[WIP] Altis Terminal LITE (Need help Uploading!)

Discussion, Help, and Mission Presentation forum for the PVP Warfare Mission Tool
Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

[WIP] Altis Terminal LITE (Need help Uploading!)

Post#1 » Mon 25 Mar, 2019 5:43 am

Hey,

I want to show my idea for a layout on Altis with the Airport Terminal being the central conflict zone.

My idea started with the terminal being the main contested point with two close points at either end of the airport but then I had another idea...

What if the terminal checkpoint could only be captured when you're on the roof of the terminal? And what if it had only 50 points so that you cannot spawn on it?

Well I tried making the layout with this in mind but it can't be done without editing the scripts which I don't have any experience with so I just put the checkpoint out front.

Anyway, here's what I got so far:

Layout
Image

Terminal
Image

Barracks
Image

Hill 937
v1
Hidden Text
Image

v2
Image

Perfection NV
v1
Hidden Text
Image

v2
Image

Sorting Facility
Image

FOB Surf 'n Turf
v1
Hidden Text
Image

v2
Image

Checkpoint Zulu
v1
Hidden Text
Image

v2
Image

Hangars
Image

Cabbage Patch
Image

Snipers Nest
Image

Container Yard
Image

Alikampos
Image

I'm worried that a few of the checkpoints are a little bare (FOB Surf 'n Turf, Checkpoint Zulu) but I'm also worried that there are too many objects already.

I'm also worried that the two checkpoints closest to the main bases are vastly different. One is in the center of a town and the other is out in the open. Assuming that these will be the last points teams will have to capture to win I fear that it's unbalanced. I think Alikampos will be much easier to cap than FOB Surf 'n Turf.

Any thoughts or ideas? I'd like to hear what veteran map makers have to say!

Thanks for reading,

Dog1
Last edited by Dog1IsOpen on Sun 02 Jun, 2019 7:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
MarkoCRO
PVP Warfare Admin
Posts: 608

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#2 » Mon 25 Mar, 2019 1:43 pm

Make sure there is no performance impact on to many custom objects, i recently played some layout where there was to many custom objects and there was performance hit so be careful.

About flag capturing only on roof im not sure about that, even if it is possible maybe it will make a lot of confusions and people will think its bugged since it cannot be captured normally, i would prefer you stick to standard layout creation rules.

Thats my opinion, gippo could say more about it since he is DEV but could be the same answer.

3Hugger
Community Member
Posts: 242

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#3 » Mon 25 Mar, 2019 4:00 pm

The rules of thumb change over time and usually the rules become more strict and the stakes rise.

I recommend checking out the developments over time and see what did not make it, is unpopular and what was altered or is something that occurs in most layouts. What are the differences and why does this lead to 'success'.

For the times being most former rules and guidelines give a fair impression and should provide you with an overall feeling of what it takes to deliver a layout that is up to the current standards and will actually make a change of being implemented in a future rotation update (which may never happen, simply because there is already sufficient supply, or the layout although better then others provides with the wrong parameters and there does not fit (in example: we have too many Lite layouts and may require only 1 or 2 more Regular layouts and these happen to (both) be on the island Stratis, then that is what we need and if the awesome artwork you just provided is not that what we require to fill the last gap in the rotation, then it won't make it).

So before you dive in: make sure you understand what it is that distincts a layout that is in the rotation (and will stay/return in the rotation with future updates) from a layout that never made it in the rotation or will get deleted after being tried.

To start read this thread and other threads regarding the subject and try to figure out what has changed, what is outdated and what is a lasting rule of thumb.

Some current (at the time of writing, early 2019!) rules of thumb and guidelines to keep in mind and ones you should understand why they are in place and consider to comply when this fits to your layout:

Check here for the (older/partly outdated) threads in this forum.

Some feedback directly related to your examples:
Less objects is more, try to stay below 1000 objects for the largest of layouts, but the spread of objects is also important, too many objects close to each other is worse then when they are far spread out over the layout.

Try to stay below ~80 objects per objective, for those made from the ground up, and no to a few objects for already cluttered areas like villages and cities or where there is already (heavy) forestation.

Object placement:
All objects must be placed correctly from all angles and sides (no floating sides anywhere);
All objects must be checked for damage states (for each object: set damage state to 0 and launch the game);
Try to avoid intersecting objects and preferably keep objects clean when damaged state is 0 as well (various exceptions do apply);
Make objects simple when possible, see the rules for this on other threads.

Try to avoid containers where possible, especially inside the captive circle (60m around the flag).
Limit the amount of (interactive) doors, lock them when you do not need them, but it is better to avoid using objects with many doors all together. More doors in an area translates to less objects should be placed all together.

Scripts:
No scripting is strongly recommended and if scripts do apply, reconsider!

Rocks:
Try to avoid the use of Rock objects, as these have very specific rules how when applied, limit to 2 rock objects close to each other and in general less then 4 for any objective (depending on BI objects in proximity), rock may not collide with any object at all. The best is probably if you avoid rocks all together, yet smaller stones are not such a problem, with the size of the rocks, the chance rises to encounter problems. Consider every alternative, before trying to implement any rock.

Objectives:
Objectives should be placed in equi-distance from each other in a semi symmetrical situation for both bases.
Both bases should have (very) similar drive times to the nearest and center objective flag, based on the same vehicle used (MHQ trucks). Take into account that uphill and downhill driving have strong influences.

Objectives require sufficient places to hide inside and close around the spawn circle (up to 70m from flag), so that they defending and offending team have a fair chance of survival during the attack (consider artillery, what if all damage states are 0%), consider attacks from the air and snipers and drone observation among other threads.

Spawning:
Each objective requires a fair approach for MHQ's and spawn vehicles, require a decent hiding spots within an acceptable distance from the circle: 300 to 800 meters. With sufficient cover for the attackers from the spawn to the objective.
Also there should be sufficient cover for the defenders whom spawn up to 200m from the flag and therefor require sufficient spawn cover up to 250m from the flag in all/most directions.

Bases should have preferably more then 1 exit road or various alternate routes to the battle area.
Bases should point towards the objectives, so the vehicle spawn correctly.
There should be sufficient space for vehicles to spawn and heli's to land.

You require service points in a 'fair' and usable location. (Depending on the type of layout, you require, boat shops / boat service points, jet service points, uav service points and vehicle service points).

Also take into account the location of (existing!) gas stations, as the location is used for refueling drones, which reflects on the layout and symmetry of objects (these too should be in a fair equi-distance semi-symmetrical fashion when possible, which simply will not withstand in most situation, so pay attention to such details!).

Also take into account the line of sight, as an uphill base or objective has strong influences on the overall balance of gameplay.

For a few examples you could check out the layouts available here:
https://sessions.eutw.net/extra/layoutlist/

If you order them with 'latest played' then you will see that the first 24 layouts listed are currently up to standards, where the following layouts may or may not be up to standards (many are not! and therefor (permanently) out of rotation).

The most critical rules of thumb are probably covered, check out the other layouts which do meet the current standards, try to make something original (not too similar or overlapping of other layouts in the rotation) and make sure the layout has a very polished state (as we have to check each and every detail again to verify it's confirmation to the standards).

It is a lot of work to produce a layout, but also to recheck everything and where required to correct. The better polished and high standard quality and originality a layout is, the better the chance it will make it into the rotation. Also, take into account that we have a ration of factors (adjusting over time), which go into each rotation:
currently being:
70 : 30 Regular vs Lite;
=>50% (Altis) : 15% (Malden) : 15% (Tanoa) : 10% (Stratis) : 10% (variation)

The layout has to fit into this mix and compete with other layouts which meet these parameters.

Last notes:
EUTW currently has 24 layouts in the rotation and an additional 26 ready, so the current layout set will be expanded to double the total amount (48 layouts which all meet the current demands).
If a layout can not (easily) be made to fit, for if only 1 objective not meeting demands, or other problematic detail which we can not tailor to meet all the demands, then the layout will be rejected for sure, no matter how high quality the other 95% of the layout is. This because we have to meet all the demands.

Good luck!
Last edited by 3Hugger on Mon 08 Apr, 2019 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#4 » Sun 07 Apr, 2019 2:50 pm

Here's some updates to the map. I've worked mostly on FOB Surf 'n Turf, Perfection NV, Hill 937 and Checkpoint Zulu.

FOB Surf 'n Turf
Image

Perfection NV
Image

Hill 937
Image

Checkpoint Zulu
Image

I'm still not too happy with FOB Surf 'n Turf in its current state but I'm happy with how the other checkpoints turned out. I am a little worried about Hill 937 and how there might not be many viable MHQ hiding locations.

3Hugger
Community Member
Posts: 242

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#5 » Mon 08 Apr, 2019 10:47 am

I like your approach to this layout.

