@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