Idea Discussing RA_Siege

[erickgch]

As I have mentioned before in-game, I think there are many flaws with the carcinogenic map known as RA_Siege, A.K.A "who even made this map?" or "!skip pls". I know there are some people out there who like it, but it's my impression that most players don't. I might be wrong, though. I also have the impression that players usually leave when this map comes in.

Now, what's wrong with siege (note: this is my very own personal opinion):

1- It's way too big (we all know that).

2- Also due to the size, it takes a lot of time for the harvester to get the ore.

3- A lot of unused space in the castle (See first picture). Some AI "ghosts" would be good, like in the church on Stormy Valley.

4- The rainy weather makes that map depressing. This may have a psychological effect on players. Rainy weather = bad weather; rainy map = bad map.

5- This section of the Soviet base (see second picture, compare to third picture).

Additional suggestion: How about a secondary path for vehicles/infantry over the lake? (See fourth picture)

I think it would be good to make a community-designed map, so we could all contribute with ideas and make something great.

Also, what happened to Fissure? And who designed Siege?

I am open to discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by erickgch

[Pushwall]

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

I know there are some people out there who like it, but it's my impression that most players don't. I might be wrong, though. I also have the impression that players usually leave when this map comes in.

You know, we did have a poll on whether it should be removed from rotation a while back.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

1- It's way too big (we all know that).

But this isn't a problem with other maps of the same size because...

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

2- Also due to the size, it takes a lot of time for the harvester to get the ore.

And due to the two ore silos, that hardly matters. I remember a game where the Allied OT was being constantly wrecked and everyone could still afford hordes of longbows. It's less a question of size and more how far the ore fields are from base (but again, two ore silos makes that less relevant). Ridge War's Allied ore field is within kissing distance of the refinery, that doesn't make it a tiny map.

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

3- A lot of unused space in the castle (See first picture). Some AI "ghosts" would be good, like in the church on Stormy Valley.

You're thinking of the wrong map, but I hope you can model, texture and rig the ghost medieval soldiers then.

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

4- The rainy weather makes that map depressing. This may have a psychological effect on players. Rainy weather = bad weather; rainy map = bad map.

I can think of more convincing reasons why rain might be a problem (like slowdown) and the "psychological effect" doesn't seem to be an issue with the 5 other rainy maps.

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

5- This section of the Soviet base (see second picture, compare to third picture).

I've always wondered what the deal with that was myself, let's let the mapper answer that.

[ChopBam]

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

I think it would be good to make a community-designed map, so we could all contribute with ideas and make something great.

I've actually considered hosting a community contest for something like this. The best map design submission, decided either by community or staff vote, would be formulated [by me and with my artistic license] into a real map. Would that be interesting?

[Einstein]

@erickgch Discussion is great and I highly recommend it. However I will suggest that in the future we try to start it off in some way other than calling out the mapper with comments like "cancer", "carcinogenic", and "who even made this map?", unless your intent is to actually call them out because you can do better. We don't make people feel bad here, its not really our thing.

1 minute ago, ChopBam said:

Would that be interesting?

That would indeed be interesting.

[ChopBam]

4 minutes ago, Einstein said:

@erickgch Discussion is great and I highly recommend it. However I will suggest that in the future we try to start it off in some way other than calling out the mapper with comments like "cancer", "carcinogenic", and "who even made this map?", unless your intent is to actually call them out because you can do better. We don't make people feel bad here, its not really our thing.

To add to this, none of us get paid to do this. We work for free, spending many countless hours and days of our lives working on projects to bring players like you as much fun as we can. And I say again, for free.

[erickgch]

2 minutes ago, ChopBam said:

To add to this, none of us get paid to do this. We work for free, spending many countless hours and days of our lives working on projects to bring players like you as much fun as we can. And I say again, for free.

 

8 minutes ago, Einstein said:

@erickgch Discussion is great and I highly recommend it. However I will suggest that in the future we try to start it off in some way other than calling out the mapper with comments like "cancer", "carcinogenic", and "who even made this map?", unless your intent is to actually call them out because you can do better. We don't make people feel bad here, its not really our thing.

That would indeed be interesting.

The insults are just trolling. Sorry if I haven't made that clear. I actually like the work you guys do. To prove that, I'll make a donation in the following days.

[ChopBam]

You're welcome to make a donation to help keep the website going.