1] Although I see potential and positive growth in the layout, I recommend reading my previous post, with an emphasis on the symmetry & equi-distance parts of the guidelines given.

Recommendation: (mandatory for chance of inclusion: the current symmetry is reason for rejection)
The on your layout pre-captured points lack a fair symmetry (red objectives should be far more similar to the blue objectives and vice versa).

2] Try to avoid the use of rocks, we have extensively tested rocks over the last few months, with a lot of very helpful community feedback and I have come to the conclusion that rock placements is very hard due to a BIS implementation problem. It is highly likely that any rock will cause problems, unless very strict rules are applied, which are very abundant and not guaranteed to function as there are still uncovered problems with the rocks. We want to give the chance to use rocks, so we recommend to use as few as possible (as in none!), so if you do not need to, really reconsider every option before you implement a single rock. The smaller stones are a lesser problem.

3] As you already mentioned: the spawn area (200m) and MHG hiding spots and the path from the hiding spot to the objective requires to provide sufficient cover. And preferably a choice, as if there are 4 positions to hide the mhq, it is is still quite clear where it is (which encompasses every layout, with some exception to Tanoa based layouts).

Yet that said, if you maintain a difference in the type of objective area, say one in the plain fields and one equi-symmetrical (opposite) objective in a dense city is not a problem at all. We look for differences and challenges in every layout, else it might become dull and boring very rapidly. The challenge is not to make objectives the same, but fair for both teams (offenders and defenders), hence with the chances of spawning in and approaching the flag from the point of spawn while defending and/or attacking any objective AREA.

I hope you can benefit from the above points. :cheers:

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#6 » Sun 14 Apr, 2019 6:58 pm

Alright I've looked at the layout with symmetry in mind and I marked the distances between the points.

Image

As you can see the distances between checkpoints are not quite equal for both sides. Before I work on the layout anymore I want to make sure that you are comfortable with how the checkpoints are placed.

I have moved the sorting facility checkpoint in order to balance the map more.

Image

Now there is a better overall balance but there is still a large discrepancy between Hill937 to Barracks (1.3km) and Sniper Nest to Hangars (2.0km). I'm reluctant to move Hill937 or Sniper Nest because they are part of the original idea I had for the layout (they're both defensible high ground positions overlooking the airport) so I hope the balance the layout by having a discrepancy between Cabbage Patch to Hangars (1.1km) and Perfection NV to Barracks (1.7km).

Tell me what you think!

3Hugger
Community Member
Posts: 242

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#7 » Mon 15 Apr, 2019 10:20 am

I believe I understand what you are going for, yet the problem is not Snipers Nest or Hill 937, as these as you state are an important equality from the Northern base vs the Southern Base.

The problem is Cabbage Patch, since it can not be moved into the sea.

If you can't find a solution, it means you are holding on to something that needs to go.

I marked some distances I believe are important for this layout:
Pink A vs B is probably the biggest problem, but as you can see most A are closer then most B.

Some differences are okay, but all ups for one team and all downs for the other team is a problem.
If you could state it is due to hills, you have to drive up/downhill and have no view due to hills in between, then it would have made perfect sense. Yet the area is quite flat, so travel times and engagements distances are not similar from the Southern (A) side to the Northern (B) side.
Image

The oranges should kind of similar too (not every line, but say the average of the three).

If you would rotate the A part (southern objectives from the middle), you would get an angled version, but can maintain the symmetry.

It is important to get the symmetry (distance/travel times/viewing distance) correct, which we refer to as equi-distance.

In the below image I have provided some alternative approaches, you may grasp the idea and find many other variations.
Image

You could cheat a little and use the red-variant and place the objective most close to Snipers Nest and use it on the Snipers Nest location (it is an equi-distance, so equal in time,distance,view,attack,travel,etc. so not persé exact clones).

All these were based on only the Northern objectives, but it is easily applied to the Southern objectives as well, or a combination of the both, or any othe variation you may think of.
Image

Image

3Hugger
Community Member
Posts: 242

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#8 » Mon 15 Apr, 2019 10:53 am

You can easily spend polishing a layout for many weeks, yet to make it worth your while, as every demand needs to be met, unless everything is on par, it won't matter how awesome everything else is, if there is 1 flaw, it will be rejected.
So make sure you have every box checked and rechecked, cross your T's and dot your I's.

With all the specific quality guidelines and the already available amount of layouts which meet the demands, it will be ever more difficult to produce something interesting of high quality which the other layouts do not offer. And when it is a little bit 'too original' (consider 'StreetFight, former version', in example), then it won't be applauded either.

So unless you like to play with EUTW layouts, just because you like to design them, fool around with the editor, or what ever floats your boat, make sure it is great from the get-go, so it may still be good enough when you had to cut everything that turned out was causing reasons for concern about when you are done.

And as it will cost 2 persons of EUTW several hours to re-check everything you produced, we have to consider a layout to be very polished and of high quality standards, before we even consider it for review. (It is much easier for us to make a layout from scratch, then it is to fix a problem in an other wise perfect layout). So make sure, you start with equi-distances in mind, if that fails, all other thing will fail as well.

This may sound harsh and it probably is, but it is a reality we all have to face.

I believe the terminal area does have space for an original layout that meets all demands, as the terminal is an interesting center area, which is not a central objective in any other layout as far as I can remember right now from the top of my head, so may be onto something here. Well at least as you can tell, it inspired me enough to provide you with some feedback. :bigthumb:

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#9 » Tue 30 Apr, 2019 2:38 pm

Ok, I've revised the layout.

I've made it much simpler and as symmetrical as I can without comprising the original idea I had too much.

Image

Sniper Hill - Terminal - Hill 937

These are the 3 points I have designed the layout around. If these are unbalanced then I cannot design any layout around them that would work. If they are balanced then all other checkpoints and the HQs can be moved around for better symmetry.

3Hugger
Community Member
Posts: 242

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#10 » Tue 30 Apr, 2019 3:55 pm

Yes! I believe this is a huge improvement.

This could work and be a fitting replacement of the older (but discarded of, as it does not meet demands,) 'AIRPORT ASSAULT' layout.

Airport assault was lacking in some areas, but 'your version' seem to be able to overcome these.

This concept has a good drop in replacement potential of the older discarded (obsolete) Airport Assault.
As what once was tends to be what one wants, are 'Classics' in demand, so I would recommend polishing the layout with this in mind, as I believe this would increase the chance of inclusion in a potential future layout set.

Although it is your layout, so feel free, as 'you do you' best. 8-)

https://sessions.eutw.net/extra/layoutlist/
Image

Image

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#11 » Tue 30 Apr, 2019 4:20 pm

Thanks for all the help.

I'll begin working on this layout then!

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#12 » Sat 25 May, 2019 6:04 pm

Ok, I've got the layout how I want it now.

Terminal
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Sniper Nest
Hidden Text
Image
Image


Container Yard
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Hangars
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Checkpoint Zulu
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Barracks
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Shanty Town
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Point Pleasant (Hill 937 renamed)
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


Solar Tower
Hidden Text
Image
Image
Image


I might have gone overboard with some of the detailing but I thought it's always easier to remove stuff then to have to add stuff.

User avatar
vicious
PVP Warfare Admin
Posts: 445

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#13 » Tue 28 May, 2019 1:59 pm

We had a similar layout like this in the past. There were some issues with the terminal. But nevermind. Looks great and fun to play. Good work!

Dog1IsOpen
Donator
Posts: 10

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE

Post#14 » Sat 01 Jun, 2019 2:51 pm

I've polished the layout and it's now ready to be uploaded but I'm unable to using the upload thread.

Whenever I try to upload it I get an error saying the mission file MUST BE .SQM which it is. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong as I have followed all the instructions on the thread.

Image

User avatar
Nyles
EUTW Management
Posts: 3375

Re: [WIP] Altis Terminal LITE (Need help Uploading!)

Post#15 » Mon 03 Jun, 2019 6:09 pm

It's mostly about asset density, but as you said, it's easy to remove. Another thing to keep in mind is phyicality. Unless you disable interactions with assets, some respond in weird ways (esp. when they take damage). For example, if you have a building that can be destroyed, but put sandbags in the windows, the destruction of the building might result in floating props. In this case, the whole building should be static (simulation turned off), but that can come at the expense of consistency. With smaller asset, like the waiting line seen above, you might run into issues where it can stop a tank, due to lack of simulation, which might also look weird.

Best is to always focus on playability first and second on theme only. Try to get distances and timings between bases and sectors right first before you spend too much time with beautification. It's the boring part, it will help you greatly to avoid moving large amounts of asset around to reposition them because you have to move a sector a couple hundred meters to ensure balance.

As for for the file upload issue, I will ping GiPPO and see, if he can look into that and get back to you.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests