ONS-Ranger-SP2

[GLoups!]

Phew, does it's better now? The new file is called ONS-RangerSEMSU-Revision-beta2...

http://www.mediafire.com/download/5q728 ... -beta2.rar

[laboRHEinz]

Looks better, yeah, although the terrain asymmetry seems to be too much work to be fixed? If at all, the blue team has to be slightly favoured, since teams always get filled up on the red side first.

However, I'm not quite sure about the Draco, I don't have any experiences with it yet. Has it been tested anywhere? Is its power balanced? We really had enough troubles with overpowered vehicles, so I'd prefer to have it playtested thoroughly before including it in a map, as described here and there. I'd really like to check it out on my own, but I have to look into the new server's performance at first which seems to be an urgent matter.

Thus, if you want Ranger in as soon as possible, you should just put the Cicada back in. We can upload the Draco version afterwards, any time, as soon as it passed at least the criterion of being balanced in terms of power, compared to stock vehicles, of course.

[GLoups!]

... the blue team has to be slightly favoured, since teams always get filled up on the red side first.

-I really don't know that, also i think it is red side which is may be a little favoured, may be reverse blues and reds nodes, also it's very difficult to say that asymmetry give an advantage since weaponry is equal on both side, it's like lottery : so many factors to take into account : it must be fixed empiricaly.
-I am absolutely in agreement with you on subject of overpowered vehicles, it encourage an unskilled way to play, but the draco is assuredly not a overpowered vehicle.
It's a breakable vec and need to fight closer to target, thus the flames are a funny way to terminate enemy, the rockets on second seat are not auto-targeting and it's difficult to aim whith accuracy..of course we can reverse it to cicada,
i'll go to see that on a few days, by the end of week .

[Wormbo]

I'm obviously biased in this regard, but IMHO the only annoying part is that the pilot can very easily defend against AVRiLs using the decoys and flamethrower. But without gunners, the Draco does relatively low damage, not to mention the extremely short range of the flamethrower. Granted, when used to its full potential, the Napalm Rockets can do tremendous damage to stationary or slow moving targets. But then again, three players are required for that.

[Pegasus]

I gotta admit I'm as leery of including the Draco in this beta as Heinz is, but not quite for the same reasons. Specifically, it's this part that concerns me:

[...]However, I'm not quite sure about the Draco, I don't have any experiences with it yet. Has it been tested anywhere? Is its power balanced? We really had enough troubles with overpowered vehicles, so I'd prefer to have it playtested thoroughly before including it in a map[...]
you should just put the Cicada back in. We can upload the Draco version afterwards, any time, as soon as it passed at least the criterion of being balanced in terms of power, compared to stock vehicles, of course.

Requiring that included content has been previously vetted and approved balance-wise before adding it in a map is a reasonable standard alright, but if there's no server policy provision under which to do said vetting, we risk falling into a vicious circle of never accepting any new vehicle/weapon just because it's new and remains unproven.

To find the necessary space to test out new gear then (a variable in the overall design), DDx says that we simply need an environment where every other parameter is known, i.e. proven maps. So, whereas this RangerSEMSU beta (and previous versions too) is largely an unknown quantity as well because of the little attention and playtesting it's received throughout the years (not 100% sure, but I think it was on TechCom for a few, short months and maybe here too for a bit several years ago and that's all), making this a 2 variables situation, why not just plop the Draco on a good map that'd be suitable to a short-range vehicle like that instead and see what conclusions we can draw from there?
I'll admit to old plans for a future StorageFacility edit that would properly turn up the heat via Wormbo's fire tech (albeit in a faster, wheeled platform; likely a badger with that hemispherical turret attached) by placing such a vec at the non-tank middle node, but I'd be (kinda) willing to give that up for a test like this instead if I had to.
Alternatively, there's a few other good, indoors maps with enough tight corners-based action than long range shooting that one could consider, namely MasterBath and MasterShower (Edit: and maybe Sektor 8 too). Now, before you start crying heresy at me, hear me out for a sec, I haven't completely lost it, not yet anyway; I'm fully aware that MB is a prime Tier 1 map that shouldn't be casually messed around with, but neither Storage, nor Tyrant (or BasementHomeTheater) are conducive to such short-range cicada type flyers for one thing, and, if we're terribly honest, the Ion in MB has always been a pretty much over-the-top choice to boot. I believe I've mentioned in the past (publicly, I hope) how the Ion is a pretty overpowered artillery type vec (immune to its own damtype, linear shot, etc., etc.) that was never meant (or tested) for balanced play even by the devs themselves, but for asymmetrical AS combat instead, and how things could be brought down to PPC level across most Ion-centric maps without sacrificing that "ion role". Hell, even excluding the ion rain gimmick some experienced players will engage in on MB, it's pretty frequent to come across full, 16vs16 matches where several teammates dedicate themselves to grabbing and healing ions to the point where their drivers amass ungodly frag counts and spree awards by the end. IMO, if there's one point of tolerance in the balance of geometry design and the various interacting gameplay elements that make up this successful ONS map, it can be found in what spawns at that top rafter. I'm confident that an ion-less MB could be suffered and that we should be able to accommodate a (brief?) edit where that's swapped for something with a shorter effective range and/or power. Or, you know, if you're still thinking "burn the heretic", we can put it in MasterShower instead, although that one doesn't enjoy the exact same appeal as MB and wouldn't be played as often, giving us less useful data.

