hashem said:

think of doing faction tryouts

Every faction has had tryouts on each map, it's not hard to just follow the same ones. Entry tryouts are copy-paste for each map, no real changing needed. Regardless tryouts are pretty easy to make once you get things in your head.

[Harris 112]

It’s not hard to keep docs for the maps, either keep them all in one document with different tabs or keep all the documents in a folder.

[Pencil 767]

On 9/14/2019 at 1:56 PM, Diomonder said:

see done differently from what was done

imo, have a similar layout to the front of EMB(the one that sticks out towards the US side) on the RU side aswell, still accommodating that it would be the 'parking' area of the building so keeping the road entrance, etc and having the railings surrounding the outside to give US the same headglitch opportunity as RU does when pushing off of EMB. Hard to say in words, but I'd be open to making a visual example if needed.

Push OBJ's like Silo and KH(ATTC as a whole) further into the corners to make them more remote from other OBJ's. ATM you can engage people heading to KH and Silo from EMB as long as you move around the outside of the OBJ. At the moment it feels a bit tight, congested, close. When you're heading to one OBJ you need to focus on every surrounding which becomes problematic when there's 4+ sightlines every route you take that will probably have someone behind it ready to third-party you in a fight.

Replace the Ravine with an underground tunnel system, dirt or flushed out bunker(Could also be more useful if it was moved to Silo so it could actually be used to hide from sniper fire). Either make it look like a secondary 'base' or an old 'mine' type style like the tunnel to US Nuke Room. Why? Ravine is hardly used for it's intended purpose of sneakily getting to the OBJ/ hiding from sniper fire since it is so close to ATTC and the way to get to it is right in a major sightline, so it's most likely they will know you're coming and you'll be an open target. If this means the removal of the temple, oh well it could be kept as a event room for staff to noclip to and bring people for events, or removed to lower assets on the map. Also, if it was to be remade, I'd say make it accessible to both RU and US sides so that both sides can compete through it to get a sneaky flank.

Make the US have a larger bridge to EMB(replace the two 1-person thin bridges with a single, tiny bridge, something that looks like it was laid over to connect each sides so vehicles could go over maybe, considering theres tanks nearby). Why? Helps smooth out the US path to EMB, stops clumping on the bridge and lets US players be more mobile instead of following a linear bridge that's very tight.

Don't know if this would be fixable but making the hitboxes on the rocks that surround the palm rocks(the sandy mounds with palm trees surrounded by rocks) have accurate hitboxes. ATM bullets will usually get caught on the rock, even though you're aiming way over. This leads to annoyance both to players trying to kill people on them and those trying to kill those people trying to kill them.

All that comes to my head atm, might post more if I remember other things. Thanks for having a reasonable response, Dio :).

[Captainswag 894]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 2:58 PM, Garnet said:

Honestly, there's really no remedying this, because back when we had Taiga, people would complain of the fact it is infact too mountainous, and requested to change back to CSCdesert. On a different note, just based off of that rat called GreatGuyHugh's post and the amount of positive reactions he got by dissing me for absolutely no reason, I think i'll stick to university and come back another week to deal with this crap haha. Really didn't miss the toxicity.

I don't want to sound like a dick by saying this, but when we voted for CSCDesert we were thinking a week at most. Then afterwards we would return to Taiga, I am glad that in the long run we went through a few maps, though personally I think returning to Taiga would be a good thing for the community. Also from a more RP and (big air quotes here) "Realism" standpoint, it makes more sense for US fighting RU in the Russian forests, but that doesn't really matter as much as the first point.

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Captainswag

[MurphPup2 37]

+1 taiga Forrest 

[Nutter 15,194]

Accepted

A map rotation system will be implemented shortly, and its details will be ironed out. Feel free to make another post to rotate around some ideas, but I am thinking of the following configuration:

Map #1 - Chaharikar | Dawn/evening-Desert map/Overall Gun Balance (I will re-optimize the map to the best of my ability and release an ironed version of it with the original town, air strip, and ATTC that would include our current killhouse) 

Map #2 - Taiga V3 | Forest map/CQC oriented

Map #3 - Desert-Delta (our current map) long range oriented (serving as a direct replacement to the shitty old cscdesert)

Map #4 - Siberia (snow map)

 

I think a good rotation schedule could be the 1st (monthly) or 15/30 of every month (bi-monthly).

Please provide further criticism, thank you!

(it is out of question if some of you wanted the OG cscdesert in the rotation for nostalgia)