Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
MrWastee

Poll: Map Proposal "Dynamic Iceberg Map"

dynamic iceberg map  

58 members have voted

  1. 1. i would like to see a dynamic iceberg map

    • yes
      41
    • no
      10
    • not as presented
      5
    • i don't care
      2

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
965 posts
17,194 battles

lo peeps :),

 

 

just another quick dump off from the back wasteyard of what my mom would love to call a mind :Smile_honoring:.....:

 

a map consisting out of several areas of icemasses/bergs with different heights, depths and speeds (so beneath some u could torp through with deepwatertorps), which could dynamically (may even taking impacting shells/torps into account?!) move over time and split- or pack up again in the process. these icemasses could be generated on each mapstart randomly, so u never get like the same map again.

 

on top there could be a slowly growing icemass from off the border narrowing the battlefield with ongoing time.

 

dump back off, holy grail or just nothing even #worthalol?!

 

edit: it may would go on standard, domination or even without any cappoints. that's not relevant to the question 1st off though imo :Smile_hiding:...

  • Cool 7
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,623 posts
6,487 battles

interesting idea

 

it is important that the movements of the icebergs have to be random and thus not predictable (and exploitable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,554 posts
6,385 battles

Thing is, a dynamic map is pretty hard to balance. You could win or lose the game just because the game decided so, one team may get great advantage for no reason

 

While it sounds nice it would probably never work

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
965 posts
17,194 battles
57 minutes ago, principat121 said:

interesting idea

 

it is important that the movements of the icebergs have to be random and thus not predictable (and exploitable)

53 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Thing is, a dynamic map is pretty hard to balance. You could win or lose the game just because the game decided so, one team may get great advantage for no reason

 

While it sounds nice it would probably never work

 

random movement and masses (on an upper level might with dependency on generated size) and torning up would be a feature by design, while there could be certain rules in place to avoid extreme pack ups. i think that would be the features of such a map anyway, just as rng is a feature of the game in whole. i really don't think it never could work, i rather do think it might change necessities on adaption by the players and thus be something positive for the evolution of this game.

 

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Sailing Hamster
3,191 posts
3,153 battles

I'm not sure the game engine can actually handle that... I like the idea and the possibilities, but I'm just not sure it's feasible 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,377 posts
5,517 battles

I don't like this idea a bit.

there's too many islands already. Some are just there to grasp the ships.

floating icebergs, no. they will diminish the manoeuvrability. and there is a lot of collisions between ships on the same team already.   

Less islands and more open spaces, yes.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,025 posts
55 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

I don't like this idea a bit.

there's too many islands already. Some are just there to grasp the ships.

floating icebergs, no. they will diminish the manoeuvrability. and there is a lot of collisions between ships on the same team already.   

Less islands and more open spaces, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

When you get to upper tiers you view will change dramatically.

I've seen you play, your name stood out to me for a reason even before you started posting a lot, believe me in high tiers you will be begging for more islands to hide behind as you will get deleted very frequently.

 

As to the idea in the thread, I'd love to see it, but as pointed out there's a problem with balance and the servers coping, both of which would be show stoppers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
380 posts

Judging from the Training Room this wouldn't be possible. When you had to enable this by editing a text file it was possible to have the bots moving or shooting or both, but now it's enabled by default and more people are using it the bots can only be static targets because anything more complex would put too much strain on the servers, and I think it seems likely that having a dynamic map of moving icebergs would be even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,698 posts
13,142 battles

Don't think it would pose such a big issue with balance. As long as it doesn't reach ranked, CBs or competitive, where such factors obviously aren't desirable, it should be fine. Random battles are random in nature after all. We already have something along the same lines with cyclone. Local weather effects are coming up as well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

well they could make time limited operation first to test the idea. i think it is too complicated for average potato, but it is interesting idea nonetheless.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ETD5]
Players
192 posts
1,453 battles

OP,  I like the idea, but has lots of issues to be implemented in game. These are the points i'm thinking of about your idea (some are pointing issues, others 

  • Having moving icebergs could be interesting. But as their movement needs to be random in order to avoid learning the paterns and take advantage of that is necessary.
  • Having random moving icebergs could potentially affect the balance of the map.
  • All the points that Icebergs and Icemases you listed should do puts a lot of processing effort on servers (specifically ability to pack and break).
  • Agree with @El2aZeR about not using this map on competitive game modes (Ranked, CW and Tournaments).
  • Iceberg colisions should cause floods.
3 hours ago, robihr said:

well they could make time limited operation first to test the idea. i think it is too complicated for average potato, but it is interesting idea nonetheless.

This could be a good place to test if viable. Also, I think that it's the best game mode where moving icebergs could work as intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,876 posts
6,765 battles

Interesting idea and would be fun to at least test it. Just use Ocean as basis, add some ice physics there. If iceberg collisions would cause flooding, we could play "who dares like Titanic?" aka drive as fast and close as possible through the ice masses :P

 

An idea for a new scenario/operation using the new Ocean map with icebergs; Save the Titanic! You need to blow up all the icebergs before Titanic yoloes into them and sinks :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,556 posts
4,803 battles

you mean something like this.. but slower :)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
523 posts
4,871 battles

One problem is that the games are very short - eight to ten minutes, with a couple of minutes of non combat positioning. To have much of a dynamic effect, the icebergs would have to change position very quickly - they'd probably have to move at about 20 knots in order to significantly change the map (20 knots being the speed of a low tier BB, which can take most of a game just to traverse the map).

 

Real icebergs all move in one direction due to ocean currents; game icebergs would have to move in different directions to maintain some sort of map cover/balance. It would make the game even more arcade-like (Asteroids, anyone?).  Mind you, it would be amusing (once) if one whole team ended up getting trapped in pack ice because they spawned downwind of the ice migration!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,159 posts
9,954 battles

I like the idea :cap_like:

But there are indeed some caveats (most of the ones I can think of have been mentioned here before)

 

inb4 some camping BBs start crying about icebergs hitting their precious ships and causing flooding :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,562 posts
9,106 battles

"DD wtf, why did you ram full speed into that iceberg?"
"I saw two sailors trying to recreate the Titanic scene on the bow, so I fast forwarded their experience to the good bit"

 

10/10 feature, would mess around with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,556 posts
4,803 battles
1 hour ago, Exocet6951 said:

"DD wtf, why did you ram full speed into that iceberg?"
"I saw two sailors trying to recreate the Titanic scene on the bow, so I fast forwarded their experience to the good bit"

 

10/10 feature, would mess around with.

Would make a good 'april fool challenge' type scenario - so good fun (potentially) but not game central.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
965 posts
17,194 battles

nice input, thx folks :)!

 

 

server load/conditions for deepwaters

i'm guessing somehow the easiest way to get both points in one would be to:

 

- classify at least 2 different ice masses, defined by copy/pasted ship classes and define them as new entities (mechanicwise like indestructible/godmode bots). this way 1 class could be passed by deepwaters (dd copy/paste), while the other type could not be crossed with those torps (bb or cv copy/paste).

 

- set speeds randomly per class, i think like 5-10/8-13 kts absolut max.

 

- let the pathes randomly be set on matchstart, so at that point the game already knows when which icemass will be where, and so will need less serverload as like in an "on-the-fly" system.

 

- let players actions not impact the movement in the 1st version at all, but let the icemasses pushing ships out of position if in path. i think floodings might could work (maybe only the "big bergs"?), but not in randoms or in 1st version of such a map. they pain this would bring to the masses would kill the whole concept most probably...

 

- let the borders shrink on basis of rules stated before matchstart (like 25-75m every minute f.e.?)

 

- don't make this map/mode available for trainingroom at all

 

 

ofc i'd loved to see it in randoms (and if only for the virtual faces of "wth, i HAVE TO adapt"). but i guess scenarios indeed would be the best way to test such mechanics in the 1st place. and, as we start to get dynamic weather effects (which impact map and match balance as well already f.e. on cyclones in randoms), i see no reason why we not could have a more dynamic environment in whole. at least regarding ice ^^ :Smile_great:....

 

in competetive it would be something different ofc, but here at least me personally from a certain level on i would have no problem with facing such environment... i guess salt is spice as well so to say, and spice in competetive well.... spices things up :Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding:

 

that asteroids vid gives a good image but doesn't hit the nail i'd say. but yeah, visually somehow in that direction.

 

 

 

as i see the idea in general seems to attract some interest at least, maybe someone with a bit more clue on the games architecture could drop something on this, so the forum asap can get rid of ma sh** again :Smile_bajan2::Smile_child:? @MrConway@Sub_Octavian @Crysantos or any of that suspicious clan "[WG-EU]":Smile_trollface:?

 

ot sidenote: would really love to see them in cb's... i know, won't happen, but still :Smile_coin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HMSR]
Players
1,630 posts
5,864 battles

I proposed a smiliar idea with wandering icbergs some time ago, but i dont have too mutch hope for a "dynamic map" thoug it would be verry interesting gameplay wise :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[L4GG]
Players
1,377 posts
5,517 battles
22 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

When you get to upper tiers you view will change dramatically.

I've seen you play, your name stood out to me for a reason even before you started posting a lot, believe me in high tiers you will be begging for more islands to hide behind as you will get deleted very frequently.

 

As to the idea in the thread, I'd love to see it, but as pointed out there's a problem with balance and the servers coping, both of which would be show stoppers.

 

Oh, thanks... I think.

 

yeah, high tiers... I know what you are talking about, i encounter some already, the poor bastards ( some t8 and t9 CA players) even in the games where they are up tier (against t6 and t7), some act in the same way if they were still fighting against t10.

They seem shell shocked to me. while t8/t9 dds or bbs don't have that problem, being the dds most dangerous to the  t6/t7 cls.

The few experiences with t10 ships I've got it's with bots, so far. but I see where you are coming from

But mind you the initial proposal never said high tiers nor which islands.

the islands I'm talking about don't serve for or as cover, little bird drops in the map that I personally wouldn't like to see them in there let alone moving.

things like this (below). I sincerely don't see how they would help t6s, t7s, t8s and perhaps t9s  against higher tiers.

On ‎08‎-‎04‎-‎2018 at 9:16 PM, MrWastee said:

on top there could be a slowly growing icemass from off the border narrowing the battlefield with ongoing time.

 

No. I rely heavily in WASD while kiting or charge into a bb when I manage to single one out, so I want space  to manoeuvre. And in some maps could happen that ice could cut off the passage to a cap point making impossible to recap it or worst, turn more maps into the two brothers middle bit.

10 hours ago, MrWastee said:

- set speeds randomly per class, i think like 5-10/8-13 kts absolut max.

 

too fast, that could severely impair one's ability to manoeuvre specially in low speeds.

Just imagine you are trying to gain speed or at full speed  and in a crucial moment   one of this things get in your way, you're dead.

10 hours ago, MrWastee said:

let players actions not impact the movement in the 1st version at all, but let the icemasses pushing ships out of position if in path. i think floodings might could work (maybe only the "big bergs"?), but not in randoms or in 1st version of such a map. they pain this would bring to the masses would kill the whole concept most probably...

 

 the little bird drops islands already do this, pushing ships out of position, put the ships in awkward positions, etc.

 

10 hours ago, MrWastee said:

- let the pathes randomly be set on matchstart, so at that point the game already knows when which icemass will be where, and so will need less serverload as like in an "on-the-fly" system

 

Dependable of which tier you play, you only have certain maps to play, when you advance to another tier you have a new selection of maps, that you don't know, I have over 4000 battles  and I only had one go in the tears of the cruisers map so far, a hand full of lands of fire, one go at the Ocean and more.

In my opinion all of us should play in the same maps from t1 to t10, the only chances would be map dimensions.

this point only would make map unfamiliarity worsen.

10 hours ago, MrWastee said:

- let the borders shrink on basis of rules stated before matchstart (like 25-75m every minute f.e.?)

Again, no.

That only would take from certain classes some precious tools needed just to survive. Some units of them at some point are low on health by then.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
965 posts
17,194 battles
12 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

 

Oh, thanks... I think.

 

yeah, high tiers... I know what you are talking about, i encounter some already, the poor bastards ( some t8 and t9 CA players) even in the games where they are up tier (against t6 and t7), some act in the same way if they were still fighting against t10.

They seem shell shocked to me. while t8/t9 dds or bbs don't have that problem, being the dds most dangerous to the  t6/t7 cls.

The few experiences with t10 ships I've got it's with bots, so far. but I see where you are coming from

But mind you the initial proposal never said high tiers nor which islands.

the islands I'm talking about don't serve for or as cover, little bird drops in the map that I personally wouldn't like to see them in there let alone moving.

things like this (below). I sincerely don't see how they would help t6s, t7s, t8s and perhaps t9s  against higher tiers.

 

no tiers mentioned yet, coz simply it's an idea in the 1st instance. i might had high tiers in mind, but for the concept the tier not necessarily matters imo...

 

Quote

No. I rely heavily in WASD while kiting or charge into a bb when I manage to single one out, so I want space  to manoeuvre. And in some maps could happen that ice could cut off the passage to a cap point making impossible to recap it or worst, turn more maps into the two brothers middle bit.

 

 

well, what u might see as kiting me often perceive as intenioned borderhugging to be a harder to hit target. also there's always much complaint about backyard bb's. this actually would be a measure to make both harder to impossible.

 

Quote

 

 

too fast, that could severely impair one's ability to manoeuvre specially in low speeds.

Just imagine you are trying to gain speed or at full speed  and in a crucial moment   one of this things get in your way, you're dead.

 the little bird drops islands already do this, pushing ships out of position, put the ships in awkward positions, etc.

 

 

yep, i do. thats why adaption is the keyword in that concept so to say. the speeds are guesses only, ofc there'd have to be some testing? i never said anything about those pseudo reefs one can run into from time to time, i'm talking masses and bergs... and yep, if such a thing pushes one only speeding up and evasing could u get out of the push in concept.

 

Quote

Dependable of which tier you play, you only have certain maps to play, when you advance to another tier you have a new selection of maps, that you don't know, I have over 4000 battles  and I only had one go in the tears of the cruisers map so far, a hand full of lands of fire, one go at the Ocean and more.

 

 

then u really shouldn't be concerned about something new, u might kinda never run into ^^?.... i got 14+k battles and seen them all a lot of times, so what?! this is about the concept in the first place, not about the tiergap in the 2nd. but while we're at it, imo ofc it had to be high tiers anyway.... one does not camp that much in t3, do one?!

Quote

 

In my opinion all of us should play in the same maps from t1 to t10, the only chances would be map dimensions.

this point only would make map unfamiliarity worsen.

Again, no.

That only would take from certain classes some precious tools needed just to survive. Some units of them at some point are low on health by then.

 

 

 

 

eeerm..... this is not the case atm ^^...... there's several maps u only have on low tiers, while quite some others (just as gamemode) only occur on high tiers.... no from me on that :P! just way to dull imo, even more in comparison to a map which would provide bazillions of maps all in one, while never being the same.

 

thx for the input anyway, but to me i not read anything in there which would mark the idea itself as not suitable or not implementable/driving players off in any sense (like f.e. the old tears of desert did on epicenter mode).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,453 posts
7,229 battles
On 09/04/2018 at 12:16 AM, piritskenyer said:

I'm not sure the game engine can actually handle that... I like the idea and the possibilities, but I'm just not sure it's feasible 

 

Could the developers just code them as ships?  Give them infinite health and armour so they can't be sunk then just programme them to move about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
380 posts

 

I think I'll change my mind. There is still what Mr.Conway said in that thread about server load, but the AI on the icebergs could and should be a lot simpler as they'd be following simpler rules. Possibly treat it the same way as the weather effects where an area moves across the map, since all icebergs would be being carried by the same current. Though if that current is strong enough to move one sort of floating thing in a particular direction then it would move other sorts, like the ships. Or maybe not as (thinking while typing) since icebergs are 9/10 below the water the roots of a larger one would extend deep down enough to have caught a sub-surface current that even a battleship's keel was well above. Though that would mean the little bits of drift ice would also not move, so we get back to the original suggestion of the ice packing up as larger bergs collect those smaller pieces.

 

Question is what sort of ramming damage would they use? The little ticks of friendly-"fire" collisions or the go-boom of between foes? It would have to be severe enough to throw Exocet6951's sailors off, but how severe? As severe as the effect on HMS Hawke when she accidentally rammed the Titanic's sister ship RMS Olympic (ram and bows mashed flat) or as severe as the effects on the Olympic (two flooded compartments and a twisted propeller shaft)?

(And yes, I did just look at the Wikipedia page. Is good in WoWs terms for the picture of the ramming damage and the pictures of Olympic in her WWI dazzle camouflage, so a source for two of the arguments in the game :Smile-_tongue:.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
3,041 posts
947 battles
On 4/8/2018 at 10:49 PM, wilkatis_LV said:

Thing is, a dynamic map is pretty hard to balance. You could win or lose the game just because the game decided so, one team may get great advantage for no reason

 

While it sounds nice it would probably never work

That is a very valid point/issue with the idea.

It would also certainly take more effort than "just copy-pasting ships, changing a few values and giving them iceberg models". I wouldn't say it will never work, but right now it is not planned. However, it is an interesting idea and if the dev team has time and ressources to allocate to it, it might be an idea to explore in the far future.

 

Edited by Sehales
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×