Long rant short, I too dunno if the Draco is OP, UP, peepee (:p) or whatever else, but what I do know is that this fire tech is both new and intriguing enough from a gameplay perspective that we'd be doing ourselves a disservice not looking into it in a serious way. Let's stick it in a proven map, mess around with it and see what the results tell us.

[Kentaro]

Oh sorry, i didn't see you have released a new version of your map ! Gonna have a look tonight if i find time, or tomorrow.

[Karma_geddon]

I'll admit to old plans for a future StorageFacility edit that would properly turn up the heat via Wormbo's fire tech (albeit in a faster, wheeled platform; likely a badger with that hemispherical turret attached) by placing such a vec at the non-tank middle node, but I'd be (kinda) willing to give that up for a test like this instead if I had to.
Alternatively, there's a few other good, indoors maps with enough tight corners-based action than long range shooting that one could consider, namely MasterBath and MasterShower (Edit: and maybe Sektor 8 too).

My two cents: what about Kakmo?

It has some Cicadas replaceble with the Draco, and usually the action there is a mixture of air and land fights, so there could be a lot of room to actually test the new flame-throwing flyer.

(it seems to me that it's not a vehicle suited for air-to-air maps: the flamethrower and the "sticky flames" might not be so useful in the kind of top gun fights that usually happens in SlatedWorld or AirMars)

[Wormbo]

Correct, the Draco would be best used against slow or stationary targets, potentially to take out infantry and maybe (just maybe) against other anti-surface flyers in close combat.

[Kentaro]

Here's my own feedback on that new edit :

• 1) I like the link setup. It spreads the battle over the whole map.
  2) According to my mapper point of view (a mapper always need to find how the players will exploit the map's weakness, to counter them, or try to), the draco is not overpowered here. The cicada would be (right click on a node, then hide behind the hills, then go up and fire your 16 rockets). The draco needs instead to stick to its target, which is rather equilibrated.
  
  3) The new nodes 5 and 6 (primaries) are well placed. They are also well covered, it fits well the map's theme.
  4) However, the access for footmen is too hard. When you're trying to comeback, you need quick access to your primaries ! Ideas: more stairs, or some jumppads to reach the higher level of the hills.
  
  5) An other thing: giving the winning team two super weapons - because they own the middle node - is too much. Try to move one of them, or use the triggerable weapon base from Wormbo, to create super weapon bases (for the nuke) that are triggered only if the specified team owns the specified node (you can do a lot of things with that weapon base). Send me a PM to know how it works if you want, i've already sent lot of time to understand that

A new idea now: would it be interesting to protect the other primaries (3 and 1) with a triggerable protection? (the same used into Grit-BadWolf)

[GLoups!]

Very relevant ideas kenta , good : i just have a look to that system of trigger:mover I'll see if I just incorporate it for the last two nodes in an appropriate manner :o , I'll also see to jumppads...

For the two super-weapons, it should be understood that the stormcaster is not attainable from playerstart at foot otherwise than a flying vehicle or by the two bridges that come froms the mountains, that's why I put the redeemer in below, now if necessary, I can try to hide somewhere or make a secret area whith teleporter..