which is a better idea?

[Ratatosk]

i had one idea for a map of a store for servers (in a kinda backwards kind of way, like you could go to supply yor map with flags etc) except as i worked the idea became kinda lame sounding to me and i came up with an idea for two few castles on a river ctf with a few bridges and mountains and a dungeon with a conection under the river with currents

so the question is which idea sounds better? (more woth the time to make)


(sry cant seem to find the start poll option)[/list]

[The Vet]

I like the flag store idea. Do you mean that there is a central location containing many super flags (The Store)? And the teams must control it to access the flags? That would be a great idea for a CTF or team slayer map.

[Macrosoft]

That would be a great idea for a CTF or team slayer map.

team slayer? what do you think this is, halo?

[Ratatosk]

I like the flag store idea. Do you mean that there is a central location containing many super flags (The Store)? And the teams must control it to access the flags? That would be a great idea for a CTF or team slayer map.

i diddent mean that, not a bad idea though. im sure a plugin could me made (not by me)

[Macrosoft]

no plugin needed. just define flag spawn zones in the .bzw

[Ratatosk]

eh makes no sence

[Macrosoft]

look it up

[Sky King]

As for the idea of having a central flag point that has to be controlled...

This creates a serious playability problem. In general, a map should have a certain degree of parity. Some maps have a high degree of parity. That is, it is hard for one team to take, and then hold, the advantage for a long period of time. On Boxy for instance, there is very much an ebb and flow to the momentum, but it would tend to swing back and forth relatively quickly. It would be unusual for one team to dominate at Boxy for an hour. On Bloodshed, or Two Tanks, there tends to be less parity. That is, it is easier for one team to maintain an advantage once they have it, and remain dominant for longer periods of time.

The "king of the hill" style of play caused by having a central repository of flags creates an extremely high degree of dominance and a very low level of parity. If I logged into that server and saw that I was on the underdog team, I'd likely just log off and move along to another map, because I know that it would be highly unlikely that my team could ever reverse the domination, even with very skilled play. Experienced players love a challenge, but there at least has to be hope, or people will just leave.

Playability is a very subtle concept. It often takes a map maker years of playing, then years of map making, to really create highly playable maps. Map layout, weapon/flag choices, spawn zones, and the many, many variables all have to be precisely orchestrated to create a truly playable map. Sometimes the tiniest variables can make or break a map. Rico vs. no rico, bullet speed, whether to include wings, jumping, and whether or not to keep vertical shot velocity, all can have a huge impact on a map.

There are a LOT of great novelty maps in BZ, but very few maps that have real playability that endures.

[AAA]

Very well said Sky King.
Boxy war and HiX2 are both good maps for that.
A certain other map that has become an absolute runaway hit, Bloodbath 2, however, is not. I cannot figure out why, but something about the mass genocide of teams (with G or with SW, L, SB, or GM) seems to have a great appeal. It truely is common to see one team all negitive and the other positive. That has never often occured at any other server.

[Joe-Schmoe]

Maybe give the map three teams. Once team A secures the middle zone, they may have flags, but the other two teams will "gang up" to try to retake it, so they'll have to kill twice as many people.

[flight]

i think the store idea is better than the other one for one reason. mountains and bridges and rivers have been WAY over done. louman has some great ones, we'll play those. if you can find me some maps that play from store to store that would be cool. as you were saying in others posts Murtagh it could be between a 7 11 and a liquor store of some kind. that sounds like a good idea.

now to go along with the map idea is a server game play idea. for this idea there would be a plug in ... no there doesn't. it could just be a CTF. but i was thinking it could be like each team has to steal the money (team flag) from the cash register from the other store. although we are tanks we are but small tanks and robbing a store is all we are capable of

[*Boinkage*!]

That would be an awfully large cash register...

[ludachris]

i think it would be cool if you had to have a certain number of kills to get better flags, that way, no one can actually capture the flag 'store'.

[Macrosoft]

as you were saying in others posts Murtagh it could be between a 7 11 and a liquor store of some kind. that sounds like a good idea.

7/11 vs Thrifty Liquor
Round 1... FIGHT!!!

[Ratatosk]

i think it would be cool if you had to have a certain number of kills to get better flags, that way, no one can actually capture the flag 'store'.

well flag dropping, could some one share an idea of how to actually make it work?
(in other words tell me what you want and ill build a map around it)

[Sky King]

i think it would be cool if you had to have a certain number of kills to get better flags, that way, no one can actually capture the flag 'store'.

This concept is referred to as progressive flags. It has been tried. MoFo, for instance, had a progressive concept server running for a while. Again, there's a parity problem... The higher killed player gets more and more powerful, making the newer player more and more disadvantaged until he just leaves.

[A Looney Kumquat]

another idea I thought Id throw in there is 4 inescapable boxes with each team in each box, and a teleporter to the middle, but only so many from a certain team are allowed in the middle at once, the rest are forced to snipe at other bases or attack the middle with GM.... I'm really liking the idea, cant make the map myself, so if anyone is interested in learning more, please PM me.


okay... more on topic- I like either idea, or even maybe a combination of both?

[Ratatosk]

i think it would be cool if you had to have a certain number of kills to get better flags, that way, no one can actually capture the flag 'store'.

This concept is referred to as progressive flags. It has been tried. MoFo, for instance, had a progressive concept server running for a while. Again, there's a parity problem... The higher killed player gets more and more powerful, making the newer player more and more disadvantaged until he just leaves.

to counter act this problem you could make games end relittivly fast say 20pts and resets the whole game

[Ratatosk]

one more idea would be to have a htf between two stores (like you stealing money for the other)

[The Vet]

one more idea would be to have a htf between two stores (like you stealing money for the other)

Very cool! And you would win when one team has so much a percentage of the money flags captured and held in their store! But how about this variation with only one central store:

Instead of the previous 'super store' in the middle with super flags. What about a 'steal the bacon' type game (I really liked the idea flight gave)? There would be only money flags (no super flags on the map) randomly scattered throughout the store/7-11 (about '# of flags require to win'*'number of teams'-'some balancing number like 5 or 6') and two or four teams. Each team would be scored on how many money flags they could bring back to their bases.

After one team brings, say, somewhere around 20 money flags to base, the server resets, shuffles the teams and resets the money flags.

However, those members who were previously on the winning team would be given undroppable, unlimited superflags (possibly CL, L, ST, GM, SE, SB and SW). However, by the team shuffling, they would be randomly assigned around the teams and therefore, the teams would start evenly.

Also, there could be rogues on the map who function as cops trying to stop the teams from robbing the 7-11.

What do you think of this? Is this possible in BZFlag?

- The Vet

P.S. Skyking, awesome talk about parity. Really helpful for thinking up maps or anyone who wants to get into mapmaking. Do you happen to work for a gaming company?

[SkillDude]

Probably a plugin to determine a percentage of players on the base, with say, the US flags as the 'money' would do well for your idea, The Vet. Possibly 60 or so % of the team have to have a US flag while they're on the base.

Although, to make people join different teams each time is probably not possible, but you can let everyone rejoin, have the map on an autoteam setting, so they'll never really know which team they'll be on.

As for the "cops" trying to prevent the "money" (US flags) from being stolen, probably best to have a few TH world weapons where the TH would be a very large rate and bounce crazily around the whole store, say every 30 seconds or so.

As for the superflags, I think there should just be an even amount of flags say, in a little area at the back of their base, they choose a flag, then run out with the flag. (They can rack up high scores, and then try to find and take a US flag). Shot limits would do well on some of the more powerful flags.

These are just my ideas to make your ideas possible, The Vet.

[The Vet]

team slayer? what do you think this is, halo?

*Beep beep beep BOOOOOOOOOP!*
*In a commanding voice*
TEAM SLAYER!

Of course I do!

Back to the original store idea, how about this to balance it out?
The super flag super store would only contain about 2 or 3 of the same super flags. These flags would be limited to about 5 or less shots. This way, the store could only be firmly held for a short time. The store would restock itself from the server, which would drop off a shipment of flags every 2-5 minutes or so. However, each shipment would be different each time. That way the people holding the store will have to change strategy each time.
On top of that, the store could be a hold point in a 'king of the hill' style game with the team scores defined by how long the hold point is held by the team.
However, the store would have to be carefully designed to not be so defensible as to unbalance the game.

[The Vet]

Probably a plugin to determine a percentage of players on the base, with say, the US flags as the 'money' would do well for your idea, The Vet. Possibly 60 or so % of the team have to have a US flag while they're on the base.

This is a great idea. That way, you can balance big vs small teams. However, I had originally imagined it that a player would drive onto base with a money flag; making a cap and racking up a point towards their team's account. But that would become unbalanced when the team sizes differ greatly.

Although, to make people join different teams each time is probably not possible, but you can let everyone rejoin, have the map on an autoteam setting, so they'll never really know which team they'll be on.

I was thinking about this, but if there were no superflags/superflags on the field, there would be no need for team shuffling or handing out of superflags.

As for the "cops" trying to prevent the "money" (US flags) from being stolen, probably best to have a few TH world weapons where the TH would be a very large rate and bounce crazily around the whole store, say every 30 seconds or so.

This sounds like a good alternative to rogues, but it might become predictable and lose its effect or become too much of an obstacle to gameplay. It would have to be carefully designed. But I still think it would be amusing to watch black-colored rogues run around with flashing lights and sirens on their tanks.

As for the superflags, I think there should just be an even amount of flags say, in a little area at the back of their base, they choose a flag, then run out with the flag. (They can rack up high scores, and then try to find and take a US flag). Shot limits would do well on some of the more powerful flags.

Sounds good. I agree with this as I've said above. However, shots would do well to be limited to three shots or less to keep gameplay balanced.

Thanks for this, sigonasr2.

- The Vet

P.S. Now it seems we've come to three different 'store' games; 'Rob The Store', 'Rob The Other Store' and 'The Superflag Superstore/King Of The Hill'.

[Ratatosk]

one more idea would be to have a htf between two stores (like you stealing money for the other)

Very cool! And you would win when one team has so much a percentage of the money flags captured and held in their store! But how about this variation with only one central store:

Instead of the previous 'super store' in the middle with super flags. What about a 'steal the bacon' type game (I really liked the idea flight gave)? There would be only money flags (no super flags on the map) randomly scattered throughout the store/7-11 (about '# of flags require to win'*'number of teams'-'some balancing number like 5 or 6') and two or four teams. Each team would be scored on how many money flags they could bring back to their bases.

After one team brings, say, somewhere around 20 money flags to base, the server resets, shuffles the teams and resets the money flags.

However, those members who were previously on the winning team would be given undroppable, unlimited superflags (possibly CL, L, ST, GM, SE, SB and SW). However, by the team shuffling, they would be randomly assigned around the teams and therefore, the teams would start evenly.

Also, there could be rogues on the map who function as cops trying to stop the teams from robbing the 7-11.

What do you think of this? Is this possible in BZFlag

very possible, if the plugin would support two teams, im not sure but i believe it only dose one