Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Cool Idea Regarding Maps / Map Design

  1. #1
    Junior Member jgizle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    9

    Cool Idea Regarding Maps / Map Design

    When playing 2 different maps with snow, I noticed something interesting (finally). One of the snow maps had wooden pillars, 2 on both sides not to far apart. This made it difficult to position your units in the center, and essentially forced you to spread some units out, unless you wanted to be stuck behind a wooden post for a turn.

    This brought up the idea of adding in similar things like this to more maps. More structures that impede movement, or maybe even adding elevation into the map (Sort of like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance in the old days. Set to where a melee unit couldn't attack another unit if the elevation was higher. )

    Just a thought, what do you guys think?

    ff-tactics-battle-Custom.jpg

    Here's an example.

  2. #2
    Backer gaelvin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    161
    I could see a compromise version of this idea, which uses the current mechanics (and character animation)... I described something like this in another thread, if this sounds familiar to anyone.

    Imagine a Battle map painting of the terrace outside the doors of the Great Hall of Strand (at one end of the map) and the lower terrace (at the other end), with a wide stairway joining them. The "movement squares" would be laid out in an "H" with the cross-piece matching the stairs. Now, the interesting thing would be (and I don't know if the mechanics could support this) allowing archers to attack across the non-movement spaces between the arms of the "H"

    Doing something like this would not require any new character animation (stair-climbing up & down), or dramatically new mechanics,so it wouldn't be too difficult to introduce.
    For cards and art prints, visit my Celtic Art Print Gallery: http://ian-herriott.artistwebsites.com/
    "Like" me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Celti...51218704893987
    And view all of my Banner Saga Crest Designs on tumblr: http://gaelvin.tumblr.com

  3. #3
    Factions veteran stoicmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Posts
    290

  4. #4
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    This discussion usually starts with the Great-Hall map (with the fire-pit in the middle) -- there's those who love it and those who hate it, nothing in between! Indeed, more maps and more diversity would certainly add fun to the game. Presently, apart from the Beach and the Great-Hall map, the other three all feel the same.

    Elevation is an interesting idea, but it seems a little tricky to handle. Some isometric games (like Baldur's Gate) have handled it quite simply in 2D, i.e. even though the units seem to be walking straight, they go up stairways, cliffs etc. I think it's also viable in Factions. One thing to note is that is must always be symmetric for the two sides where the players deploy. Higher ground could give advantage to the unit(s) occupying that ground, for instance +1 effective STR to their attacks, on units below them. Also, units could climb/jump from those areas straight up/down to higher/lower ones (bypassing the "stairs" etc), at the cost of WP/STR, respectively. Finally, hazards and more tile "types" (apart from blockers, empty & coal) have been proposed, like swamps, snow, ice etc, that interact in special ways with the units.

    PS -- Repeating stoicmom's links, because they seem broken (copied from chat-box): Link#1 , Link#2.

  5. #5
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    After reading through this thread and dwelling on it for a while, I thought an interesting addition would be an elbowed map like this:



    I think it might raise some interesting decisions when deploying our units. Do you put a shieldbanger on the inside so he can keep up when the units engage, or should we put a warrior there to threaten our opponent's approach? Engaging in a diagonal would completely change how we setup our units initially and would be a nice deterrence from the norm, while keeping it simple and still keying in on the primary decision that makes combat fun: hit strength or armor.

  6. #6
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by Slimsy Platypus View Post
    After reading through this thread and dwelling on it for a while, I thought an interesting addition would be an elbowed map
    Ground breaking, but interesting. I was thinking that giving certain privileges to the tiles of that "meeting point" (actually, for any map) could also be interesting. That would make "pacey" builds (multi-raider/warrior) have some other advantage over "slow" builds (multi SB/archer).

    That principle has been used in games (e.g. Card-Hunter, that I play nowadays ), where if you occupy a given tile for X number of turns, you get a Y bonus. For instance, occupying a tile next to a "magic-orb" (?) would give you a +1 effective STR to your attacks, or a shield-wall like bonus.

  7. #7
    Junior Member jgizle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    9
    there's an ios app called "Champs Battlegrounds" where having a ranged unit on higher elevation increases the range of the unit, with higher elevations increasing it further. Similarly there are also tiles which increased the healing done by healing units. While there are no healing units in factions, the general idea could be applied with having these tiles that give bonus' randomly placed every game. This would make some games where the tiles are in good locations and worth fighting for, while there may be other games where the tiles are in horrible locations and thus are not worth taking advantage of.

  8. #8
    Junior Member Slimpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    15
    I like the idea of more maps, but I think it would also be interesting if you had the ability to make minor changes (say 1 at the most) to the line-up of your team after you know what map. The danger with having too many maps is that you inevitably end up with maps that favor one build over another. Even at the moment the lava map can favor three archer builds over two shieldbanger builds, for example.

    Of course it may be fine to have maps that suit one build over another as it encourages you to try to optimize your build for every map rather than just some. You know what they say though....jack of all trades - master of none! As long as the maps always stay symmetrical it's all fair game imo!

  9. #9
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by jgizle View Post
    [...] where having a ranged unit on higher elevation increases the range of the unit, with higher elevations increasing it further
    [...] the general idea could be applied with having these tiles that give bonus' randomly placed every game.
    I like this idea too, but it seems that the general mentality of the devs (and the majority of the community) is against more randomness. You can't imagine how many debates have gone on about Thrasher's inherently random flails as well as the miss-chance (when STR<ARM).

    Anyways, here are some (more) ideas about these "magic/random tiles":
    • Boost(s) to the five base-stats: ARM, STR, WP, EX, AB.
    • Boost(s) to the fundamental class-attributes ranges: movement and/or attack (e.g. SBs starting from that tile could move +1 tile or/and attack at a range of 2 tiles instead of 1).
    • Allow you to execute your own special ability, at reduced WP-cost and/or unlock the higher-rank(s) of your ability.
    • Give access to some predefined special ability. For example, when an archer stands on that tile, she can execute the Bird-of-Prey ability, as well as her own. The type of the ability would be one not available to either team.

    If there are two such tiles, each one could be placed closer to one team, for symmetry/fairness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Slimpy View Post
    Of course it may be fine to have maps that suit one build over another as it encourages you to try to optimize your build for every map rather than just some. You know what they say though....jack of all trades - master of none! As long as the maps always stay symmetrical it's all fair game imo!
    I agree on all three points!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •