[Updated 03/31] Uphill Hell

Discussion, Help, and Mission Presentation forum for the PVP Warfare Mission Tool
User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

[Updated 03/31] Uphill Hell

Post#1 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 11:59 am

Layout: Uphill Hell
Author: Deathicael
Faction 1: Bluefor - NA NATO
Faction 2: Independent
Description: What inspired me to try and create a layout for EUTW? Pain and Suffering :banghead: I wanted to see just how creative the players could be in a scenario where there are just no good answers to holding or taking the center of the map. I wanted to create an anxiety so gut wrenching that the mere thought of losing the downhill advantage of the hill military camp creates palpitations.
Last edited by Deathicael on Fri 31 Mar, 2017 8:51 pm, edited 22 times in total.
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
HaseDesTodes
Donator
Posts: 555

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#2 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 1:05 pm

it will take to long until both sides meet each other, i suggest giving them all flags until hamburger/barracks

User avatar
void
EUTW Management
Posts: 6714

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#3 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 2:06 pm

I would actually say all should be precaped but the hill and reserve barracks.
Unix Time wrote:On 4 December 292,277,026,596 64-bit versions of the Unix time stamp would cease to work. This is not anticipated to pose a problem, as this is longer than the time it would take the Sun to expand to a red giant and swallow the Earth.

User avatar
MarkoCRO
PVP Warfare Admin
Posts: 608

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#4 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 4:08 pm

Caps lock stayed ON when naming flags :)

User avatar
RagedLemon
Community Member
Posts: 157

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#5 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 9:29 pm

One issue is the beginning objectives. Like the others said, add more given objectives to both sides so the game doesn't take years to start. Also, Telos and Altis C.D.C are around 100-200m apart while Alikampos and Katalaki are 400-500m apart. That distance is vital due to Telos supporting Altis C.D.C enabling Opfor to defend those points fairly easy while Alkikampos and Katalaki are very far apart.

User avatar
RagedLemon
Community Member
Posts: 157

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#6 » Sat 03 Dec, 2016 9:31 pm

Also this layout should probably be Regular in my opinion, but that is all up to you to decide.

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#7 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 12:07 am

my logic for telos and altis cdc for being so close together is that altis cdc is much more fortified and harder to get in and out of with both infantry and vehicles than the other cities for team 1 so I figured that it would be in fairness to give team 2 a closer objective to counter attack from but if thats a no go then it can be changed im sure
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
aTWar
Special Operations Management
Posts: 1748

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#8 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 1:55 am

100% Should be regular look at size
T4H Arma 3 Units
Image
REVELATION 6:8 "And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#9 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 2:34 am

I'm not a huge fan of jets and inexpensive APC's but if thats the way the community wants to go with it then so be it. My understanding is that final ruling and map setting is up to the lead devs or do I need to go about starting changes?

just a thought ... if Telos isnt an acceptable flag maybe move that point to solar plant? Any other ideas?
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
void
EUTW Management
Posts: 6714

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#10 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 9:54 am

Regular vs. LITE.
It is still the decision of the layout creator of what it should be - @War and others might be fans of Regular (and they will create Regular layouts), others however like LITE more.

The size does not automatically makes it a Regular one.
The points are very close to each other, except the way to the middle, but even those are next to each other.

But I would say precapture a few more, so you have player contact asap.
Unix Time wrote:On 4 December 292,277,026,596 64-bit versions of the Unix time stamp would cease to work. This is not anticipated to pose a problem, as this is longer than the time it would take the Sun to expand to a red giant and swallow the Earth.

User avatar
aTWar
Special Operations Management
Posts: 1748

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#11 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 11:55 am

@War wrote:100% Should be regular look at size


To explain where I'm coming from here and on LITE in general;

1. There were 90% LITE layouts and I felt that we weren't truly getting the arma experience. - This has been resolved on server #4.
- hopefully eventually this will come across to other servers eventually.
- This was the initial reason why I and many others were vocal in forums and mainly on servers.

2. LITE layouts SHOULD be dependant on size and Area covered;
- MHQ driving times on large layouts (with limited air transport due to cost and MIP alt spawns due to cost).
- once an MHQ (due to limited alt insertion methods goes down) it shouldn't take AGES to drive it back across.
- also since it's designed to be infantry based and most vehicles have an extra charge flags should be closer together.
- if the area is heavily forreseted or hilly (parts of tanoa and some altos) with limited access routes it should also be considered for not LITE due to driving times and distance by roads and the added bonus of air transport.