Just keep in mind the developers still and will always do this for free. In fact, some of those developers even make donations!

[Pushwall]

1 hour ago, erickgch said:

Additional suggestion: How about a secondary path for vehicles/infantry over the lake? (See fourth picture)

Yeah some kind of alternate access would probably help. I think the "size" issue is more the fact that all ground traffic being funneled through 1 spot means it's pretty unlikely for any of it to reach the other side and get into the enemy base (especially with the ground defenses), rather than map size. But that is probably the worst spot for a second route, hardly anyone would even use the castle route anymore if you could just take this route which is much faster, doesn't shelter enemy infantry at all, bypasses ground defenses, and makes it impossible for aircraft to sneak up on you. Maybe the rear of the castle, since that has drivable/walkable ground that isn't used.

[JigglyJie]

17 hours ago, Pushwall said:

18 hours ago, erickgch said:

2- Also due to the size, it takes a lot of time for the harvester to get the ore.

And due to the two ore silos, that hardly matters. I remember a game where the Allied OT was being constantly wrecked and everyone could still afford hordes of longbows. It's less a question of size and more how far the ore fields are from base (but again, two ore silos makes that less relevant). Ridge War's Allied ore field is within kissing distance of the refinery, that doesn't make it a tiny map.

With the Allies, it's not so much of a problem, they are able to be rather conservative with their assets, which is quite difficult for the Soviets. Soviets naturally have more expensive assets and can lose them relatively quick. Which brings upon a point I wanted to add; it's still incredibly difficult to root out the camp cannon strategy, no matter what I do, it's just really frustrating that I cannot cost-effectively remove that threat and even if me or my team does... they can just repair it back to full health in a matter of seconds. The nerf on cash-on-damage really hurts. particularly as the Soviets, at least on that map, relied a lot on it. It's not hard to C4 the outlying SAMs and even C4 the silos and Helipad. The Soviet base design in general is something I'm not too keen on. I did vote in that poll to keep the map but this has changed my opinion somewhat, mainly because it is just frustrating and it becomes a bit boring.

 

I also agree with a secondary route, I voiced my opinion on this before but got shut down on that.

[Jeod]

18 hours ago, erickgch said:

 

The insults are just trolling. Sorry if I haven't made that clear. I actually like the work you guys do. To prove that, I'll make a donation in the following days.

There's a very thin line between trolling (lol) and insulting. The map designer for RA_Siege is Raap and he's extremely good at what he does. From the poll Pushwall mentioned, RA_Siege is far from a "cancer" to most players and thus you would be wise to refrain from voicing your opinion so loudly as if it were. It not only gives your opinion less strength, it also demotivates others from partaking in a discussion--also a psychological effect, since you brought up psychology. By the way, I'm sorry you felt that the rainy weather in a video game didn't act as a pick-me-up for your sour mood.

Be careful with the way you word your posts in the future.

[Raap]

Hello, I'm the creator of said cancerous map. I do apologize that my creation gave you cancer, I assure you, killing you was not my intent.

Nevertheless, I'll answer your bullet points with my reasoning:

 

Quote

1- It's way too big (we all know that).

You came to that conclusion by looking at the map scale, but not the actual play space, and certainly not the relevant play space. The relevant play space isn't any significant amount larger than standard Tech 5 maps.

 

Quote

2- Also due to the size, it takes a lot of time for the harvester to get the ore.

The Ore Truck takes a while in order to provide an opportunity for Infantry to destroy it and have it be noticeable. If the path was short like more commonly the case, destroying a truck only delays the income less. This is proportional to the travel time. To prevent economic blackouts, the dual Ore Silo keeps the game going until a team decides to take them out... If that occurs, an economic blockade becomes a real threat, and this is how you're most likely going to win the match.

 

Quote

3- A lot of unused space in the castle (See first picture). Some AI "ghosts" would be good, like in the church on Stormy Valley.

So first you complain that the map is too big, and then you're asking why some space is inaccessible by normal means? You're weird.

Siege once offered about double the available play space than it currently has. The castle roof and interior access were axed in order to trim down the map. A lot of play space got axed to leave mostly only the relevant play space. Initially a bonus area (map secret) made the cut, but was eventually also axed. All this axing was for this triple purpose:

• To utilize a smaller development budget. Creating assets to occupy space takes time.
• To improve performance, less areas to render means more frame rates.
• To streamline the map, so that players do not get lost in areas that have no meaningful impact to gameplay. The purpose of APB is to destroy the enemy base, not to play hide and seek.

Adding more space simply isn't an option unless gameplay changes demanded it... In Siege's case, that is unlikely unless @Pushwall gets drunk one night and decided, in blood, that Siege needs Naval combat, for... reasons.

As for ghosts... They are a byproduct of inhaling toxic gasses. You don't actually believe ghosts exists? Man up soldier, and go inhale those gasses of illusion!

 

Quote

4- The rainy weather makes that map depressing. This may have a psychological effect on players. Rainy weather = bad weather; rainy map = bad map.

I happen to enjoy a good rain, especially during these hot summer days. Weather helps set the mood in a map to be sure, but rain being a cause for depression? You must be of fragile mind to get depressed by some water. You'd best avoid places like, you know, lakes, oceans, even your home water tap.

 

Quote

5- This section of the Soviet base (see second picture, compare to third picture).

A common point of feedback in APB is uninspired or identical base layout design. While the Allied base on Siege isn't really special, a bit more work went into the Soviet base layout. The result of attempting to make it stand out was the lowered War Factory, expanded base tunnel, and compact building placement. The helicopter landing pads are an extension of that idea, and makes Soviet aircraft climb while clear from the base (you don't take off in an aircraft near a building, typically, due to the hazards caused by flight malfunction), and further more, the outward layout serves as a supportive extension for an adjacent Airfield, should that be enabled on the map.

Naturally I'd have put more detail into the map, but even with visibility culling, the performance is absolutely pushing the current limit of W3D.

Either way, if people truly wish to remove the map, then it is for @Pushwall to decide. I delivered the level, and he maintains the entire APB project. Suffice it to say, Siege was my last "new" contribution to APB. The upcoming HostileWaters revamp is my final contribution, it always was. I feel that I've lost touch with what players of W3D games want, and it'd be a waste of my limited time to continue creating undesired assets. Whether or not this will also mark the end of my working with W3D entirely is still up for me to determine.

Edited July 7, 2017 by Raap
Had to write this post in a hurry, corrected some things.

[OrangeP47]

I'm just throwing my hat in once again as someone who likes Siege.  But that said, the RNG has still never given me an allied game on the map...  I will also say the unique base layout is spot on, because it's one of the reasons I enjoy the map.

[Mojoman]

@Raap You help keep the community alive and your contributions are appreciated. It'll be a shame to see ya go.

[Raap]

Oh I'm not going to vanish, I hope I didn't give that idea with my post. 

No, when Delta launched last year, I told Pushwall and Generalcamo (as well as publicly, I'm sure) that I'd be doing three contributions; HW, Siege, and a map I had to cancel to do a HW revision (so technically it is HW 3.0). I'd have finished up by now if I had the same working environment as I did earlier in the last year, but alas I do not.

Once HW is done (again) I will see what I could do. I do believe it is the end of APB levels for me given that the project has reached a point of having enough maps and adding more would simply add maintenance pressure for Pushwall. My two cents on APB maps is, spend more time improving and adding to existing maps rather than adding entirely new ones.

[Raptor29aa]

I do enjoy Siege, and I typically leave the server because of how draining the map before it is. Whenever I play Siege I enjoy the simplicity. As in there are 5 ways to attack the opposition and most people just try the first three. 

@Erickgch I feel you are confused because there is no: early game rush to an easy win/first 3 min infantry back door which other maps have. (Hense the title Siege)

@Raap you are not out of touch just pushing people's imaginatory limit. Hostile water you attempted to create a capturable middle ground. With Siege as stated above no early rush point and trying out a teleportation underground/ secret lab (which was awesome). You shake up the average player because you give them the unexpected and in so challenge them. I see out smarting my opponent on Siege as an Art. 

Edit: I take it back one can early rush the pillbox or FT for an early win.

