Death Warrant Forums

Ok, so I reread the Titan article provide by Urtho (I have read that site in the past, lot of good info).

I agree with most of what is discussed on the article. I have a couple of questions I would like to get some opinions on.

What do you think is a good number of nodes?

I personally like maps with lots of nodes because it gives you lots more possibilities. And with 32p you usually need to find a node whose vehicles are not all taken. Plus, it gives you more attack avenues.

I also like the idea of non attackable nodes. This is because it gives the defenders some alternatives to just spawning at the base if the primaries are down.

What do you think is a good time frame to get from node to node?

I do agree with the article in saying that the primaries should be close to the core for easier retaking. However, for the non primaries, what should that time frame be? There is a map (I think it is dry ice) where it takes you forever to get to the next node. And half of the time you get there it is locked because you lost the connecting node.

What would people think of a vehicle-less map?

I know that vehicles are a lot of the reason that people play ONS. But, how about a map with warps, jumps, and movers to get you around?

What would people think of a combo map, with a vehicle area and a non vehicle area?

I am thinking of something like a large outdoor map with vehicles for one path to the core and an underground passage without vehicles with a path to the core. Obviously, the paths would have to be balanced so that it would take about the same amount of time to travel regardless of path.

Although i have suggested useing non vehicular trasportation in the past, i now see its flaws. Basically the more able bodies you can launch at a node the more of a cannon fodder each one becomes. Its better to have a decent complement of vehicles and have them travel in packs that way. Yea, they may get there later, but atleast now you have atleast 2-3 other people working with you.


A number of nodes is hard to define clearly, larger maps should and do come with more nodes the key is that there is diffrent paths, more then 1 primary, and possible cutoffs. For example the dawn node setup allows for better battles becuase you can spread the teams around. There are 3 nodes you have to worry about usually, 1 to attack, 1 to defend, 1 to supress.


The time it takes to go from node to node should be proportional to the amount of the fastest vehicle on the previous node. For example haveing 3 mantas at a node you just captured and placeing them to decent proximity to a next likely target is excessive. Mantas unfortunitly with the ability of giving rides kills any type number crunching. I have the possibility of 5 people going to x in 1 manta, wtf now. Plain and simply i cant counteract that with distance. Now terrian tricks might be feasible, also some manipulation of objects to remove riders.


Most combo maps just suck, there was one on the server were you couldnt get any vehicle into several of the nodes. Even with multiple entry and exit areas you will still a chew toy for the other team trying to defend it.


The problem with many ons maps is that there is just to much emphasis on a single node, the team that owns it usually is victorious. For example torlan, the middle node gives you 4 vehicles, DD, Keg, Shield, and weapon lockers. To make matters worse you have the nuke on the top.

zeus wrote:
What do you think is a good number of nodes?


What do you think is a good time frame to get from node to node?

What would people think of a vehicle-less map?

What would people think of a combo map, with a vehicle area and a non vehicle area?

- A 32p map probably ought to have 6+ nodes (2 prims for each team, 2 mids) minimum.

- Don't really have an opinion. If you're spending time paying attention to exactly how long it takes you to get to a node then you're not fighting, evading, hiding from opponents... In my opinion you should pretty much always be attacking or being attacked, except for the two seconds between spawning and hitting a weapon locker.

- I have no problem with it. SV already runs plenty of what I consider vehicle-less maps, such as Bitchslap, which has nukes-in-a-garage but for all intents and purposes is a foot-combat map. Dreamus is also pretty much a foot-combat map.

- It's an idea I've considered. The main problem I see is that with disorganized pub play such as is often seen on SV, a map that's essentially divided into two different playstyles is going to have a steep map learning curve. That means until basically everyone knows what to do on the map, it's going to be plagued by 3 minute games...

DW_Hornet wrote:Although i have suggested useing non vehicular trasportation in the past, i now see its flaws. Basically the more able bodies you can launch at a node the more of a cannon fodder each one becomes. Its better to have a decent complement of vehicles and have them travel in packs that way. Yea, they may get there later, but atleast now you have atleast 2-3 other people working with you.

The time it takes to go from node to node should be proportional to the amount of the fastest vehicle on the previous node. For example haveing 3 mantas at a node you just captured and placeing them to decent proximity to a next likely target is excessive. Mantas unfortunitly with the ability of giving rides kills any type number crunching. I have the possibility of 5 people going to x in 1 manta, wtf now. Plain and simply i cant counteract that with distance. Now terrian tricks might be feasible, also some manipulation of objects to remove riders.

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I think that it mostly applies to clan play. I have rarely seen people on the public servers actually coordinate multiple vehicle attacks. Every once in a while someone will give rides on a Manta. But, that is usually only at the beginning of the game where everyone is spawning.

I think for discussion we can assume that we are talking about public server play. Correct me if I am wrong (because not being in a clan I don't have a great idea of what goes on), but the ladder matches are all played on "official" maps. So, that is what everyone trains on. Isn't that part of the argument that Toxic and Urtho had? "Pro" players play on servers that only have standard maps.

I am not trying to dismiss what you are saying. But, I think on the public server you have to assume that the player is at the lowest level. People like me. ;)

DW_Hornet wrote:Most combo maps just suck, there was one on the server were you couldnt get any vehicle into several of the nodes. Even with multiple entry and exit areas you will still a chew toy for the other team trying to defend it.


The problem with many ons maps is that there is just to much emphasis on a single node, the team that owns it usually is victorious. For example torlan, the middle node gives you 4 vehicles, DD, Keg, Shield, and weapon lockers. To make matters worse you have the nuke on the top.

Well, the idea I was thinking of would have two seperate pathing between the cores. One would be on foot and one would be in vehicles. I think that trying to alternate between the two, while kind of neat, would just confuse people. I have been on a couple of maps (while very pretty) had some of the nodes buried underground. Unless you knew the map already, it was near impossible to figure out how to get to the power nodes because the entrances were hidden away.

I definately agree with the center node problem. I think (in my humble opinion), this is one of the biggest problems with dreamus. You start out in the core with essentially the link gun and grenades. You are getting flooded with people who have flack and rockets and mines. That is tough to counter.

Personally I think most of the lockers should be the same (lots of weapons and lots of ammo) with very little powerups throughout any map.

WailofSuicide wrote: - A 32p map probably ought to have 6+ nodes (2 prims for each team, 2 mids) minimum.

That is my thought as well. Maybe even 8 if you have non attackable nodes with extra firepower.

WailofSuicide wrote: - Don't really have an opinion. If you're spending time paying attention to exactly how long it takes you to get to a node then you're not fighting, evading, hiding from opponents... In my opinion you should pretty much always be attacking or being attacked, except for the two seconds between spawning and hitting a weapon locker.

Well, I am talking from a design standpoint vs. a playing standpoint. There is a sweet spot somewhere for traveling between nodes. Some maps are too close and others are too far away. I don't know if that is 10 seconds, 20 seconds, or 30 seconds. I just know when I am playing sometimes it feels like forever, and other times it feels rediculous because the guy you just killed is already attacking you.

WailofSuicide wrote: - I have no problem with it. SV already runs plenty of what I consider vehicle-less maps, such as Bitchslap, which has nukes-in-a-garage but for all intents and purposes is a foot-combat map. Dreamus is also pretty much a foot-combat map.

Bitchslap would almost be tolerable if you got rid of all the vehicles. I know that I have just started getting in the Hellbender and spamming the middle because I got tired of getting killed by the tank whores constantly.

WailofSuicide wrote: - It's an idea I've considered. The main problem I see is that with disorganized pub play such as is often seen on SV, a map that's essentially divided into two different playstyles is going to have a steep map learning curve. That means until basically everyone knows what to do on the map, it's going to be plagued by 3 minute games...

That is my biggest concern. I was thinking maybe having signs at the core where you spawn. Maybe something like "Underground, this way <-" and "Garage, this way->"

zeus wrote:What do you think is a good number of nodes?

The acceptable range (obviously in my opinion) for 32 player ONS maps is a low of 6 and a high of say 14 or so. Maelstrom is a special case as HunterW tried something new their - debatable wether it works or not but that isn't for this thread. The sweet spot is 7 - 12 nodes, with 9 being right at where I like it.

Ideally, you want to have 2 primaries a side a long with some reasonable distances and number of nodes that are open for the taking by either side. Having too few concentrates too many players in a single spot for long periods of time leading to player boredom as well as pure chaos. Too many and you get situations where you drive to a node, build it, drive to the next and build it, etc. You get 3 or 4 nodes down the chain before you even see an enemy which also is boring for players and quite monotonous given the size and driving distances involved.

If you're going to use locked safe nodes, you have to consider both the total number of nodes and both the physical positioning of the nodes you choose to make safes as well as what loadout of rides you stock them with.

What do you think is a good time frame to get from node to node?

I do agree with the article in saying that the primaries should be close to the core for easier retaking. However, for the non primaries, what should that time frame be? There is a map (I think it is dry ice) where it takes you forever to get to the next node. And half of the time you get there it is locked because you lost the connecting node.

I see this lament about DryIce all the time and I just don't see it at all. Sure if you're only driving standard Scorpions all game you'll take forever to get anywhere useful. But with all the rides available both flying and non it doesn't take that long to get to someplace you're needed. Are people just not flying or driving over the mountains? Very strange.

As for your question, it all depends on how many nodes you're going to be using and what vehicles you're placing at what nodes. Part of that article mentioned intentionally placing powerful vehicles such as tanks at nodes where they have to travel a certain amount of time to be someplace helpful. One of the released CBP maps of a few months ago was terrible in this respect - it spawned a tank at a node that was linked to another that was in clear view and shooting range of the tank spawn spot itself. A tanker didn't even have to move, just get in and start hitting an open node - simply terrible design.

What would people think of a vehicle-less map?

If you do it, you had best have a way for ground troops to move around - movers of some sort, jumpads, teleports, etc. Simply walking everywhere on a map, even a small one, would quickly grow tiresome. And players do play ONS for the mix of vehicular and foot combat so I personally would keep such maps to a minimum.

What would people think of a combo map, with a vehicle area and a non vehicle area?

It can be done and quite successfully too if you take care in how you do it. Look to Ahebban for how to do it right. The middle side nodes are accessable with both a foot soldiers only path and access points for vehicles making the combat around those nodes both novel and even more random - you never know exaclty where a threat will be coming from.