Forged Alliance Forever

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-08-27T13:11:00+02:00

@ vongratz, Nombringer: I'd really like to see a replay of those games. I cannot imagine t3 air spam not to be the most valuable option in any 80k game.

FireMessiah wrote:
Lionhardt wrote:This is pretty sad though... big maps had so much potential for truely epic games if it wasnt for the air spam.

then turn Air off in the lobby settings when you host games. problem solved.

Would you want to play without air transports on a 80k map? I wouldn't... Transports themselves bear the most potential for making great situations happen anyway... for example massive drops.

Statistics: Posted by Lionhardt — 27 Aug 2013, 13:11

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-08-27T06:48:11+02:00

Iv'e played quite a few with brainwashed recently, I have to say most of the reason here are misconceptions.

Tactical diversity increases dramatically, however you simple must accept that some units have different roles, and sim speed between us was mostly fine.

HOWEVER, the unit lag is what really kills it on the 81x. It's MOSTLY okay on the 40x, but we were playing 1v1, so most likely, you would encounter it if you played these maps on a team game.

That and 1v1 on these is VERY tiring.

Statistics: Posted by Nombringer — 27 Aug 2013, 06:48

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-08-27T06:28:39+02:00

Months ago I saw a replay very epic.
Eight guys without T3 or up, fighting with strategy and tactics that were very interesting in a World Domination map.

Statistics: Posted by vongratz — 27 Aug 2013, 06:28

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-08-27T04:14:34+02:00

Lionhardt wrote:
This is pretty sad though... big maps had so much potential for truely epic games if it wasnt for the air spam.

then turn Air off in the lobby settings when you host games. problem solved.

Statistics: Posted by FireMessiah — 27 Aug 2013, 04:14

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-08-27T02:40:04+02:00

You know why people don’t play the really large maps? Because there is no tactical diversity. It always wins the guy with the most ASF that then drops a few strats/t3 gunships/Ahwassas/CZARs on your head... Investing in early aggression is not valuable because it takes to long for it to have an effect and gets you behind in the eco game. By the time your early aggression is in the position (special) to do something your opponent has already out-ecoed you considerably and with his better eco fends off your low tech( low eco attack single handedly and then wipes you off the map because of his eco advantage. It's always the same and thus boring. Ecoing hared, teching up and then spamming t3 air + some t4 is pretty much the only way to go. Air spam dominates every other tactical approach and renders it useless.

This is pretty sad though... big maps had so much potential for truely epic games if it wasnt for the air spam.

Statistics: Posted by Lionhardt — 27 Aug 2013, 02:40

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-07-13T21:59:35+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
so you are saying that on these gigantic maps a few niche strategies rule and the game was mostly designed in a way that does not allow players to utilize most of the arsenal on these maps(the arsenal was balanced to be utilized fully on small to medium maps).

I agree completely.

Actually, no. There aren't any particular units that you can't use. It is just that some units become more useful. Also, the strategic depth increases, it doesn't decrease. Afterall, if you're facing T1 raiding spam from a spam base. You will probably want T2 or T3 units to defend against it. If you're facing teleport attacks, you will probably want an defending T4, or PD. Or when the opponent spends raiding naval forces, you will still want Destroyers and Battleships to deal with them.

Teleports and engineer drops are simply the means of getting the build power a little closer to your opponent, but the units you spam will still be the conventional units. More than anything else, the distance just throws the game wide open.

Just as there are many units that become useful on larger maps, there are also many units that are usless on small ones. When was the last time you saw a Paragon on Blasted Rock?

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 13 Jul 2013, 21:59

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-07-13T21:32:58+02:00

so you are saying that on these gigantic maps a few niche strategies rule and the game was mostly designed in a way that does not allow players to utilize most of the arsenal on these maps(the arsenal was balanced to be utilized fully on small to medium maps).

I agree completely.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 13 Jul 2013, 21:32

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-07-13T21:13:52+02:00

CopyyyCattt wrote:
The game was not designed to be played on huge maps..It can be but It was not designed for that.
If It was it would have super fast land units that only become cost effective when you have 40x40 maps but such units do not exist..In fact the lightest units that are cost effective because of their speed are already useable on regular 1v1 sized maps..
The balance does not fit 80x80 maps, it takes way to long for constant multiplayer games to be played and the engine cannot really sustain such numbers of units and such map sizes consistently.

I do recall playing several epic 2v2 games on Debris. Which would typically go for 2 or 3 hrs. The current array of units is quite sucessful for dealing with such magnitudes of distance. Infact there are other game mechanics that truly shine on such maps. Your tactics need to change that is all.

For instance, building a lot of T1 at your base and marching them over the map on a 81x81 is stupid. They take so long to reach their destination that they become totally antiquated by the time they arrive. Because it is hard to defend every single location on the map. You will see sparse defeces. Which mostly consist of mobile air forces, and radar stations.

Instead, you need to drop engineers or teleport an SCU. Which can then build the Spam bases, just outside of detection range... The odd thing is. Because everything is so far, T1 becomes good again. Even in the late game. Because defences are so thinly spread. Also refueling aircraft becomes an important consideration. Because a T1 bomber will simply run out of fuel before it reaches the other end of the map!

On an 81x81km map ships also take a very long time to get anywhere. Particularly T3 ships. So it is often wise to drop the Battlefleet in favour of more mobile submarine squadrons. Backed up with Air support. Or Frigate/Cruiser/Destroyer strike forces... Interestingly. Air is so important on these large maps, that your primary T3 naval unit is not the Battleship. It is the Aircraft Carrier. Because the distances are so long, aircraft must have refueling to operate, and they also need the radar coverage, which the carrier can provide. A carrier which is stocked with a full complement of ASF, Bombers and Torps can be a powerful strike tool, and deal with many naval threats.

Eventually, in the late game phase. Teleporting SCU's and ACU's will change the game. The Seraphim SCU is a neat unit. Because in addition to the teleport, it can also be equipped with a TML. So it becomes a teleporting TML. Awesome. Perfect for raiding all those outlying mexes. The Aeon SCU is also useful. Its splash damage gun is good for killing engie spam. It can port in, blow up a whole lot of engies, then port out... Of course the Cybran have the telemazer ACU, and the UEF...Well they have Percy drops.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 13 Jul 2013, 21:13

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-07-13T16:23:49+02:00

The game was not designed to be played on huge maps..It can be but It was not designed for that.
If It was it would have super fast land units that only become cost effective when you have 40x40 maps but such units do not exist..In fact the lightest units that are cost effective because of their speed are already useable on regular 1v1 sized maps..
The balance does not fit 80x80 maps, it takes way to long for constant multiplayer games to be played and the engine cannot really sustain such numbers of units and such map sizes consistently.

Statistics: Posted by CopyyyCattt — 13 Jul 2013, 16:23

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-06-07T08:28:45+02:00

Hi,

I'm usually a fan of big maps, and enjoy the naval aspects of the game. Amphibious operations are an essential aspect of FA, which you need to master. The best maps IMO are the ones that have land, air, sea, strategic and tactical gameplay in equal measure. Maps like Roanoke capture this game style fairly well. Although it is a little biased against land.

If you are bewildered by the vast array of tactical options available at the higher techs. Then it sounds like big maps are not for you.

Anyway, part of what you say is true, there is a lack of large land maps. It is hard to capture the full 'epic-ness' of this game on a 5km map. I have some mapping ideas, which I have never got round to implementing. As below:

1. Slug fest canyon map - This map is has an uneven aspect ratio, with extreme distance between the starting teams. It would be a 10km by 60km map. With a long and narrow canyon pass, and a river meandering down the middle. It would combine extreme distance, transport mobility, yet also have a singular approach vector. It would also feature, ”brown water navy". However, naval units would be in close proximity to land. Water crossings would be favourable to amphibious units and air transports.

2. Drop Bear Gully - A large land map with mostly unbuildable land. The mexes and buildable ground exist only within a series if isolated gorges, craters and canyons. The game is centred around dropping units into these gorges, and then defending them. The game would be mostly air play, with gunships and massed transport drops of assault land units. The terrain would make it effectively difficult to use strategic bombers, and static defence could not be constructed on the upper plains. There would be some scope for mobile artillery working on the upper plain - but transports would be needed for the direct assault and capture.

3. Tropical Atoll - A large map almost entirely covered by water. The commanders start on this thin strip of land, which is an atoll. It is a chain of islands. A thin sliver of land, present as an underwater crater formation and the only land available on the map. it is sufficient only for the construction of a few pgens, factories, and defences. There is however, a plentiful supply of hydrocarbon points and mexes under the water. Which can be captured by engineers, and raided by submarines.

Statistics: Posted by Hawkei — 07 Jun 2013, 08:28

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-04-28T17:27:01+02:00

First of all, I'd like to see what keeps you from playing a big map yourself.

Don't include what you think to be the reason for other players not to play such maps. Don't say what the main reason is, because no one knows this. There's never been a poll and no one has ever said "I don't play such maps because".

So please: why don't you play them? Is your own opinion included in the post? If so , it would really help mappers.

To the point of land maps of such sizes. I highly doubt it would make a difference. You can do air drops on islands or near islands just as we'll as you can do it on a huge land mass (near islands has the possible exception of playing with Aeon though).

What you get is a huge map with either one mass spot in every square km (this would give you 6561 mass spots, so it's a bit of an overstatement), or you would get vast spaces of absolutely no strategical interest whatsoever (so vast that even a stealth army is useless there).

So there's little difference in having a space of water or a space of land there.

Moving on to the general problem of size, rushes are completely impossible (already said). Whe you're going to mount an attack, your opponent will always have a defense against it. Before a decent army has arrived, the first nukes are also launched.

What is most important in these kind of games (it usually is very, very important), is I tel. There are more than enough places to hide but there is also enough time to prepare. So as an attacker, you will have to be creative. The standard head on attacks with a bunch of experimentals will not work. Simple backdoor attack... Possibly yes and if yes, it wins you the game.

The advantage of water in my inion, is that you have your hiding place. You need t3 sonar to find experimentals walking over the seabed. Omni sensors will only work for their omni radius. These t3 sonars can easily be killed. Then your enemy is blind. If there is only land, it's either a stealth field creep or Cybran stealth army for the same effect. Drops will not work. Preparing an army of experimentals will not work.

Is it the lack of action that keeps you from playing large maps? Try shuriken island for a change. It's so filled with reclaimabeles (lots of rocks, really LOTS of rocks), that you can have experimentals within 15 minutes (I once had a paragon within 30, but that was when my friends weren't able to fight against me). An 8 player FFA would be very exciting I think, but you will need very good computers (those who have the average kind of pc, keep it to a 4p FFA).

Other than that, I can recommend e 81x81 map I once made: Triple Road.

I designed it so that it could host 1v1v1 or 2v2v2 games. In the first case, take a seat on the middle island, then rushes are viable and you have to expand outward as well. In case of the 2v2v2, you either support your middle player by taking care of the expansion, or you play a rush game and hope your ally can help you out soon enough.

I always played 1v1v1 in the outer ring with my two friends, but that was mostly because they needed the time to prepare. They can't rush and I can, then the inner ring game is horribly imbalanced (though they were fast enough to claim their part when we played the game).

Statistics: Posted by Plasma_Wolf — 28 Apr 2013, 17:27

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-04-24T17:06:36+02:00

What about maps where the starting point of the players/teams are relativly close. I think of a map like setons which is extended to all 4 sites but the starting points remain where they are. The rocks behind the the bases could be extended. There shouldnt be too much free room just smaller spots. You could build firebases there with stealth generator. Some of them in tml range to the starting points. Most of the spots could be connected to each other with wider or narrower mountain pass roads. The Sea could be extended. There could be another smaller island on each side. The land would look like a giant crater (the original seton's clutch map) surrounded by mountains and cliffs.

Statistics: Posted by RoLa — 24 Apr 2013, 17:06

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-04-23T18:49:12+02:00

A low unit count helps too. The fact that large map games are very laggy and the fact that they are overwhelming for many players can both be addressed by lowering the unit count. On 81x81 maps T1 units will almost never be useful anyway - they're so slow - so spamming them like crazy is just going to leave a lot of T1 units driving around for hours, doing nothing but slowing things down.

A unit count of around 500 is good for these maps, you hit the unit limit right as you get either an economy capable of producing game-enders or an army large enough to mount a successful attack on a very distant target. So it shifts the focus almost entirely off eco in the late game, since you can't expand anymore. It also makes working as a team all the more important, because even with full share you'll lose pretty much all of your allies' units to the unit limit.

As long as the unit count is low, if there's the normal amount of mass you would see in a game (as in, mass enough for eight players with only four) that helps keep the game interesting beyond everyone turtling up.

Statistics: Posted by Mycen — 23 Apr 2013, 18:49

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-03-27T07:47:46+02:00

Combo wrote:
Also, they need good system specs. A multi-second delay between clicking and action is really not fun (this seems to always happen on shards).

The number of units, and thus the lag, is determined by the mass on the map, not the size, hence my suggestion for large maps with little mass.

Statistics: Posted by Valki — 27 Mar 2013, 07:47

Re: possible explanation why big maps are rarely played

2013-03-27T01:32:25+02:00

Combo wrote:
Also, they need good system specs. A multi-second delay between clicking and action is really not fun (this seems to always happen on shards).

This assumes big maps and large team games, 1v1/2v2 is a different story entirely.

Statistics: Posted by Softly — 27 Mar 2013, 01:32