MCC Mockup Warmap

[KazuhLLL]

So we all have ideas brewing as we move toward the release of the Master Chief Collection, and a common topic brought up is how we'll adjust the current Warmap system to accommodate the huge amount of maps that will be available in the MCC. Balancing map variety with logistical concerns is probably the biggest challenge when considering people's ideas.

This idea I believe strikes a good balance between the two. Before I go on to explain the details here is an example of what it could look like, for reference. (I did a close-up of the central sector because I didn't want to put lots of time into a full map without knowing how it would be received.)

http://i.imgur.com/FpcDY0H.png

Basically instead of singular planets inside each sector, there will instead be planet "clusters". There will be one active planet per cluster (the one that isn't grayed out, obviously). When that cluster is successfully taken in a Primary battle, the active map will rotate clockwise to the next map in the cluster. We could have some sort of Auxiliary offensive purchase that would allow the active map to rotate in an Auxiliary but it should have a downside that's large enough to discourage frequent use.

This kind of system would allow us to have a much greater variety of maps without adding much complication. And we'd stop having those wars where Haven/Guardian/etc are fought over repeatedly for have the war. Keeping the Warmap layout the same would also allow everyone's AP experience to carry over, while (possibly) adding more strategy to the Primary attacks.

Thoughts?

[RaZ Vader]

Now that's just crazy. Lol. Idk what to think about this, but it will make the wars last longer if we keep the current system. But great thought Kaz.

[Silko]

Me likey. I already suggested to myth about the possibility of going 3D with the map. Four maps for each of the four halos on top of each other. The caps being at the poles of the map. Just an idea. I know it would be really fucking hard to do and the attack planning would go to a much higher level.

[NervyDestroyer]

This is actually a really good idea!

[Maxdoggy]

Me likey. I already suggested to myth about the possibility of going 3D with the map. Four maps for each of the four halos on top of each other. The caps being at the poles of the map. Just an idea. I know it would be really fucking hard to do and the attack planning would go to a much higher level.

Checkmate, motherfucker.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xPVUQmzksXw/UKKQ_Bo8WEI/AAAAAAAAAV8/5AzheILG4WM/s1600/star+trek+chess.jpg

I would like this explained a bit further (Kaz's proposal). Not sure I entirely understand.

[W3z4b1]

I approve.

[Spartanbh]

I'm loving this idea. Obviously this is just a basic foundation, but it can be elaborated upon more as the game nears. But this is a really good starting point for a new and unique set up that will allow our wars to be more fun, balanced, and hopefully not too complicated to incorporate.

[KazuhLLL]

Me likey. I already suggested to myth about the possibility of going 3D with the map. Four maps for each of the four halos on top of each other. The caps being at the poles of the map. Just an idea. I know it would be really fucking hard to do and the attack planning would go to a much higher level.

Your mention of 3D chess is what led me down this train of thought! I initially tried designing some sort of actual 3D Warmap but I couldn't find a way for it to easily make sense. So I gave up on that and tried to implement some sort of 3D thinking in a 2D Warmap.

[Ominous Solace]

I like it :D

[Solus Exsequor]

Unique!

[Silko]

Your mention of 3D chess is what led me down this train of thought! I initially tried designing some sort of actual 3D Warmap but I couldn't find a way for it to easily make sense. So I gave up on that and tried to implement some sort of 3D thinking in a 2D Warmap.

Yeah I was thinking on how we would even do it graphicly. I think it would be much easier to do it this way. GJ Kaz

- - - Updated - - -


I would like this explained a bit further (Kaz's proposal). Not sure I entirely understand.

Sorry for the double post

Basically think of the current war map. Then instead of one map for each "Planet" the planet now has three maps. Every week the available map for the "planet" will rotate.

[KazuhLLL]

I would like this explained a bit further (Kaz's proposal). Not sure I entirely understand.



Basically think of the current war map. Then instead of one map for each "Planet" the planet now has three maps. Every week the available map for the "planet" will rotate.

Yeah functionally the Warmap would be the same, but every time a map cluster is taken(in a Primary) the active map changes.

