Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Anything related to Addons on the No.2 Server. Please contact Ben or Rory for more information on Addons.
Post Reply

What size of map do you prefer?

Poll ended at Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:28 pm

Larger map focus E.G Chernarus/Takistan
19
79%
Smaller map focus E.G Utes/VT5
5
21%
 
Total votes: 24

Rory
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 7:21 pm
Contact:

Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Post by Rory »

Recently there has been a large batch of terrains released in various completion states on armaholic, and the BI forums. Some of them are simply not up to scratch in terms of quality, however some of them are good contenders but might not get through due to mainly, the size of them potentially limiting what kind of missions can be ran on them.

At the moment we have several very large terrains, E.G Chernarus, Takistan, Al Rayak; where any kind of mission could be made on these kind of maps, whether it be Motorized, Mechanized, Air Cav, regardless the largest scale missions can be made on it, and the smallest scale missions can also be made on them, just choosing a very specific small area to use as the game space.

However we also have some very small terrains, E.G Utes, Shapur, VT5; now with these you simply cannot run certain kinds of missions to their fullest potential, due to the size, you run out of space to drive your mechanized convoy for example. But some missions makers and players feel that you get a certain atmosphere from these small maps that make smaller more infantry focused gameplay excellent for it. It could be argued however that if the right location in the larger maps is chosen you can create the same atmosphere as you could on the smaller maps.

Finally there are the mediumish size terrains, E.G: Bozcaada, Podogorsk, FATA; these terrains sort of sit in the middle and try to provide the best of both worlds, but you are eventually still limited by it's size for certain types of operations, but in terms of mission making they are more flexible than the small terrains.

The point of this post is to try and gauge what kind of terrains are more enjoyed, both my mission makers and by players this time. I would like to point out that the results of this poll are in no way guaranteed to change what kind of terrains are added, but could influence future additions to the addon pack.

Feel free to discuss opinions in this thread, however this will not turn into a thread for spamming terrains that you want in the pack, if you have a suggestion for something to add, you know where the suggestion thread is. Though it is acceptable to link to terrains as an example to emphasize a point you are making in your post. Post 100% made by Rory. Definitely not Ben
User avatar
Tipsi
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Post by Tipsi »

When I make my missions I like the small attention to detail when it comes to the terrain itself. This is why I love VT5 and it's beautiful forests and it allows for some really intense firefights (plus the fact it just looks beautiful). I like my missions short and to the point with no dilly dallying for 5km this way then 2km that way, so I will always be biased towards the smaller, more detailed terrain.

The larger maps can have this attention to detail too, but as soon as you get above 50m in altitude or look in a particular area of the map, it can look FUGLY as fuck. Al Rayak is a good example of this: It has brilliant CQB cities but when you look at the grassy terrain, some of it I squint at it's ugliness and pretend I'm not seeing it.

Having said that, the larger maps do allow for the great ALiVE and Incursion game modes when is a good substitute for "in between game nights" play.

At the end of the day, I do enjoy both sized maps, they have their pro's and cons. But what I think is really important is that mission makers have a decent variety for which to play on in terms of climate.
StRiKeR
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Post by StRiKeR »

Have not voted on poll because poll is too limited.

From my perspective you very much need both. The small terrains should offer you a higher level of detail and terrain resolution. All your players will enjoy that initially anyway until they have run across that map for a thousand times and have seen it all. That's when the "New and Neat" label begins to rub off. At that point the only thing that then makes the small terrains still interesting is the detail in terrain and the options and features it allows (e.g. VT5).

With the larger terrains you get a lot of real estate for mission making. These are maps were you can really make use of combined arms team situations and have a lot of ground to generally play with (Al Rayak, Celle 2). Granted, because of how terrain making and the ArmA engine works you will have to deal with drawbacks in overall detail of the terrain. That will usually be the case.

Therefore this poll kind of defeats itself by not specifying what "prefer" actually refers to. Amount of detail for players to stare at? Amount of detail that you can actually use in gameplay? Amount of space available for scenario design? Amount of space that you can actually use in gameplay?

So, I think maintaining a healthy balance between more detail, less space and less detail, more space is in the interest of everyone. This means having maps that serve one thing very well and have their corresponding weakness compensated by another map that does that previous weakness very well.
What is also important is that we do not accumulate too many maps of the same type, that serve the same "purpose". Right now I think we are solid on the whole arid/desert climate. We are still in need of more woodland/eastern european settings as this is just too well complimented by RHS to miss out on.
Tom
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Post by Tom »

+1 if the terrain is good, it's good. Regardless of size.
EYEDOL
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Server 2 Map Focus Poll

Post by EYEDOL »

Problem of small maps is that we get used to them, so maybe keep a pool of x small maps that changes every y months
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests