FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

Thoughts on Core

<<

sky_lark

User avatar

Posts: 1890

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Location: North Carolina

Post Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:58 pm

Thoughts on Core

So, I'm working on a Core map and wanted a little input on what people think about the number of cores in a map. I'm torn between adding a lot of cores (8, 4/team) versus only two cores with lots of defenses.

Which would you rather play? Which do you think is more balanced?

I'm concerned about unevenness of teams making a map with lots of core really difficult for the weaker team. Trying to come back when the other team is up a core can be really difficult.

On the other hand, only two cores puts a lot of pressure on team defenses and a weaker team may not have an opportunity to go out and attack.

----------------------------

Second question: Imagine a base design that arranges four cores in such a way that enemies go through each core one at a time. Visualize this like a vertical stack of cores, so you have to start from the bottom and work your way up. Assume defenders spawn at ALL CORES, but most spawn at farthest back.

Given this situation, would you rather see:

(a) cores descending in strength (strongest in base, weakest in front)
(b) two strong in the back, two weak in front
(c) furthest back is moderate, second back is strong, front two are weak
(d) other?

Thanks!
Follow Bitfighter! FacebookTwitterDiscordSteam
<<

Skybax

User avatar

Posts: 1003

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:17 am

Location: Washington

Post Thu Oct 17, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: Thoughts on Core

8a
raptor wrote:Sorry Skybax, I hijacked your signature so I could post lots of info.
Whittling While wrote:Does this mean I finally get quoted in someone's signature?
watusimoto wrote:Who are the devs around here?!?
<<

bobdaduck

User avatar

Global Moderator

Posts: 741

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:39 pm

Location: Utah

Post Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:35 am

Re: Thoughts on Core

The core that is easiest for the enemy to get to should be the strongest, while the hardest for an enemy to get to should be the weakest.
Little_Apple wrote:DnD: the REAL bitfighter levelgen documentation
<<

sky_lark

User avatar

Posts: 1890

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Location: North Carolina

Post Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:07 am

Re: Thoughts on Core

That's actually a pretty good idea. I looked it off initially when I was planning to put spawns only at base. I didn't like the idea of a weaker team being picked off at farthest away core, then having to speed to catch up. But maybe with spawns all over the place it will work.

Another thing I'll try is to put a strong at the very back so even if players work it down to just one core, it's still a battle.
Follow Bitfighter! FacebookTwitterDiscordSteam
<<

tazinator

Posts: 351

Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2013 7:35 pm

Post Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:41 pm

Re: Thoughts on Core

sky, I think burst explosions destroy enemy ammunition. If true it could be possible to create an automatic defense system using a burst turret and a resource item.
OFC now that I think bout it.. I've seen a level with a rotating test item of death, that would work too. and be less annoying.
A level where you had to time the core attack would be awesome (I just made an example of the core thing I was talking about too.. cool)
Play my new level! Two different teams fight over a nexus: One mainly defends while the other attacks! is fun
viewtopic.php?f=33&p=21002#p21002
<<

Santiago ZAP

User avatar

Posts: 285

Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:05 am

Post Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: Thoughts on Core

reminds me of my map
I agree with bobdaduck, The hardest core to get to should be weaker to balance it a bit o.o
xd

Return to General Map/Server

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron