[Discussion] Layout creation rules

Discussion, Help, and Mission Presentation forum for the PVP Warfare Mission Tool
User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

[Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#1 » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 12:37 pm

I want to create this topic as we have now some layouts which basically fit rules of layout creation, but they are not very much playable now. The rules are justified by EUTW game design, so it's up to dev team to decide.
These rules don't consider some of cases we can see on #4 now. Even with community polls we still face layouts which on my opinion don't match EUTW design as CTI gamemode. Note this is only my subjective opinion. For me, Arma motto is "First think, then shoot".

So, there are some common things that I (and my comrades) don't like and it should be restricted by rules on my opinion:
1. Chokepoint combo. Examples: Death Valley, Anthrakia.
Was already discussed on forums here https://forums.eutw.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6158 and, well, you can see poll results (although sample is too small). With current game design it's too exhausting to play such layouts except games with unbalanced teams. CTI intends different possibilities to obtain control over island, isn't it so? One chokepoint is acceptible as one team still have connection to 2+ next objectives.

2. Minimal distance within objectives. Examples: Kavalla on foot (and other Kavalla layouts), Zaros, Paros research, West Road Wars.
Objectives which are way too close to each others set aside MHQ, MIP, helicopter transport roles on EUTW although it's a great gamemod features. Therefore, victory depends only on infantry&shooting skill, reaction and (it's arma) hardware. Noone needs tactics when you just play TDM. And EUTW is CTI, not TDM. Moreover, it neutralizes gunship efficiency as infantry killing machines - to risky to fly over area, full of spawnable for AA soldiers flags. I suggest to limit distance between flags to 600-700 metres (more than standart MHQ placement distance = ineffective to go on foot). Maybe it's acceptible to place pair of flags somewhere, but not a row.

3. Dead-end/appendix objectives. Examples: Death Valley, Dyonissios, Lijnhaven and many others.
They supposed to be left for SD or to provide backup for some flags. In case of "backup" flag it's justified maybe, but still not needed. When you leave it for SD it's just a waste of time for next layout: winning team can easily hold their only connected flag, chance for comeback is low without opportunity to choose attack direction.

4. Minimal distance between objective and base. Examples: Death valley, West Road Wars and others. It's limited to 500m from outer circle (?), however that's too low. Especially on regular you can't support attack of very last flag with CAS as AA can just hide in BP zone. It's base protection, but not last objective protection, right?

This is my subjective opinion based on experience recieved from many hours of playing on community layouts servers. Suggested restrictions can be counted as recommended but not strict. However I would like to see them in Layout Editor also. If not strict - than show icon of yellow "!" as a warning that it's acceptible, but not recommended.
We tried many ideas and layouts and we did a great job filling up servers with fresh layouts as layout creators, comrades. Some of ideas turned into something we didn't expect. Let's don't fall into the same trap again.

Danrik
Community Member
Posts: 120

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#2 » Thu 15 Jun, 2017 2:29 pm

Thanks for the theme, but I think it will not change. Because we, the community are responsible for choosing the layouts. The admins and devs have withdrawn on this topic.

We will see.

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#3 » Fri 16 Jun, 2017 12:34 am

Well, I hope layout creators also will listen to me even if nothing changes in rules. I described common troubles basing on my own experience. We don't need to play community layouts before they lose in poll because of these mistakes. Let's just avoid known issues on creating stage.

crogeek
Banned
Posts: 1366

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#4 » Fri 16 Jun, 2017 8:45 am

As I told in the past, they should leave one of active servers for reworked OLD only layouts (if old layouts aren't compatible with recent release of EUTW mission) or most voted layouts on poll (I don't remember of poll results, but don't tell me that chokepoints layouts were most voted thing), because I got feeling the main flaw of community layouts are tons of made layouts with one single forward choke-point flags.
I don't wanna to play those bs stalemated rounds. Old layouts were damn amazing, just I had tons of joy on these in the past - but newer one are meh - of course my opinion only.
Or we should make another poll with a simple question "Do you enjoy to play on stalemated rounds?"

Cheers.

P.S => Maybe Malden is gonna change something into better or people will already reconsider what to do.

CertainDeath
Community Member
Posts: 138

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#5 » Fri 16 Jun, 2017 10:57 am

Or we should make another poll with a simple question "Do you enjoy to play on stalemated rounds?"