In the example image I have Blood Gultch as one of the active REDD maps and Haven as one of the active BLUE maps. If BLUE attacked Blood Gultch and REDD attacked Haven and they both won then the active map in the Blood Gultch cluster would become Headlong and the active map in the Haven cluster would switch to Lockout.

Another way of thinking of it is as if we had three Warmaps stacked on top of one another. Attacks would happen normally but every time a map is taken by the opposing army(in a Primary) that map gets replaced by the one beneath it.

[Silko]

Hold up. So you have to take all three maps on that map cluster to claim control of the cluster?

[KazuhLLL]

Hold up. So you have to take all three maps on that map cluster to claim control of the cluster?

No. If you attack and win Blood Gultch you gain control of the cluster but the next time you defend it it'll be Headlong instead of Blood Gultch.

[Maxdoggy]

No. If you attack and win Blood Gultch you gain control of the cluster but the next time you defend it it'll be Headlong instead of Blood Gultch.

Ahhhh. I get it now. Makes sense.

I approve.

[Silko]

No. If you attack and win Blood Gultch you gain control of the cluster but the next time you defend it it'll be Headlong instead of Blood Gultch.

ok that is what I thought. Wanted to be sure.

[Zeta Crossfire]

So would each cluster be 1 game? IE a cluster of Halo CE maps, another of Halo 2 maps, or just a mix?

[Yehsus]

Ahhhh. I get it now. Makes sense.

I approve.

[KazuhLLL]

So would each cluster be 1 game? IE a cluster of Halo CE maps, another of Halo 2 maps, or just a mix?

You could do it either way but personally I'd have it be a mix so that there's more of a variety. If we had clusters with only one game in it, there'd be room for abuse with HC/attack-plan-people avoiding the clusters with games they don't like, or avoiding the games the other army is better at, etc.

[Houdini]

I like this. In addition, can we please have some sort of distribution requirement so the war map is evenly distributed between 4v4, 6v6, and 8v8s?

[Anarchy]

I like this. In addition, can we please have some sort of distribution requirement so the war map is evenly distributed between 4v4, 6v6, and 8v8s?

With the plethora of options we have, it's likely.



Also, the only issue I see with this, which I just thought of when reading Houdini's post, is that it'll be hella complex to pick maps for the WARMAP before every war. I sense some over stacking of one game (Halo 2).

We may just end up with a system where armies pick the maps they want as a set amount of each size on each game, and we War Directors put them on the map in random to avoid the long 3 hour WARMAP picking.

[W3z4b1]

With the plethora of options we have, it's likely.



Also, the only issue I see with this, which I just thought of when reading Houdini's post, is that it'll be hella complex to pick maps for the WARMAP before every war. I sense some over stacking of one game (Halo 2).

We may just end up with a system where armies pick the maps they want as a set amount of each size on each game, and we War Directors put them on the map in random to avoid the long 3 hour WARMAP picking.

If not random, you could cluster maps on the same planet by which have same climate and terrain.

i.e Have Snowbound, Avalanche, and Containment on the same planet. But then you might have mostly maps from the same title on one planet.

[VerbotenDonkey]

I sense some over stacking of one game (Halo 2).

Personally, I wouldn't care. I want to play some Halo 2 maps again lol. I say let the chips fall where they may. I agree with Houdini though, I would like equal amounts for each size category because the current warmap is out of whack lol.

[Spartanbh]

If not random, you could cluster maps on the same planet by which have same climate and terrain.

i.e Have Snowbound, Avalanche, and Containment on the same planet. But then you might have mostly maps from the same title on one planet.

I was legit thinking this as well last night, it would be an awesome addition to roleplay, however it could become tricky with setups. We'd have to count and classify the different types of terrains (Snowy, Dry/desert, urban, spacecrafts, woodland). If somehow it'd equal out, we this could potentially enhance our background story, but we definitely do not want to further complicate things if it comes out lopsided.

[Anarchy]

One person may not mind all Halo 2 maps, but really, over the course of a 3-4 month war (if not longer) playing the same exact game on a disc that really contains 4-5 games not only gets boring for a lot of us, but severely limits our community base.

Obviously there's going to be bias towards Halo 2. IMO, with that issue, I'd suggest we put all 6 Halo 2 Anniversary maps in, no debate, then divide up the rest of the maps evenly to each 4 games. But that's not really this issue here.

Just letting things play out leads to situations like this war, where armies have like 9 4v4 maps they can attack, but only 1-2 6v6/8v8 map.



We could do Spartan's idea, it really makes no difference. Only problem is maps that don't fall under classification.

[KazuhLLL]

Also, the only issue I see with this, which I just thought of when reading Houdini's post, is that it'll be hella complex to pick maps for the WARMAP before every war.

We may just end up with a system where armies pick the maps they want as a set amount of each size on each game, and we War Directors put them on the map in random to avoid the long 3 hour WARMAP picking.
Yeah map selection will probably need to be changed somehow. We could still have each side pick their "active" maps like they do now and then the WD's can fill in the rest based on map size/game engine. Though I do think we'd need some guidelines for the active maps so that we maintain variety.




I sense some over stacking of one game (Halo 2).

Just letting things play out leads to situations like this war, where armies have like 9 4v4 maps they can attack, but only 1-2 6v6/8v8 map.

I'd be sort of impressed if the MCC Warmap became as unvaried as this war's. Using the system I've proposed would let us have 86 maps on the Warmap which is nearly all of the MCC on-disc maps. We'll be able to cut out 10-15 of the worst ones and add like 5-10 good (unique) forge maps. Unless the cut-outs are all 8v8s and the add-ins are all 4v4 I don't think we'll see a bad map distribution next war.

[Anarchy]

Yeah map selection will probably need to be changed somehow. We could still have each side pick their "active" maps like they do now and then the WD's can fill in the rest based on map size/game engine. Though I do think we'd need some guidelines for the active maps so that we maintain variety.




I'd be sort of impressed if the MCC Warmap became as unvaried as this war's. Using the system I've proposed would let us have 86 maps on the Warmap which is nearly all of the MCC on-disc maps. We'll be able to cut out 10-15 of the worst ones and add like 5-10 good (unique) forge maps. Unless the cut-outs are all 8v8s and the add-ins are all 4v4 I don't think we'll see a bad map distribution next war.

I did bad math in my head, I was thinking a normal WARMAP had 15 planets and therefor would contain 45 maps in this situation, but that's the old FM in me thinking of just one side.

Since we're that close to having all the maps, and forge maps wont be relevent for a while especially given the pointlessness of remakes, it could be an even better idea to just have each army pick off the maps they DONT want on the WARMAP, and the rest be randomized/added by WDs or Spartan.


It really is a shame this game's active life cycle is only going to be one year.

[Legendary Nova]

It really is a shame this game's active life cycle is only going to be one year.

Wouldn't that mean that there might only be one war?

[Barry Soap]

Wouldn't that mean that there might only be one war?

Lol Halo 4 was never active to begin with

[Legendary Nova]

Lol Halo 4 was never active to begin with

Am I missing something here because I don't get what you mean...(in context to my post)

[Barry Soap]

Am I missing something here because I don't get what you mean...(in context to my post)

oops nvm... :L :L

[Anarchy]

Wouldn't that mean that there might only be one war?

Depending on each war's length, yes.

The alternate side to this is if Halo 5 sucks nuts, we have a recent game to fallback on that will most definitely keep a sizeable community.

[KazuhLLL]

it could be an even better idea to just have each army pick off the maps they DONT want on the WARMAP, and the rest be randomized/added by WDs or Spartan.


That sounds good to me.


It really is a shame this game's active life cycle is only going to be one year.

I know, right?

[Silko]

The alternate side to this is if Halo 5 sucks nuts

This just made me really fucking sad

[Breezy]

I saw earlier that someone was talking about 3D Warmaps. Well my cousin and I knows how to construct one and the one he made one time for one community was amazing. But, IMO, I like everyone ideas and hopefully we can work this out during MCC.