Competitive Map Pack: CoMP

[Zaffa]

This change would make zaffas gap a popular place to penetrate.

Things could get ugly if this thing begins to stick.







Damn it. 

 

[KissMyAxe]

This change would make zaffas gap a popular place to penetrate.

Things could get ugly if this thing begins to stick.

And then there could be purists (I'm thinking Church of Any-color-you-like-if-the-color-is-black shields) that would consider penetration via zaffa's gap to be a mortal sin... Oh wait, are we still talking about maps?

On a serious note, have you talked to Romans about that?

 

[Zaffa]

On a serious note, have you talked to Romans about that?

At present, no. I was publicly posting the idea so it could be discussed. At present however, I have not had the opportunity to sit down with Romans on it.

 

[KissMyAxe]

At present however, I have not had the opportunity to sit down with Romans on it.

No that's fine, that's my part in it. I just didn't want to buzz his ears with something he has already heard.

 

[Zaffa]

http://www.mediafire.com/?v6hd5nblq2frk9c (updated)

Balancing patch to Snoop's Exile

Reworked the top hill for better balance and more active gameplay. Additional tweaking done to map for area identification purposes.

 

[KissMyAxe]

Just a quick update. Four maps by Sotamursu (Haranaer, The Wold, Urubhaya and BestOpenMap) were accepted for testing (current status is Unstable). I had a chance to play and call on BestOpenMap and Urubhaya at a recent pickup party. I'm still on the fence about both.

BestOpen seems to be quite small and have very limited usable space: the areas behind the church and around the windmill are easily held and control two flags, so they are very desirable positions. And the top spawn has an absolute advantage in taking either of the early in the round. Which seems to leave rotating right to the forest and then to the top spawn as the only viable option of the bottom spawn (as neither of the spawns is easily held). The center area doesn't seem useful as it doesn't have cover: the few archers that tried to venture there were quickly killed by cav. The advantages of this map is that it seems to favor a more balanced troop composition (archers, cav and a couple inf with spears) and is small so it forces combat instead of waiting for flags, yet has some space for manoeuvring. The disadvantage is that it doesn't seem to lend itself to many tactical ideas. Perhaps, moving the windmill area closer to the bottom spawn could solve that, but I'm not sure.

Urubhaya seemed like a tactically rich map, but I've came to a conclusion that the only viable tactic is to rush the center "island" of roofs with infantry and take it. A few crossbows wouldn't hurt, but there isn't much cover for the to reload. The "island" controls all the flags and has only two entrances, so it's a very strong position to hold. And for that reason, and despite all the available open space, cav looks rather useless since they can't reach the island. Surrounding the island with archers/xbows might sound like a good strategy, but in that case they are easily separated and pushed by an infantry "fist". So, the map seems to be poor on tactical freedom too.

I'd like to note that this is a preliminary assessment. I'm in no way a fairy caller, so I might have missed something. I'm looking for more people to play the maps (both are on USA_Event, custom 15 (Urubhaya) and 16 (BestOpen)) and give me feedback.

 

[Cradoc]

Got to say there isn't any good angle coverage. What I mean by that is the angles are very straight and do not promote interesting gameplay. BestOpenMap was not enjoyable. It reminded me of Frosty Battle with none of the angles you can get for range and cover. As Kiss said there was little tactical freedom. Thoughts on how to make it better. Probably make it a little bigger so you (Sotamursu) can play with elevation a little bit.

When I saw Urabhaya(I like the name compared to the last one  ) I had the same thoughts as above. If the Large Island was split in two and you were able to get up on both sides of the new two islands, I think it would play better.

 

[Zaffa]

I also had the chance to participate on these maps last night. Though my criticism of the maps will be harsh, I will try to keep it as accurate as possible.

Long story short, neither map actually works. It is not just an issue of balance, but the intrinsic design for both maps simply does not promote fun play. Though I appreciate you taking the time to create maps, the two that I played felt far more like someone was just making a map to make a one as opposed to trying to make something worth playing. Before I delve into specifics, let me just say that my negative view of the maps was not held by me alone. My entire team disliked them to the point that everyone quit the pickup outright.

Now let's actually go into pointing out what was actually wrong with the maps.

For BestOpenMap, there is quite literally nothing either team can do on the map but camp. There is essentially no meaningful cover outside the starting locations, and what little cover does exist (The forest) requires teams to become shooting targets in an open plain to get to. This is despite the fact that no tactical advantage actually exist in accessing these trees, in part because of the absurdly small size of the map and the extreme vulnerability that teams have to open themselves up to reach them (for no tactical advantage mind you). As such, the map basically just degenerates to camp at or next to spawn (church/ruins) for 4 minutes and wait for master to spawn. At this point, it just becomes a matter of shooting each other in an open field.  The way the map plays, you could have literally placed any 3-4 buildings/large props on the map and had the same result. As it is, the map plays more like a collage of props than an actual map.

For Urubhaya, the map simply doesn't make sense conceptually. On it, both teams start off across from each other standing in front of the only elevated terrain on the entire map. Besides the obvious problem of having only 1 elevated area that looks over the entire map, the area has 0 cover from those actually up there. The top of the buildings is completely flat, which means you are going to have archers/xbows literally just shooting at each other in the open. Also, as noted by kiss, the map forces teams to devolve their tactics into rushing each other at the beginning. The map does not allow for proper/complex tactics and is ultimately just unfun to play on. Though admittedly this map was not fully played as everyone just rage quit the map after a few rounds, the point is that a battle map needs to allow players to feel like they are doing more than just playing on a death match server. Urubhaya as it is now, just involves teams throwing their bodies at each other at the start without much thought or reason.

Though I apologize if I have offended you with this critique, I think the message needs to be made that although the battle community can always use more maps, we need to make sure that we are focusing on quality over quantity. One merely needs to log onto the siege server to see the problem with the later approach, and considering that battle is atleast in part about meaningful competition, the maps should be designed with balance and quality of play in mind.

 

[KissMyAxe]

Thank you, Zaffa and Cradoc, for your feedback. It's very helpful.

Just wanted to note that quality is, indeed, the focus of this map pack. It's true that nowadays I add pretty much every map that doesn't look outright broken to me. Yet, before I can recommend them for inclusion in tournaments, the maps must pass a series of tests with different people, to ensure that we have as objective an opinion as possible regarding the competitiveness and fun factor of the map. And, in my experience, it's very hard to make a good competitive map: one usually needs to come up with several concepts, only a few of which would work. And yes, Zaffa, you are right that one needs to think how the map is going to be played and design it specifically for the competitive use -- yet I've found that maps rarely play as you expect. So, I would encourage contributors to the map pack to try out different concepts and see which works and which doesn't in open tests.

I think the message needs to be made that although the battle community can always use more maps, we need to make sure that we are focusing on quality over quantity. One merely needs to log onto the siege server to see the problem with the later approach, and considering that battle is at least in part about meaningful competition, the maps should be designed with balance and quality of play in mind.

 

[sotamursu123]

I also had the chance to participate on these maps last night. Though my criticism of the maps will be harsh, I will try to keep it as accurate as possible.

Long story short, neither map actually works. It is not just an issue of balance, but the intrinsic design for both maps simply does not promote fun play. Though I appreciate you taking the time to create maps, the two that I played felt far more like someone was just making a map to make a one as opposed to trying to make something worth playing. Before I delve into specifics, let me just say that my negative view of the maps was not held by me alone. My entire team disliked them to the point that everyone quit the pickup outright.

Now let's actually go into pointing out what was actually wrong with the maps.

For BestOpenMap, there is quite literally nothing either team can do on the map but camp. There is essentially no meaningful cover outside the starting locations, and what little cover does exist (The forest) requires teams to become shooting targets in an open plain to get to. This is despite the fact that no tactical advantage actually exist in accessing these trees, in part because of the absurdly small size of the map and the extreme vulnerability that teams have to open themselves up to reach them (for no tactical advantage mind you). As such, the map basically just degenerates to camp at or next to spawn (church/ruins) for 4 minutes and wait for master to spawn. At this point, it just becomes a matter of shooting each other in an open field.  The way the map plays, you could have literally placed any 3-4 buildings/large props on the map and had the same result. As it is, the map plays more like a collage of props than an actual map.

For Urubhaya, the map simply doesn't make sense conceptually. On it, both teams start off across from each other standing in front of the only elevated terrain on the entire map. Besides the obvious problem of having only 1 elevated area that looks over the entire map, the area has 0 cover from those actually up there. The top of the buildings is completely flat, which means you are going to have archers/xbows literally just shooting at each other in the open. Also, as noted by kiss, the map forces teams to devolve their tactics into rushing each other at the beginning. The map does not allow for proper/complex tactics and is ultimately just unfun to play on. Though admittedly this map was not fully played as everyone just rage quit the map after a few rounds, the point is that a battle map needs to allow players to feel like they are doing more than just playing on a death match server. Urubhaya as it is now, just involves teams throwing their bodies at each other at the start without much thought or reason.

Though I apologize if I have offended you with this critique, I think the message needs to be made that although the battle community can always use more maps, we need to make sure that we are focusing on quality over quantity. One merely needs to log onto the siege server to see the problem with the later approach, and considering that battle is atleast in part about meaningful competition, the maps should be designed with balance and quality of play in mind.

Me? Offended?

隐藏

Anyways the roofs in urabhaya we're separate first but maynd told me to edit them like they are right now, blame him!!!1!1!

I'll make some edits on urabhaya lel.

 

[Tactics]

The town of Rock Port, wonderous, enchanting and oddly unsettling - given the local communites fellowship with one particularly large rock (not pictured) Will e-mail the files to the map authority for testing.

隐藏

-

Liberty modified:

隐藏

 

[Rhade]

The only balanced map is a completely open map that allow both sides to live or die based on movement, not how much cover you have and how long you're willing to sit and camp and bore the other team to come out of camping themselves.

A huge problem with the Warband meta always has been this mentality, it's especially strong in Euro land but honestly with the exception of us and Spaz/Swift's clans, it's prevalent in NA too -- which is why we attack 95% of the time in our scrims. While you may argue it's effective, it creates a very boring to play and very boring to watch situation. That's why we always used our map choice for plains in the old battle tournaments, so neither side had a true advantage besides the skill and cohesion they possessed, not VILLAGE INSIDE RHODOKS LOL type map favoring.

Hopefully Bannerlord will find a way to rectify this issue, but until then you guys can do yourselves a favor by creating more open maps with little to no static cover.

 

[Lagstro]

The only balanced map is a completely open map that allow both sides to live or die based on movement, not how much cover you have and how long you're willing to sit and camp and bore the other team to come out of camping themselves.

A huge problem with the Warband meta always has been this mentality, it's especially strong in Euro land but honestly with the exception of us and Spaz/Swift's clans, it's prevalent in NA too -- which is why we attack 95% of the time in our scrims. While you may argue it's effective, it creates a very boring to play and very boring to watch situation. That's why we always used our map choice for plains in the old battle tournaments, so neither side had a true advantage besides the skill and cohesion they possessed, not VILLAGE INSIDE RHODOKS LOL type map favoring.

Hopefully Bannerlord will find a way to rectify this issue, but until then you guys can do yourselves a favor by creating more open maps with little to no static cover.

THIS!!! ^^^  What's in bold is the only logical thing that has been said around here in a very long time.

 

[KissMyAxe]

Hopefully Bannerlord will find a way to rectify this issue, but until then you guys can do yourselves a favor by creating more open maps with little to no static cover.

Woot. Do I understand correctly that Lord Rhade has just endorsed Open Plain?! (not like it matters to anyone)

The town of Rock Port, wonderous, enchanting and oddly unsettling - given the local communites fellowship with one particularly large rock (not pictured) Will e-mail the files to the map authority for testing.

隐藏

Just received the file, Romans. The screenshot looks spectacular, as always. You gotta stop shaming all the mappers with your photorealistic maps!

隐藏

Not really! Keep up the good work, Roms

I'll have a look at the map on Friday. I also plan to set up a dedicated map testing server then.

 

[Courtney]

True that open-plains type of map with no cover and with flat terrains would allow earlier engagements, it also encourages laziness among captains because they'll just start relying on the "all cav" strategy more and more. The team with the best cav players will almost always prevail. Teams will also start picking the same best and 2nd-best cav factions over and over. TBH, all of these things make a pretty boring match. A map needs to allow several possible alternative (and effective) strategies, and allows teams with different strengths to have a fair chance. If the map has multiple MotF locations, that would encourage less camping, which is what I like about the new custom maps. It's also common knowledge that a team who does not have map control (aka camping at one area) is generally at a high disadvantage over the opposing team. But then again, if the position they're camping at is due to it being a very strategic point on the map, then it is because the map encourages camping at that area.

 

[Snoop]

 

[Zaffa]

The only balanced map is a completely open map that allow both sides to live or die based on movement, not how much cover you have and how long you're willing to sit and camp and bore the other team to come out of camping themselves.

Hopefully Bannerlord will find a way to rectify this issue, but until then you guys can do yourselves a favor by creating more open maps with little to no static cover.

The problem of camping is not a problem with having a lot of structures on a map. It is a problem of poor map design. Take Reveran Village for instance. Save for arguably one pocket the corner on the map, it does not allow for long term camping. If a team camps, they will be surrounded and lit up by archers/cav. I'd argue that the newly implemented Snoop's exile also does not allow for such camping to take place.

While balance is important, map makers also need to make sure that all sections of their maps have some form of accessible counter to prevent the advantages of camping. Buildings should be placed to serve the purpose of offering temporary protection to teams (until enemy team responds), and controlling potential troop movements. They should not be designed to provide for permanent safe havens until a flag randomly spawns on the map, hopefully near their location (Ruins on Field by the River for example).