Some Times, but mostly not. Especially joining late on stalemate is shit. you start with 15k, while most of enemy has everything... it may also be night already and night with NVG VS EVNG is a big handicap.
If you are really lucky you are Resistance Tanoa too, and you have no thermal coating cloths and no helmets, so you can celebrate a lot of criticals sometimes from nowhere, the lack of AA on this side... dont talk bout that^^

I am sometimes like: take the fucki** Infantrie thermals out, its way more enjoyable without.
OPT: CSAT SQL of Recon Squad "Bravo"
http://www.operation-pandora.de/

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#6 » Fri 16 Jun, 2017 11:25 am

Yes, stalemates are great problem and they were discussed in corresponding topics. I would like to ask you to discuss my suggestions, suggest yours and show here that the trouble exists if it exists. Don't stay aside if you want to change something, please. Simple words "agree" or "not agree because..." show to community of layout creators and to EUTW dev team that the trouble worth to be mentioned and discussed. Make EUTW great again?

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#7 » Fri 16 Jun, 2017 11:51 am

About [2].
I should correct myself a bit. I only mention row of close to each other objectives. Sometimes pair of objectives which are close to each other is a good decision giving more freedom when enemy have more firepower stopping reinforcements. Layouts on Tanoa can have lower distances between flags due to dence jungles. What I'm talking about - it's a stalemate causing situation, when you have reinforcements from flags all the time, not only when it comes to pair of objectives. Zaros is a common example with 4 flags wich you can't just capture so easy.

M.O.R
Banned
Posts: 1008

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#8 » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 2:17 am

Totally agree. That's why I stopped playing. As bazti once said, there should be quality control before any layout hits a server. I fully lost the interest in playing because it doesn't feel like cti anymore.

esfumato
Donator
Posts: 315

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#9 » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 10:21 am

It is not supposed that there is only 1 of 4 servers using community made layouts? what is going on on the other 3 with official servers?

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#10 » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 11:54 am

Community layouts which won community poll become official. Something like this.

esfumato
Donator
Posts: 315

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#11 » Mon 19 Jun, 2017 2:27 pm

You hven't learnt that democracy is for stupid ppl? they have voted those layouts... and they are complaining the whole day what they have already voted?

Also... I have to say... yes... matches are pretty boring.

crogeek
Banned
Posts: 1366

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#12 » Wed 21 Jun, 2017 7:36 am

M.O.R wrote:Totally agree. That's why I stopped playing. As bazti once said, there should be quality control before any layout hits a server. I fully lost the interest in playing because it doesn't feel like cti anymore.


Same thing has happened to me.
Firstly I mean I UNDERSTAND why admins accepted everyone's work (in 90% of cases), but to be honest - I had always feeling that this quality control has suffered a lot because of this.

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#13 » Thu 22 Jun, 2017 8:15 am

I created the topic with hope that EUTW game designer will take a look onto it and make his comments. Now, we have some new layouts which are declined, however they don't violate rules. I don't like them also, that's why topic is created. It still not fair to decline layouts which don't violate your rules. But rules can be adjusted with experience. First of all I'm talking about distance between objectives.

User avatar
Nyles
EUTW Management
Posts: 3381

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#14 » Thu 22 Jun, 2017 6:45 pm

We dont have a hard rule for compact layouts (flags being very close) but I agree that we should have a better guideline to avoid BF clone maps. We certainly dont want players spawn inside a nearby flag because they are just 100m apart.

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#15 » Fri 23 Jun, 2017 9:11 am

This rule can be implemented easily basing on maximum spawn range. So spawn areas will not intersect. It means that minimal distance is 350m, I suggested to make it even greater.
More complicated way is to set minimal limit on summ of connection lengths. Limit should be based on median between this distances or even on 30%. Therefore layout creator will get message that he has to much objectives too close to each other if whole layout is like this, but he still will be able to place couple of objectives close if he wants. I'll suggest decent numbers soon.
So no additional control will be needed on this.

esfumato
Donator
Posts: 315

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#16 » Fri 23 Jun, 2017 12:06 pm

About the distance between the objectives, and the EUTW gameplay. As the declined layouts are mine I am going to give my opinion.

Also this thread have been started to change the rules, and even script resctrictions in the editor to not allow to do it. ( thing that in my opinion is not worth the time, knowing that right know is being developed by only one person, and the mission needs other things more important.)

I am not angry or anything about my layouts being declined. EUTW is a community and have it's rules, but I will explain why I have done them.

I did 3 layouts on Malden. 2 of them with 250 meters away sectors, and both have been declined to be included in the server.

Small Island and Monte

I don't want to impose my tastes to EUTW, even, I like larger layouts, using vehicles and also one thing that I like the most is having a full helicopter transporting troops but...

EUTW suffer, and I suffer while playing, the frustrations that have been commented in this forums several times.

1º Empty Servers, the game mode manage to fill servers at peak times only. Once you want to join you have two options. Smash the enter button along 10 minutes to join a full server until someone leaves right just when you try to join, or just go to an empty server and have a boring 30 minutes waiting others to join, most of the times no one waits to fill the servers, so empty servers will keep empty anyway.

2º Team Stacking: Veterans join all the same team and just have fun smashing newbies until they leave the server. I always join the team with less players, so yes, I suffer the team stacking always and I am well aware of how newbiews play.

3º Stale Mates: Matches that can't be finished, I know why matches are hard to be finished. Most of the times people say that is because of the Layouts Design, but I will explain the reasons later.

4º Newbies don't come back to repeat EUTW to become familiar with the game mode, so Team Stacking is now chronic, and the only way to enjoy EUTW game mode. ( you teamstack and have joy or you don't play EUTW at all, well some idiots like me try to play bluefor :shoot: ---- :banghead: )

So through almost more than 10 different layouts I thought that having 2 small ones could fit as server fillers and some easy to play for newbies basically.

Just my contribution to try to make the game mode fun.

That said. I will try to do some bigger layouts next time. :wave-1:

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#17 » Fri 23 Jun, 2017 12:11 pm

One of stalemate's reason is dense objective placement. Common example is Zaros, an old one. It's almost impossible to push it as objectives are close to each other, and you suggest layouts with even closer distances. That's what I can't understand. And that's why Im voting against it.
TY for understanding community opinions.

CertainDeath
Community Member
Posts: 138

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#18 » Fri 23 Jun, 2017 1:07 pm

Some of the best fun rounds i had, was, when there where close objectives.

One round was me and 3 mates from my community on a map with stretched out layout, but two close objectives in a town. We 4 + 1 random fought for an hour for the eastern part of the city, to defend the point, failed two offenses on their side, and finally, when we had some air, we could attack the other part and proceed.
Other fun round was f.e. tanoa "nicolete"

so close objectives can be fun. and they can be hell... like when you have close objectives behind a jokepoint or water, where you have extremely hard times to attack, it depends on terrain and layout if close objectives work.
so i would not set a fixed rule for that. its on the community and the admins to decide if close objectives work or not.
OPT: CSAT SQL of Recon Squad "Bravo"
http://www.operation-pandora.de/

esfumato
Donator
Posts: 315

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#19 » Fri 23 Jun, 2017 2:10 pm

I dind't remembered which layout was zaros.

http://wiki.eutw.net/index.php/File:South.jpg

In this layout the main problem is that ppl don't go inside the sectors for capturing, most of the ppl go to the mountains around trying to snipe, loosing plenty of time.

Also the distances are big enough so ppl don't go walking from one sector to other... and just in the case a team manage to capture the 4 sectors in the center, the distance to drive mhqs from base to the last 3 is so big that nobody drives it to finish the match.

But is not the problem with the distance of sectors.

I have played this one several times, and is always finished quickly, and I havent seen anyone blaming it.
Zaros Research
Lijnhaven
Last edited by esfumato on Mon 26 Jun, 2017 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

crogeek
Banned
Posts: 1366

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#20 » Mon 26 Jun, 2017 9:10 am

Guys, to be honest I've played in last 2 days on EUTW and I didn't find any of stalled round yet on Malden. But when I see other layouts on Altis, especially on Tanoa - we have there tons of stale mated rounds.
So I think for the change I will play Malden in next days just to test further out those situations.
Seems that Malden layouts improved situation, at least that's what I am seeing it right now.

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#21 » Mon 26 Jun, 2017 9:30 am

Well, 3 of these layouts are mine and I was guided by rules that I suggested. However some sessions shows that there were long rounds. They weren't stalemates as both teams captured and lost flags. Last trouble can be solved with less objectives on map, I will edit them a bit.
Also a big problem is no feedback for me. I only recieved some in game, but I would like to have same suggestions on forums so I'll not forget it.

User avatar
scratch
Community Member
Posts: 994

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#22 » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 10:57 am

Likbjorn wrote:Well, 3 of these layouts are mine and I was guided by rules that I suggested.
...
Also a big problem is no feedback for me. I only recieved some in game, but I would like to have same suggestions on forums so I'll not forget it.

They are great

User avatar
Likbjorn
PVP Warfare Dev
Posts: 1059

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#23 » Tue 27 Jun, 2017 1:44 pm

Hidden Text
Image

Everyone has his own opinion and can find things they don't like... But they still don't tell about it!

esfumato
Donator
Posts: 315

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#24 » Wed 19 Jul, 2017 5:14 pm

Just as a test... could you try a selection of small maps on a server to see if is possible to fill more servers?

Just curious.

As long as you have 2 pure EUTW servers available shouldnt be a problem.

Also I reduced the amount of sectors and increased the distances on those 2 rejected layouts.

User avatar
Hazardous Mouse
Banned
Posts: 1212

Re: [Discussion] Layout creation rules

Post#25 » Fri 21 Jul, 2017 10:15 am

esfumato wrote:Just as a test... could you try a selection of small maps on a server to see if is possible to fill more servers?

Just curious.

As long as you have 2 pure EUTW servers available shouldnt be a problem.

Also I reduced the amount of sectors and increased the distances on those 2 rejected layouts.


Why do you so believe in small layouts? What reasons you think can attract more people to EUTW if one server gonna be with only small layouts ?

I like to play small layouts sometimes. For example Paros Research. Rly decent small layout. But if all layouts on server small like this then lol^^


Small layouts = less good positions to hide mhqs. And its so ez to check all good positions cuz everything so close. So mhqs die very fast if mhq hunters dont sleep.

So if one team better than another. Then its super short round.
And if both teams decent and there good players in both teams hunt enemy mhqs. Then all 4 mhqs burn and burn.
Then there chaos. Ppl move on feet a lot. And ppl move not like one unit together. Ppl mostly going one by one and die one by one. Walkers love to walk ^^
Small % of these walkers players reach enemy circles cuz mamy campers between objectives.
Very ez to camp on small layouts. Cuz u always know direction enemies will come from. Objectives so close so u just open map and u look at what enemy objectives close to ur objective and done. And enemies will come from this direction for sure. So u simply camp this direction

Walkers vs Campers ^^ Thats how gameplay looks on small layouts

Regulars know that very effective thing on such small layouts what u can do is spam trucks. Team what spam trucks more have better chances to win.
Spawn on friendly flag and if its under attack then defened it. If its not under attack then buy truck and drive to enemy flag.
Repeat this pattern up to round end ^^
And spam trucks to hunt enemy mhqs.
Air transport on small maps uselss ^^ for noobs only. Even Walkers faster on small layouts than Helos. Walkers just need walk short distance from one objective to another. While helos need fly from base and then after drop players need to walk 300-400m more depend on drop distance from enemy flag.
So kinda helos slowest way to transport on small layouts.


Spam trucks to attack enemy flags and spam truck to hunt emhqs. And u need shoot enemies time to time. And thats all u rly need to play good on small layouts.


On larger layouts u need more than simple stupid trucks spam.

Small layouts just so ez to play if compare to larger layouts.

I dont say that small layouts not fun to play.
Its fun. Cuz its different. If u play like 5 big layouts in a row and then u play small layouts then its feels fine :) Something different from other things and u have fun.
But full server of small layouts lol
This is just will become boring after couple days of playing ^^

Imo medium and big size layouts plays generally better than small layouts. And harder :)

I made 3 small layouts and i dont like them. Just wasted time ^^ But at least i wasted this time to realize that small layouts simply not good just cuz reasons what i wrote above.
Kinda negative result turn out to be positive if look from another angle ^^
Q: How many liberals can figure out what 2+2= ? A: Zero, they just protest that it can be whatever it wants to be.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest