PDA

View Full Version : Flatland Map Updates



Barry
11-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Our test of the territorial map continues on the Flatland sector! We have some significant changes coming up soon, and I want you all to be aware of them.

We're still experimenting and testing new things, so we'll be watching the results of these updates, and gathering more of your feedback. Everything is still subject to tweaking and change.


So, here's what's new.


Map Chain Breaking
If you can cut off a section of an Alliance's territory, you may be able to cause them to lose control of the section that has been cut off, and potentially even gain control of those bases for yourself.

Here's how it works. When you take over a base, we'll check to see if there are any chunks of controlled bases which are not connected to any player's home base. These isolated chunks will revert to neutral...or, if they're below a certain size, you can immediately take control of all those bases for your Alliance. (Our current number for the maximum size is 10 bases, but that's subject to change.)

If there's a home base in the area that has been cut off, the enemy won't lose anything. Home bases extend their control to every base that's connected to them.

This change will make the long, thin lines of Alliance control that we've been seeing on Flatland very vulnerable. This is intentional. We want to encourage more nation-like blobs of Alliance control, rather than lines stretching across the map.

That's why we're giving you a few days of advance warning on this change; use this time to adapt your strategy and consolidate your power. Again, I should emphasize that this is all under active development, and all of these details may change in the next few weeks.

This update might release late this week or early next week, but as always, we won't release anything (even on Flatland) until we're confident that it's working well and bug-free.


Maximum Alliance Control
We're putting in a maximum size that a single Alliance can be on the map. It'll be a huge number (we're currently favoring 25,000 bases) but it does mean that a single Alliance can't own an entire sector. This change may be a few weeks out, but we're starting to work on it.

Conquest
11-30-2011, 03:09 PM
Barry, you say that change on maximum alliance control may take a few weeks, does that mean the map wont be released to all sectors for a few weeks then?

Barry
11-30-2011, 03:52 PM
Barry, you say that change on maximum alliance control may take a few weeks, does that mean the map wont be released to all sectors for a few weeks then?

Stop reading into everything I say you guys :P

Okay, serious answer, I don't have the exact date. We could do a wide release before the maximum control change, or after. The maximum control change could be a few days or a few weeks away.

What I can tell you is that the whole team is focused on the map right now, and we're working as hard as we can to get these updates ready, and get maps to the state they need to be for a wide release. We all want to get these maps out - we've been working on them for months!

ENiGMAXG2
11-30-2011, 04:51 PM
I Vote for HYDRA

Barry
11-30-2011, 05:23 PM
Put your votes in the contest thread in the Gallery and Contests section of the forums!

xscorpiousx
12-02-2011, 09:25 AM
Can we at least have 2 days prior notice to the exact time you would upload this update to Monoceros?

xscorpiousx
12-02-2011, 08:27 PM
Issues and Glitches with Monoceros Map (overdued) -

1. Assignment of first landfall to alliance leader (or preferably leader's controls for assigning members right to first landfall) is not implemented. Murphy's Law took over from there.
2. Now we see X=399 and X=0 side by side on the main map but cannot occupy from X=399 across to X=0. This has caused some considerable confusion.
3. Map's occupation status update is generally slow on the main map, even slower on the mini-map (if it updates at all without having to refresh game).
4. The Map battle doesn't hang but the withdraw button ceased to function. Troops perish at the end of the battle if player doesn't immediately refresh browser.
5. The Map battle hangs and troops die (after refreshing) unlike with PvE battles from List previously experienced, troops don't die, only warp wasted.

p/s Don't know about others, but I would be obliged if you could compensate me 3 pulse cores for the above feedback.

xscorpiousx
12-03-2011, 01:59 AM
Finally, a fundamental question: What's there to stop multis from using resource cheats to stealth-feed the alliance on Map upgrades? I would smell rats if cheating is obvious - planted to stir a smear, as a terrorist's declaration, etc. For wayward people too eager to win the game, even platinum buyers and cheat-catchers may resort to cheating under such guises. And now it's not so much about whether you can curtail cheating, but the potential consequences of raising the stakes with Map upgrades. A mind-trap in a Pandora box so to speak.

p/s And I only brought this up as I read that you might have a fix to the cheating problems. If there really is one, pushing for its implementation could mean an entirely different stakeholders' attitude towards the game.

Commander Sa
12-03-2011, 06:39 AM
I didn't know where i was supposed to give feedback for the maps on monoceros so i am writing it here

1. I would like to know why all the outposts are copies of the maar bases and not a mixture of maar, helio and erazi
2. I think you should get warps that are only for the map and for players so you can have 2 warps for maps and 2 warps for PvP/Pve every half an hour
3. When you click on the fullscreen button the map doesn't become fullscreen
4. There should be an easier way to get off the map than clicking the map button
5. When you are on the map and you scout someones base from the chat/group you still see the map and not there base
6. How are the awards graded because i would prefer to have a combat tactics and a pulse core rather than two terraknor boxes and a pulse core but when my alliance reaches the next tier that is what i will get.
7. Finally i feel that the leader of the alliance should get a special symbol on the map

thank you

Warmastar
12-03-2011, 09:59 PM
Has Map Chain Breaking been released on monoceros also? I tried doing this to an alliance and it didn't work. If I understand your description if there is a long chain of outposts and you cut it off it should return to neutral (as long as that chain does not have a base inside it). Does the map have to update before they go neutral or should this happen right away?

xscorpiousx
12-03-2011, 11:44 PM
Re: Map Chain Breaking.

Reckon it's too destructive given the current exploits a dummy alliance (or 10 or even 100 single-member ones) can have over any proper alliance. So if you want to compel alliances to form whole chunks of territories, you have to limit alliances' first landfall to only the fringe of other alliances' territories, algorithm being: if adjacent squares contain 'abandoned' or a different alliance's outpost, outpost is conquerable as first landfall, otherwise first landfall must be on an 'abandoned' outpost. That way, low-level buffer zones shielding high-level outposts (point vaults) can be applicable.

Please do not ignore this feedback.

Chocobo
12-04-2011, 05:32 PM
Does anyone know when will the Map feather release to other sectors? Any idea guys?

greenmice
12-04-2011, 08:22 PM
how about you fix the cheats in the game first before you disable the hard work and money people are spending on the game.

Mike Dennis
12-04-2011, 08:31 PM
how about you fix the cheats in the game first before you disable the hard work and money people are spending on the game. well First the improvements won't be welcome by some of the alliances but we will live with them as for the hackers/cheaters Kabam is working hard to fix these issuess as fast as they can . Tho the platinum buyers will have the most to lose by this new updates Kabam might want to gain these players ideas before installing them on the flatland sector .

Warmastar
12-05-2011, 08:08 AM
Re: Map Chain Breaking.

Reckon it's too destructive given the current exploits a dummy alliance (or 10 or even 100 single-member ones) can have over any proper alliance. So if you want to compel alliances to form whole chunks of territories, you have to limit alliances' first landfall to only the fringe of other alliances' territories, algorithm being: if adjacent squares contain 'abandoned' or a different alliance's outpost, outpost is conquerable as first landfall, otherwise first landfall must be on an 'abandoned' outpost. That way, low-level buffer zones shielding high-level outposts (point vaults) can be applicable.

Please do not ignore this feedback.

I agree however its a simple fix. Either implement a charge to be made when creating a new alliance. Whether it be with Platinum, resources or even a time elapse (message saying "you have created an alliance within the past 48 hours).

OR when you go to claim your first territory there is a charge. Either way its a very simple fix for your concerns. I'm more concerned about the higher leveled alliances doing what they are doing now (the same thing that Underground did in FlatLand). Just roping off an entire section to their own. This is not how they wanted the game play yet the higher alliances are doing it? errrggg.

Barry
12-05-2011, 04:36 PM
Issues and Glitches with Monoceros Map (overdued) -

1. Assignment of first landfall to alliance leader (or preferably leader's controls for assigning members right to first landfall) is not implemented. Murphy's Law took over from there.
2. Now we see X=399 and X=0 side by side on the main map but cannot occupy from X=399 across to X=0. This has caused some considerable confusion.
3. Map's occupation status update is generally slow on the main map, even slower on the mini-map (if it updates at all without having to refresh game).
4. The Map battle doesn't hang but the withdraw button ceased to function. Troops perish at the end of the battle if player doesn't immediately refresh browser.
5. The Map battle hangs and troops die (after refreshing) unlike with PvE battles from List previously experienced, troops don't die, only warp wasted.


I had a longer response, but the forum lost it, so here's the quick version!

1) We're evaluating based on the results in Monoceros, but the 'first landfall' suggestion hasn't been implemented yet.
2) We should have a fix for that soon.
3) The map is designed to update every 60 seconds. The minimap should update at the same rate.
4&5) We're aware of the Withdraw issue, gathering more information, and working on a fix.

Thanks for your help!

Barry
12-05-2011, 04:37 PM
Has Map Chain Breaking been released on monoceros also? I tried doing this to an alliance and it didn't work. If I understand your description if there is a long chain of outposts and you cut it off it should return to neutral (as long as that chain does not have a base inside it). Does the map have to update before they go neutral or should this happen right away?

No, it has not been released yet. That feature is still in development, and we're hoping to have it active soon.

xscorpiousx
12-05-2011, 10:14 PM
This is not how they wanted the game play yet the higher alliances are doing it? errrggg.

Applies to real life (which is even less subjected to programmatic controls). You don't question the killing on the battlefields (game targets) once you're in it, but we do question the politics/policies back home (game algorithms and parameters) when given the prerogative. In the Map context, it's only because the top tier score requires that much outpost occupation to attain, counter-balanced by steep upgrading costs that go into 'point vaults' on the Map that cannot be totally safeguarded. And the fact that the tier from 1M score to 10M score doesn't give out combat boost compels top alliances to gun for the ultimate tier. It may serve your interest to know that even as max 25k outposts are conquered with median efforts, the median upgrade costs remaining to reach 10M is 40 Billion c g.

As an interim heat-cooling measure, I would thus suggest -

1. To give out 1 each of pulse core, terraknor box and combat tactics for the tier of 1M Map score.
2. To reduce the Map score for the ultimate tier, e.g. from 10M to 5M.

Nessy
12-05-2011, 11:44 PM
Barry, one of the level 4000+ members in my alliance wanted to know if we are able to upgrade bases past 2000. I don't think anyone in Flatlands has reached that high of a level and none of our big guys wanted to drop the money in an experimental realm to find out. Being able to upgrade past 2k changes our alliance strategy and game dynamics quite a bit, so I was hoping you could answer this question... probably not before bases go live but just for general knowledge. Thanks.

Barry
12-06-2011, 02:12 PM
Barry, one of the level 4000+ members in my alliance wanted to know if we are able to upgrade bases past 2000. I don't think anyone in Flatlands has reached that high of a level and none of our big guys wanted to drop the money in an experimental realm to find out. Being able to upgrade past 2k changes our alliance strategy and game dynamics quite a bit, so I was hoping you could answer this question... probably not before bases go live but just for general knowledge. Thanks.

The limit right now is 2000. The map bases should become available as new Faction bases become available; if we make level 5000 Faction Bases someday, you should be able to upgrade the map to 5000.

Not a promise, by the way, just my best guess. We may or may not make new base levels available for any number of reasons.