Blitzkrieg Mod Forum

Take all your 4v4 maps and cut off one player slot.

People REFUSE refuse REFUSE to play a 3v3 on a 4v4 map and so forth and so on.

How hard is this?

Wald

jajajajajajajaj Deam jajaja

Your title is rather strange since you suggest peoples love God or/and the inverse. We lack of evidences about that.

Second, if peoples refuse to play 3vs3 on 4v4 map, there is no problem. They play 3v3 on 3v3 maps I presume.
If you want to play 4v4 you just need to have at least 7 friends.

But really, the most important ; Instead of complain, just work. There is something called worldbuilder. Use it, make quality work to adapt / transform 4v4 in 3v3 then propose it to Bk team. Probably it will be more constructive.

Jails,

I understand wald’s frustration and the problem isn’t the existence of such maps but the acceptance of those maps in the community. I think he wants to point out to the devs that they put their “Bk mod tip” stamps on maps that contradict their own message. The devs say one thing, players refuse to play along with what devs say and claim their own way, devs get frustrated, we get frustrated, all because a simple label on maps.

Do we need 5 vs 5 maps to play 4 vs 4?

I do like having eight docs battleing each other.

With that "BK-mod tip" i think it should be removed from 1 vs 1 maps. 1 vs 1 isnt a "mod tip". Thats the real contradiction here.

IIRC Veule les roses exist in 3vs3 and 4 vs 4.

What you need is ; start a deal with bk devs (perhaps maps creators). Then, if it is successful start to work on worldbuilder to make 3 vs 3 version from existing 4 v 4.

Summary stop whinning and start working.

What you said was already done jails... so we are resorting to whining cuz history on this forum shows that this works better than trying to be reasonable.

Warhawks, i mean “5v5” maps aren’t “possible” but the point is large maps to accommodate that player amount is needed. For example, fields of engagement is a fine 4v4 map, operation goodwood not as much.

I might even go out to say maps might be the same size in terms of square units but that doesn’t always make them good maps. The real difficult to measure way if a map is good or not might be “pathable square units”. There’s a reason why Bridge maps are “bad maps” even if they are big because units are constrained to specific paths. Goodwood might be the same map size as fields of engagement, but the dimensions of the map make for more dynamic games on fields of engagement than goodwood. High valley is a really large map, but gameplay is stale because it’s just long but not wide, ala no room to flank. Meanwhile a smaller map bocage is a more dynamic map because there isn’t really obvious choke points (plus other factors like total possible income).
People can keep coming up with examples and excuses like I mentioned just above, but the point of the suggestion is that having bigger maps is a quick and easy way to fix 70% of the “problems”. It won’t solve everything, but it’s an easy effort for devs to take what exists and make simple changes that only THEY can do. They are the gatekeeper of what gets the label. They dictate the messages and design they want to push onto the players. If they want to keep sending mixed messages then we won’t be able to help but complain.

kwok wrote:What you said was already done jails...

and ? Devs said FY we dont want your 3v3 field of engagement maps ?

I m aware about pvp maps specificity. Perhaps hard to believe but I had been a pvp map designer (not at coh) and also pvp map validator.

Point bridge maps are also bad maps for compstomp. Not because players hate that (they love that really) but because it cause critical problem to AI and pathinfing. Bottle neck and dead zone (none walkable/none playable) are usually not welcome especially at pvp where be able to manuever, flank or circumvent are good things for a smooth game.

Size of the map is not the only criteria. fact BK made longer weapon range than VCOH did, and adjustable range sight accordyngly have direct impact on the relative map size. Roughly long range sight make maps -- smaller --

Jalis wrote:

kwok wrote:What you said was already done jails...

and ? Devs said FY we dont want your 3v3 field of engagement maps ?

yeeeeeep.... prettyyyy muchhhh..... they said "we like your idea and support it... but we are not going to make any changes to maps and want to players to set up the games themselves". but many players don't frequent the forums and read exactly what devs have said (some even read what devs say and choose not to listen because they have their own idea of how BK should be played). I hope I don't sound too harsh and critical to devs, I know they work hard, but I can pull out exact quotes in the forum where they've said this but done nothing about it. I'm also aware every dev have their own opinions, but in terms of the team as a whole their message is explicit and contradictory.

Jalis wrote:I m aware about pvp maps specificity. Perhaps hard to believe but I had been a pvp map designer (not at coh) and also pvp map validator.

Point bridge maps are also bad maps for compstomp. Not because players hate that (they love that really) but because it cause critical problem to AI and pathinfing. Bottle neck and dead zone (none walkable/none playable) are usually not welcome especially at pvp where be able to manuever, flank or circumvent are good things for a smooth game.

Size of the map is not the only criteria. fact BK made longer weapon range than VCOH did, and adjustable range sight accordyngly have direct impact on the relative map size. Roughly long range sight make maps -- smaller --

Your points are exactly the same as what I've described in other posts regarding this topic as well as shouted in game lobbies like a crazed evangelical... players are pretty set on believing in what is comfortable for them and earn them the highest win ratio rather than good gameplay...

kwok wrote:

Jalis wrote:

kwok wrote:What you said was already done jails...

and ? Devs said FY we dont want your 3v3 field of engagement maps ?

yeeeeeep.... prettyyyy muchhhh......

Mapmaking have not to be under devs control. If it is integrated in a whole structure (pvp organisation) it have to be a separated department. In some pvp games I played you had even an option when the host proposed to play on a map the others had not ; a download button to take the map from the host.

When a map editor exist, maps are not something devs (officials or mod ones) can control (or have to try to control). If I was still a pvp I would just revolt and organise an unofficial map-pack with other players.

It's not map making, it's map labeling. simply putting "bk mod tip" on the name of the map is at the discretion of the devs. the only thing they asked for is to ask for permission from the original map makers in our proposal. in which case either: 1. those people are gone and are not reachable anymore, 2. the maps were originally made by relic and are also unreachable but that didn't stop devs from putting the label in the past. I don't want to sound too accusatory, because the dev team definitely makes ATTEMPTS to be ethically in how they put their name on everything, but practically it's hard to meet the criteria they set out and they've made shortcuts on their own words.

And yeah, i'm not "revolting" but I made an unofficial map pack shared with some other players. People just don't want to adopt it though cuz it isn't "blessed" by the devs. Hence WHY i want to get the maps labeled.

If people want to give up freedom (by lazyness or stupidity ?) it is there problem.

Except for a paranoiac, there is no real reason to play exclusivly map labelled bk mod tip.

PVP organisation is between low to existant at bk. There is no map testing or mapking staff, and anyway ; who for work on it if existed ?

You have no ladder, even it is the fondamental basis for a pvp organisation. At time I played and managed, having no ladder would have been unthinkable.

That means there is no importance to play or no play offical maps since it have no influence on final game result or rank because ranking doesnt even exist.

If only you had a map validation departement and a ranking system, playing -- blessed maps -- would have a sense.

despite my prevention to speak about that, I can say bk probably missed several occasions to extend its popularity. Lack of pvp organisation is one of it. You know what is the main vcoh pvp complain ? cheaters. Because there is no control at vcoh and no sanction for cheaters who plague games.

In an organisation who can complain, send a replay if needed for evidence and cheaters are kicked out. Even you imagine he come back with a new name and ip he have loose his original rank.

However there is two problems. bk Players seems not inclined to work and or take responsabilities. On the other side BK team story is one boss, and around that a few people who can possibly work but without decisional power. Anyway it is a long time bk team is limited to 1 ghost who is the continuity incarnation, 1 coder who keep the mod alive, and one public relation who have as role ... to ban people

Roughly if you cant made a paralell organisation or deal with bk team work/responsablity vs power you are in a dead end.

How exactly would you want us to "kick people out of game" if they cheat? There is no anti-cheat protection in the game, not even in vCoH iirc. and "send replays to check for cheating" - again, who will do it? If you let players to watch that, then I'd say that most of them would rather PLAY a game than just sit and watch a replay and try to figure out if someone cheated or not, also if I'm not mistaken, the companies that let players judge if another person cheated or not had problem s with it too because sometimes players marked as a "cheater" someone who was not cheating and then there were complaints and it needed to be revised and I don't know what else. It is also not like we can afford to "open an anti-cheater department" because you would need to pay those people and (since the mod is free and donations barely cover expences for the server the forum is running on) I guess you can understand that we will not pay people from the money we got from our regular jobs.

Very simple;

in a pvp organisation, someone convinced of cheating is usually sanctioned. Usually his name is deleted from the ranking board. It dont means he cant play anymore. It means he cant be ranked and by way any people played with or against him will have no point from a game. In reality it means about a community ban.

For lesser offense point can be removed.

But the question how do you want to ... is useless because it supposes an organisation you dont have, working with peoples you dont have either.

Jalis wrote:However there is two problems. bk Players seems not inclined to work and or take responsabilities. On the other side BK team story is one boss, and around that a few people who can possibly work but without decisional power. Anyway it is a long time bk team is limited to 1 ghost who is the continuity incarnation, 1 coder who keep the mod alive, and one public relation who have as role ... to ban people

Roughly if you cant made a paralell organisation or deal with bk team work/responsablity vs power you are in a dead end.

I disagree with BK players not wanting to work, take playmobil, warhawks, and tiger who probably do more work (in terms of actual modding) than some dev members. They do the work only to have it brought to the dev team to say whether it will be implemented or not. I don't think lack of working community is the problem...

In terms of the dev team, who knows what they do in their own secret forum. There's a bunch of them back there who could be doing plenty of things we don't know about. On the surface I'm almost inclined to agree, but we really don't know for sure... regardless, I disagree that it's the main problem.

I still think the main problem is whoever is doing the work and whatever work is being done doesn't matter because there still needs to be one central voice of the mod which is the dev team. It's too risky to segment the community with "community patches" (like wolf has done in the past) so we rely on the dev team to be the main driver for any sort of change. If the main driver of change actions differently from what they say, then it'll slowly kill the community and mod. This is true for any organization, whether it be a company for profit, a charity, a local club, a political party, etc.

One central voice for the mod dev, is something reasonable. However for maps having a stand alone section is not a threat for the core mod cohesion itself. If it can be made inside official team it is better, but it means recruit.

Slowly kill community and mod ... Because over years you fell it dynamic and growing ?

Certainly not enough to have a pvp league imo. Worst, so passive and conformist than you have even no events.

Just thinking about the past and translate it now what would I do ? Simple ; if organise a league is too ambitious, fall back to a tournament.

What work is it ? about nothing but define rules, most of the work is done by players.

Hear ye, hear ye, BK organize an official a 2v2 tournament, we accept 16 teams, up to 32 if we have enough peoples. You can register up to june 36 th directly in this post. Maps for the context will be assigned to you by bk team. Playing allies or axis will be randomly assigned as well, but can be switch if both side agree. First game will have to be played between june 39 th and 41 st with direct elimination if you cant play these dates ect ...
Winner name will be purple instead of blue at BK forum forever.
Be quiet for results, players will report it quickly directly in the post dedicated to the event.

Even in the league we had sometime events for extra points.

PS ; For cheaters be quite also, because at time people know there is a regulation, it disapears. inpunity makes cheaters, and I dont remember to have see any real cheater, just game abuser and it was very rare. At bk it would have been a guy who used teleportation ... by accident ... several time in a game.

I dont remember BK had ever made an event to attract people attention or keep community alive during the 6 last years.