 

[gammae102]

Looking at the statistics for Siege, it appears that there have been 55 games with more than 7 players, and 49 of those have been won by high score, with only 3 base destructions and 3 server shutdowns.  I understand that to a certain extent this is how the map may have been intended to be played (hence the name), but personally I think it may be a bit excessive.  I think one of the only attack strategies I've seen work is landing a chinook full of rocket soldiers outside the power plant to destroy it, and even then there usually isn't enough time to finish off the rest of the base, even if it does permanently swing the balance of the map.  The problem does not seem to be an excessive amount of base defenses either.  I think that issues are 1) there is only one real land route which vehicles can used to attack and 2) the castle walls make it really easy for helicopters to ambush attacking tanks and then retreat to safety.  For these reasons whenever I see a large ground attack force try and mount an assault, it seems it is usually in shambles by the time it reaches the opposing base.

I think one potential solution to this may lie in one of the things that makes the map unique: the cannons.  I think that if the cannons were either made much more powerful or increased in number, it would encourage an attack strategy of infantry rushes on the castle walls.  As it currently is, there is usually plenty of time after noticing that someone is attacking with one of the cannons to leisurely run over with any type of infantry and destroy the cannon before it does any major damage.  If you increased the damage each cannon ball did to about the amount of a V2 rocket (while keeping the rate of fire the same), or had there be 2 or 3 cannons that could be used simultaneously, it would put a lot more pressure on teams to be proactive about defending/destroying the cannons before they could be used.  Maybe even something like a few fixed cannons on the walls the cannot be aimed that are pointed at certain structures could be an easy addition.

Also just a final note, I know that there have already been a few iterations of this map, and I can't remember all of the specifics which were changed.  So if the initial version was similar to my proposed changes and it didn't work well, feel free to ignore everything I've said.

[ChopBam]

10 hours ago, Raap said:

maintenance pressure

There is now a lot less of this monotony, actually, since jonwil and saberhawk brought us tools that can automatically lightsolve and export all maps with one batch file execution.

[Raap]

On 7/8/2017 at 2:28 PM, ChopBam said:

There is now a lot less of this monotony, actually, since jonwil and saberhawk brought us tools that can automatically lightsolve and export all maps with one batch file execution.

That's news to me at least.

 

On 7/8/2017 at 2:15 PM, gammae102 said:

Also just a final note, I know that there have already been a few iterations of this map, and I can't remember all of the specifics which were changed.  So if the initial version was similar to my proposed changes and it didn't work well, feel free to ignore everything I've said.

Yes, high damage cannons were a thing in the initial release. They were nerfed, due to feedback. Recent patch slightly un-nerfed them again, but not fully reverted the nerfs.

[Raptor29aa]

I think this map should be moved to something like after ridge war in rotation, to be fair. (I have a theory that it's not seige's fault it starts with a low player count)

I forget if it is after pacific threat or complex

[Jeod]

Quote

Player: !n

[BR] The next map will be RA_Siege

Player has left the game!

[BR] Low player count detected! Skipping next map...

[BR] The next map will be RA_Under

Do that. Determine a threshold and make it happen. Problem solved.

[saberhawk]

17 hours ago, Raap said:

That's news to me at least.

That's good, because it's still quite new 

[Raap]

I'm not really kept in the loop on internal W3D progress, but that's how it should be.

@Pushwall I gave it a short consideration, more of an impulse really, but feel free to try moving the Ore Silo's for both teams from the current locations and towards the refill and landing pad areas, outside the walls and outside of (ground) defense range. Let's see how the map plays out when critical economic support can be dismembered with less effort via either an air assault or a transport drop-off. It would bring forward the importance of defending those assets, and if failed, defending the Ore Truck. Economic vulnerability would likely improve the ratio of match closure due to base destruction rather than time-out. Or it makes the map play worse for the exact same reasons, hence impulse thoughts. I'll leave it up to you.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Raap

[Pushwall]

2 minutes ago, Raap said:

I'm not really kept in the loop on internal W3D progress, but that's how it should be.

@Pushwall I gave it a short consideration, more of an impulse really, but feel free to try moving the Ore Silo's for both teams from the current locations and towards the refill and landing pad areas, outside the walls and outside of (ground) defense range. Let's see how the map plays out when critical economic support can be dismembered with less effort via either an air assault or a transport drop-off. It would bring forward the importance of defending those assets, and if failed, defending the Ore Truck. Economic vulnerability would likely improve the ratio of match closure due to base destruction rather than time-out. Or it makes the map play worse for the exact same reasons, hence impulse thoughts. I'll leave it up to you.

Maybe I'll expose one of them, but not both?

[Raap]

12 minutes ago, Pushwall said:

Maybe I'll expose one of them, but not both?

Go for the extreme and try both, just to see what happens. The Soviets could rocket barrage them with RPG's from the cliff, the Allies got the forest for cover (might need some ground foliage added near the Soviet base forest side - I saw a cluster bush model that would do the job). It will help end matches sooner, but for better or worse, that remains to be seen.

Edited July 9, 2017 by Raap

[NoSpoons]

On 07/07/2017 at 0:55 AM, ChopBam said:

I've actually considered hosting a community contest for something like this. The best map design submission, decided either by community or staff vote, would be formulated [by me and with my artistic license] into a real map. Would that be interesting?

This is a bit of detour back to the start of the post but I would like to say I really would love to see this happen, I for one would defiantly take part 

anyway siege is cool, good map 

Edited July 10, 2017 by NoSpoons

[devilslayersbane]

In reply to nospoons and those who want a community "made" map. While I feel like this is a good idea, one also has to remember that game design does tend to dictate otherwise. The biggest issue is that we all have our own ideas about what would make a map "good". There are a few maps that I feel are great because of their superior focus on one of the core tenants of APB. Fissure is heavily focused on infantry based combat, so much so that it leaves out all other types. Were the map any larger or smaller, it just wouldn't work out very well. But the map itself is well designed enough to make a short-lived exciting kill-fest that while not many people appreciate because of flamethrowers, should be better due to the recent changes to the medic (though I'm not sure if it's even in rotation). The same thing goes for Ridge war. It's about expansive ground-based combined arms combat. Everything in that map serves to build on that single focus. One could make the argument that air combat negates this, but I disagree. The heavy inclusion of SAM/AA forces air units to supplement ground forces until they have been taken down. The lack of a power plant makes sure that the loss of a single building wouldn't negate this, either. It's a well designed map that really comes down to unit balance after that point. I enjoy siege. I think the only thing it needs is an alternate vehicle route. My suggestion? make a vehicle route along the topside of the castle, the long way of course. It would come with a cost: being more visible, but it's exit should come with a benefit: less vulnerable to base defense fire (e.g. only one FT/PB/Tur should be able to attack at once. It would assist vehicles trying to take down cannons, and still make for interesting gameplay.

[FRAYDO]

On 7/6/2017 at 4:37 PM, erickgch said:

Also, what happened to Fissure?

What did happen to Fissure? Or RockTrap even? FOI?

[Pushwall]

30 minutes ago, FRAYDO said:

What did happen to Fissure? Or RockTrap even? FOI?

A test to see if not having infantry maps randomly interspersed through the rotation would help retain players, because those are something I've noticed people like to quit over. And, well, we have had larger player peaks ever since I took them out. I'm not going to go out and say there's a correlation or anything though. I forget exactly when I took them out but stats say Fissure was last played almost a month after I added the Yak to the game, so those sudden higher player peaks certainly can't be from new content hype...

[Raap]

Infantry maps may be disliked for the same reason some people disliked HostileWaters; Too far a departure from core gameplay.

I'm fixing HW with that in mind. But expanding maps like Fissure to solve the same problem would be a lot of work as well. FoI might make an easier cut via introducing new environments with a vehicle focus, you could create pocket dimensions to a long range of possible scenarios with FoI all thanks due to the weird modular setup. A lone iceberg in a sea walled off by a circular fog barrier but supporting ships, or an entrenched battlefield with vehicles, or a scenario that makes use of air power utilizing mainly low-polygon backgrounds for detail so the focus can be on, well, air. Either way my point is you can probably test the theory by expanding one of these maps and re-including it.

[ChopBam]

6 hours ago, Raap said:

Infantry maps may be disliked for the same reason some people disliked HostileWaters; Too far a departure from core gameplay.

Departures from gameplay are fine if they're fun. As I've stated before, if a map is very large with high visibility, unidirectional routes into the base, and slow units to boot, you're gonna have complaints.

Now if the bases were moved right up to the icebergs, things might get interesting. It would take less time to reach the enemy, resulting in much less wasted time traveling. Visibility would be blocked by the bergs, so sneak attacks would become more viable. And players could reach the base from several narrow sides rather than one really broad side.

With Fissure, people either love it or hate it. Players good at infantry combat tend to enjoy it more than players who merely die a lot. Core strategy and sneaking still exists, just with infantry only. I suppose some folks just want to drive a tank and not die so much.