I would go as far as to say I actually enjoy some layouts as LITE now on server 4 (now it's not every map): PAROS research for example with its small AO and I'd add Korengal valley should probably be LITE. Both excellent small AOs with close flags.

Layouts like KORE are where it's gone WRONG. A large layout with big distances between flags a mix of terrain including hill based flags and large road travels from HQ. This is the example of why there should be parameters around what is and isn't LITE

Just to stress though that since there aren't any actual parameters I'm simply explaining my logic and personal perspective to answer any questions on why I think LITE and Regular balance is imprtant
T4H Arma 3 Units
Image
REVELATION 6:8 "And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite) WIP

Post#12 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 1:20 pm

OP changed for updates :nuts:
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
Nyles
EUTW Management
Posts: 3367

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite) WIP

Post#13 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 2:08 pm

Posting this here, too, because there is no WRONG here, war:

Please not that these are wars personal rules for LITE/Regular layouts. They do not represent the official EUTW stance on this.

In general war is right that smaller maps work better for LITE, however, it is perfectly valid to make LITE layouts with both short and long distances. If you feel you want to cover a larger area but still want a reduced motor pool, that is your choice.

Trucks and off-roads do not cost extra on LITE, so we expect that players can still cover the distance between sectors as usual.

While armored and air units are more expensive and thus rarer, they are also more survivable due to the lack of titans.

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite) WIP

Post#14 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 2:14 pm

My logic for requesting my map be made in LITE is because I utterly loathe the weapons locking system for attack aircraft which basically devolves the combat aspect of their systems to that of a boomkin from world of warcraft. Tho if the consensus is that the map should be made not in LITE then I'll accept that ruling and be gracious that my map even got accepted to be played at all.
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
Nyles
EUTW Management
Posts: 3367

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite) WIP

Post#15 » Sun 04 Dec, 2016 2:19 pm

Try it however you like. If you feel strong about LITE, make it so and evaulate it after playtesting. It's always possible to change this around by adding/removing airfields.

User avatar
GiPPO
EUTW Management
Posts: 7131

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#16 » Sun 15 Jan, 2017 10:06 pm

Fixed some floating h-barriers
Simple object on: cinder blocks, coils, and some other small stuff.
Enabled simulation on some objects
Changed the skin for hurons
Repositioned UAV service points (you are not the only one who does this. Please do not do this. this is like placing a fuel station right onto the road instead of a side of the road)
Deleted h barriers from player spawn - it is not needed
Minor repositioning of AA defenses.

Uploaded new mission.sqm
"If It Isn't Documented, It Doesn't Exist"

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#17 » Wed 18 Jan, 2017 8:38 am

I'd actually like to nix this submission seeing as I'd be a hypocrite making a map this devoid of cover after criticizing someone elses :nuts: , would still like to play test my cqc map tho :bouncy:
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
GiPPO
EUTW Management
Posts: 7131

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#18 » Tue 31 Jan, 2017 10:19 pm

Uploaded new mission.sqm. I picked the wrong version first :)
"If It Isn't Documented, It Doesn't Exist"

WZ00
Donator
Posts: 94

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#19 » Wed 15 Feb, 2017 5:15 pm

maybe too many objects on this, not running too good for some of us.

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#20 » Wed 15 Feb, 2017 5:20 pm

i'll look into removing some of the stationary vehicles, maybe that'll fix it
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

WZ00
Donator
Posts: 94

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#21 » Wed 15 Feb, 2017 5:37 pm

You dont need the stuff in the warehouses like at solar, the truck container and bricks, no need for them.

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#22 » Wed 15 Feb, 2017 6:45 pm

mission SQM update , awaiting review from moderator , suggest adjusting spawns at AIA
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#23 » Mon 20 Feb, 2017 9:01 am

.
Last edited by Deathicael on Tue 21 Feb, 2017 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

User avatar
GiPPO
EUTW Management
Posts: 7131

Re: [new layout] Uphill Hell (Lite)

Post#24 » Mon 20 Feb, 2017 11:18 pm

Uploaded the sqm to the first post (please use that next time, because I might miss your new version otherwise )
"If It Isn't Documented, It Doesn't Exist"

User avatar
Deathicael
Community Member
Posts: 114

Re: [Updated 03/04] Uphill Hell

Post#25 » Sun 05 Mar, 2017 4:10 am

Update - See OP :bigthumb:
"Never attribute to Malice that which can easily be explained by Stupidity" - Hanlon's Razor :nuts:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest