This forum is archived and read only.
Please move to the new forum!

by **bigcrap757** » 28 Mar 2017, 02:06

I'm thinking of starting a group for players that want to play games on maps like setons with unusual player placement. For example, instead of having all players on the same team inhabit one side of the map on setons, maybe have it so that the air or beach spots are replaced with a member of the enemy team. so each side of the map would have three team one players and one team two player. This would make the game more fun by forcing players to make units they usually wouldn't. Currently, the only player on setons that builds land units is the guy at the front because thats the only spot where their enemy is close enough for land units to be viable. This is bad for gameplay because it limits the choices non-front players have, as building land units is almost always a stupid decision. Another advantage of forcing players to pay attention to new areas is that it encourages them to consider where to put there resources and where to build defences. Do you want to reinforce the front player or push back the pesky enemy in the air spot? What areas are vulnerable to attack?

One criticism people might have of this is that the isolated player will be at a disadvantage. My response is that this is actually a good thing, as it creates a sense of urgency and promotes unusual play. Many players would not like the stress of being all alone, but I think me and many others would. It would create desperate last stands where one team sends over a horde of gunships to prevent their allies base from being overrun, or where a player frantically builds a t2 transport to get their com to friendly territory. I want to make a group for games like this because I dont think regular players will be too happy with the change. So if anyone wants to help me start it, please contact me.

by **Farmsletje** » 28 Mar 2017, 02:18

bigcrap757 wrote:This is bad for gameplay because it limits the choices non-front players have, as building land units is almost always a stupid decision.

So water is bad because it limits the choices Kappa

by **bigcrap757** » 28 Mar 2017, 02:26

Farmsletje wrote:
bigcrap757 wrote:This is bad for gameplay because it limits the choices non-front players have, as building land units is almost always a stupid decision.

So water is bad because it limits the choices Kappa

No, water is not the problem. The problem is that the players in the naval and air positions are highly discouraged from making land units because they are useless there.

by **FtXCommando** » 28 Mar 2017, 02:39

Your game mode would just end in the person alone being crushed. The game would literally be no fun for them as they will be dead in 10 min. The adaptive maps let you play around with player spawns and can lead to some interesting games. Perhaps work with those instead.

by **Farmsletje** » 28 Mar 2017, 04:25

bigcrap757 wrote:
Farmsletje wrote:
bigcrap757 wrote:This is bad for gameplay because it limits the choices non-front players have, as building land units is almost always a stupid decision.

So water is bad because it limits the choices Kappa

No, water is not the problem. The problem is that the players in the naval and air positions are highly discouraged from making land units because they are useless there.

That's.... why they are called navy and air positions? You find these dedicated slots in every supcom teamgame.

And it's a water map. Ofcourse making land units it typically worse than making navy (ignoring hover).

by **MrSprengmeister** » 28 Mar 2017, 07:06

I think he wants to tell us to play pritty much left vs. right on Setons instead of the usual top vs bottom, Right?

This resaults in very differt gameplay and is worth a try...
it works on other maps too, for example on Gap of Rohan, play top vs bottom and you change the gameplay drastically.
I watched a couple of these unusual games, and they where very interesting.

by **CookieNoob** » 28 Mar 2017, 09:29

First of all: the answer to the question in the topic is definetely yes. However it will take a few games for the players that usually only do the same (i.e. gap/...) to adapt to the new situation and play properly. So it could happen that the first games of this type are really one-sided (Anyway, you should try it!).

MrSprengmeister wrote:I think he wants to tell us to play pritty much left vs. right on Setons instead of the usual top vs bottom, Right?

Left vs Right and Top vs Bottom is exactly the same on Setons.

As FtXCommando already suggested:

FtXCommando wrote:The adaptive maps let you play around with player spawns and can lead to some interesting games. Perhaps work with those instead.

I created the adaptive maps ( http://wiki.faforever.com/index.php?title=Adaptive_Maps ) and added as many spawn points as the lobby can support to allow for the possibility to play the map from different angles/directions. If it has to be setons, have a look at Adaptive Setons Clutch, you will have way more spawn locations to choose from, leading to interesting games.

You can also have a look at the map pool (with configurations) of the last touneys I hosted. I created a lot of interesting and unusual configurations for the adaptive maps. If you want to, you can also join the next tourney (Saturday in 1.5 weeks) viewtopic.php?f=26&t=14255 where these configurations will be used.

Here is the list:

Spoiler: show

by **JoonasTo** » 29 Mar 2017, 18:51

Having played quite a few "funky" spawns games or just maps with flopsided starting positions I feel like I can shed some light on this.

Is it interesting? Yes.
Is it balanced? No.

The problem is that most people who play this game, simply aren't teamplayers. That's why most successful maps also tend to be quite isolated, eg. Open Wonder and Setons.
If you have two players on one side that do work together it's GG six minutes into the game and unorthodox spawns escalate this even further. Even if no one works together, it's still most likely decided very early, and, more importantly, quite passively, for the most players. You get to come into a game to only host a new one five minutes into the game that you only set up your base in, is not fun.

Another issue is that if you lose a teammate in an orthodox map setup, it's bad, but not game ending as you can more often than not secure his base or at least deny it to the enemy. Not so in uneven setups. The overpowering force on the other side having no distance to travel can easily take it for themselves ending up, not in 4:3, but 5:3 scenario.

Then there's the fact that survival of players, is really not all that useful if they lose all their resources. Imagine someone flying over from the other side of setons, to his team's side. What will he do next? Build t2 massfabs for 30 minutes?

That said, they can still be interesting once in a while but having to blind counter double ACU-rush at the start is frustrating more than anything.

by **nine2** » 30 Mar 2017, 07:58

I think it's not a bad idea just not on Setons, where one player would just get annihilated.

What the world needs more of is 2v2 games played on 6v6 maps. Like open wonder or some such. The idea being that map control is important, which it is not when slots are full.

This forum is archived and read only.
Please move to the new forum!

Forged Alliance Forever

Could weird player placement make games more interesting?

Could weird player placement make games more interesting?

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Re: Could weird player placement make games more interesting

Who is online

This forum is archived and read only.Please move to the new forum!

Who is online

This forum is archived and read only.
Please move to the new forum!