As noted by Courtney, though it is true that a completely open map prevents the problem of camping, it also eliminates strategy from the game as everything just devolves into a mindless cav rush.

At present, there are 3 main categories used to label map: open, closed, mixed.
It is my opinion that the first and second of these categories is just another way of saying that the map is poorly designed as neither map type is able to account for both the camping and tactics problem. In the case of largely open maps, there tends to be too much of a dependency on cav, thanks to the sheer size of the map and the limited number of available counters that result from the lack of cover. This leads to either massive camping when cover is available (FbtR) or mindless cav rushing (open plains).

In so far as closed maps are concerned, there is often so much cover available that there is no reason for teams not to camp and just wait out their opponents. Even if teams did want to press the enemy team, the cover provided by these maps to become so completely entrenched, that it would be to a team's disadvantage to press on them. This problem is multiplied by the fact that closed maps tend to be relatively small size wise, so regardless of flag spawns, teams will generally be able to access them.

 

[Lagstro]

The problem of camping is not a problem with having a lot of structures on a map. It is a problem of poor map design.

You can add 1000 structures that can be used to camp but that doesn't mean that they have to be camped on. It's the teams that decide to camp them, and it's when they choose to camp the same advantageous spot over and over again that it gets very boring. When you are forced to make a decision between charging in to a very disadvantageous spot because the other team is just making the match take too long or waiting for MOTF every ******* time, it's just lame. Never have I seen it be so prevalent in a tournament than it was in BIT... either it's the 1000 affecting it (because people feel inadequate to fight because they don't have enough armor) ... or it's becoming a general strategy for everyone now. If BkS were to scrim you, they would come straight at you, and the thing is... they will still probably win. You don't need to camp the same spot over and over again to win. And if you camp every time and still manage to lose the match... well congratulations... not only did you make yourself look pathetic... but you wasted ***** loads of time too.

Maybe it's time to play on flat maps with nothing but a few trees and rocks for a while until we get in the habit of actually fighting each other instead of waiting out every round to the end. Maybe once we get used to fighting and not hiding we can start adding in objects so that we can start adding in actual strategy and not this "Camping the same spot every round" because it's not even a real strategy.  A good strategy should bring a good outcome... camping one spot until motf spawns has no outcome other than wasting time... it's not a strategy. If MOTF is so important... just have it pop up right as the round starts and go straight to it... have an exciting battle right off the bat, and save yourself a lot of useful time.

What would be really awesome is a map generator that randomly places objects and makes scenes and no one ever knows what to expect. That way... both teams will have no clue as to where to go (or where to camp) and will have to scout around and use real strategies to win a round. It would require full co-operation from every member of the team... communication... ideas... and the caller will have to be witty and come up with plans quick and make them happen. That's what I always loved about Random Plains... you never knew what to expect.... you need a new strategies and you can use different objects different ways.  If it turns out to be a completely flat map... then by all means... have an all out cav battle... every team should be ready fr such a situation... and if the map ends up being hilly and rugged... then have an all out archer and inf battle.... every team should be ready for such a situation as well. You have the chance of innovative ideas every map... like the creation of the horseman flying V, which hilariously and awesomely actually works pretty often.  Playing on maps where you already know everything about it and know where the best places to be at isn't very exciting. It seems more like a routine. Same thing happens over and over again in the exact same places... same strategies used everyday... nothing new. It gets boring. An awesome map randomizer would be absolutely amazing. And if creating such a randomizer seems to difficult.... perhaps just having a great variety of  fixed maps where a team has no control over which one will be selected.

 

[Snoop]

The problem of camping is not a problem with having a lot of structures on a map. It is a problem of poor map design.

That's what I always loved about Random Plains... you never knew what to expect.... you need a new strategies and you can use different objects different ways.  If it turns out to be a completely flat map... then by all means... have an all out cav battle... every team should be ready fr such a situation... and if the map ends up being hilly and rugged... then have an all out archer and inf battle.... every team should be ready for such a situation as well.

I've always liked random plains and felt that it should be....well..random. Hell I even made an alt called "cliff texture" One problem with random plains, is that the current rules lean towards having players play the same map for four rounds then swap factions. On plains, the map is totally different once you swap factions. That makes random plains not fit into the current scheme.


Also, the next guy that says reroll will be shot in the face.

隐藏

 

[Cradoc]

One good thing about NW that came out (no idea if it was done in a mod before or if they made it for NW) was the ability to reset the map instead of reloading the map. So if you had random plains and you played your four rounds. You would be able to reset to switch sides and play on the same random map for the second half. That is the only problem (I have) with random plains at the moment.

And this camping mindset is annoying.