Pages: 1 2

 

2006-02-27 12:20:08
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA
Hey guys,

I thought some of you may be interested to know that I plan on creating a new urban map for BF2, which I hope I can convince EA to approve for play on official servers. After proposing several map concepts for the BF2 community to vote and give input on, the city of Spokane, WA was identified as the most popular map concept. You guys can check out the original thread here:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=8907

Anyway, here's a recap of the map description as well as the 16, 32, and 64 player version layouts.

Premise:
With the PLA’s continued strategy of disrupting the West Coast’s infrastructure and defense capabilities they have decided to move inland to secure a holding on many of their acquisitions in the region of the East Cascades. The PLA have managed to take control of an Arena in the city of Spokane, Washington with the hope that the city will provide cover against US air attacks that would incur collateral damage on the city.

The PLA’s intent is to use the city's downtown area as a point of attack against the nearby Fairchild AFB to the southwest. The PLA knows that the US military will quickly assemble a large ground force to remove them from the city so the PLA's best chance is to entrench themselves in the city to give them the defensive advantage. Already, a small USMC force has managed to secure a temporary base of operations at a hotel southeast of the Arena. The race is on to secure the city.

Map Concepts:
16 Players                         32 Players                         64 Players

https://img519.imageshack.us/img519/8251/spokane168rr.th.jpg https://img519.imageshack.us/img519/9391/spokane326vd.th.jpg https://img519.imageshack.us/img519/7093/spokane640gl.th.jpg
________________________________________________________________________

I also thought it might be interesting to provide some reference photos to get a slightly more personal perspective on the area. So here are some image arrangements I threw together:

https://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9849/spokanelayout10ro.th.jpghttps://img460.imageshack.us/img460/479/spokanelayout25td.th.jpg

It will probably still be at least a month before I can get started on this project, but I thought I'd post an update for anyone who's interested. I'm still trying to figure out if I want this to be an infantry and transport only map or if I should include helicopters and armor as well. I could probably go either way, but I think it'd be fun to have at least some vehicles.

Thoughts?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Edit:

I decided to add my revisions based on user suggestions:

Revision 1                       Revision 2

https://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3773/spokane64revised1sa.th.jpghttps://img480.imageshack.us/img480/9296/spokane64revised26ms.th.jpg

Last edited by LG-MindBullets (2006-02-27 17:12:59)

2006-02-27 12:28:22
Great_White_Rabbit
Member
+0|6926
I was a member of the USAF and was stationed at Fairchild AFB in Spokane. The town is really cool (aside from the meth addicts). The topography of the area would lend towards a map with vehicles and helicopters. The tower in the park would make for a great sniper spot. Hell one of the bridges could serve as an airfield. I'm sure you've considered these few things but I hope to see that map!
2006-02-27 12:36:11
PFCStenzel
Check your AA alarm...
+82|7065|Idaho, USA / Age 30
I love it.  My Dad Law office is Downtown actually within the bounds of that map.  It Looks Good.  I am also from Spokane so I know the area really well.   That will be cool.
2006-02-27 12:36:42
BigDaddy83
Member
+1|6985
Well, looking over your 64-person concept, I have a few suggestions. 

1)  If you include helicoptors (which would somewhat make sense, as there is an AFB nearby), then you either need to include them on both sides, or add a mobile AA site or two for the PLA.  Adding Armor wouldn't be a bad idea either, honestly.

2)  I don't know about your inclusion of non-capable bases.  Maybe for one side, but not for both.  If the idea is to drive one side out, then don't you think they should be completely driven out?  I mean look at Wake Island, Sharqi, Karkland, etc. 

3)  I like the area you chose, with the park in the middle, surrounded by bridges.  Would the Stadium be an open building?  Or just a model?  If you make the stadium uncappable, I would recommend making it open building.  It seems like there could be some good "base-rape" battles that could occur in a stadium, if the side who has the Stadium gets pinned.  That is if you keep the bases non-cappable.

4)  It seems like a good concept.  I'd be interested to see how it goes

Last edited by BigDaddy83 (2006-02-27 12:38:25)

2006-02-27 12:45:47
Blackbird[NL]
Member
+1|6958|The Hague, The Netherlands
Looking good, interesting mix of urban combat and that park in the middle.. it has some serious potential..
2006-02-27 12:47:47
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA

BigDaddy83 wrote:

Well, looking over your 64-person concept, I have a few suggestions. 

1)  If you include helicoptors (which would somewhat make sense, as there is an AFB nearby), then you either need to include them on both sides, or add a mobile AA site or two for the PLA.  Adding Armor wouldn't be a bad idea either, honestly.

2)  I don't know about your inclusion of non-capable bases.  Maybe for one side, but not for both.  If the idea is to drive one side out, then don't you think they should be completely driven out?  I mean look at Wake Island, Sharqi, Karkland, etc. 

3)  I like the area you chose, with the park in the middle, surrounded by bridges.  Would the Stadium be an open building?  Or just a model?  If you make the stadium uncappable, I would recommend making it open building.  It seems like there could be some good "base-rape" battles that could occur in a stadium, if the side who has the Stadium gets pinned.  That is if you keep the bases non-cappable.

4)  It seems like a good concept.  I'd be interested to see how it goes
Great Stuff! All if it.

I think your right on number 2. It probably makes more sense if the occupying forces don't have an uncappable base since the overall objective of the USMC is to drive them out of the city. The only reason I made an uncappable base for both sides is that I often believe that only giving one team an uncappable base is an unfair advantage from a gameplay perspective. However, I think the tickets could be balanced right on this map to make it work. Taking your advice and building upon it, I think I might make the USMC actually control the Arena, which would be uncappable, and have the PLA control everything else at the offset.  I might even consider making the opposing force MEC instead with the premise that they were working in conjunction with a sleeper cell located in the city. Thanks for getting my mind rolling on these issues.

As far as opening up  the arena is concerned, I think it's an enclosed facility, but it may have a roll-away top. Even if it doesn't it, I could modify it for gameplay.
2006-02-27 12:53:15
PFCStenzel
Check your AA alarm...
+82|7065|Idaho, USA / Age 30
The Arena does not have a Rollaway top.  It is completely enclosed.  Sorry to spoil it for ya.

Last edited by PFCStenzel (2006-02-27 12:54:22)

2006-02-27 12:55:19
BigDaddy83
Member
+1|6985

LG-MindBullets wrote:

Great Stuff! All if it.

I think your right on number 2. It probably makes more sense if the occupying forces don't have an uncappable base since the overall objective of the USMC is to drive them out of the city. The only reason I made an uncappable base for both sides is that I often believe that only giving one team an uncappable base is an unfair advantage from a gameplay perspective. However, I think the tickets could be balanced right on this map to make it work. Taking your advice and building upon it, I think I might make the USMC actually control the Arena, which would be uncappable, and have the PLA control everything else at the offset.  I might even consider making the opposing force MEC instead with the premise that they were working in conjunction with a sleeper cell located in the city. Thanks for getting my mind rolling on these issues.

As far as opening up  the arena is concerned, I think it's an enclosed facility, but it may have a roll-away top. Even if it doesn't it, I could modify it for gameplay.
Personally, I like the MEC better.  Something about shouting ALLAH AKBAR as I ram a C-4 loaded truck into a tank...


For the stadium, I don't mean an open roof, though that would be cool in itself.  What I mean is would all the entrances and exits be opened or closed?  Would you develop the inside at all, or just leave it as 99% of the buildings on karkland? 

I think it should be developed inside and out, because that way it could provide some cover from air support and arty attacks during base-raping times, and it could provide some awesome battles.  Imagine tossing 203's from opposing ends of a sport field.
2006-02-27 12:58:28
fungus020
Member
+0|7044|London - England
i think its a great idea and a brilliant looking map. it would be great to play on.
i like the idea of 2 non cappable bases because it would make the games last longer and therefore more fun for a longer period of time.
2006-02-27 13:05:14
[DEI]Bart
fire at will!!!
+76|6984|Leiden, Holland for the n00bs
like it, just like it, make good work out of it
2006-02-27 13:06:40
PFCStenzel
Check your AA alarm...
+82|7065|Idaho, USA / Age 30
If you do make it, make the Tower clock accessible for snipers that is in the park.  There is a nice Tall clock tower.  That would rock.  Especially with the new sniper rifle.  I know spokane if you have questions about it.  Let me know I can tell you since I live there for 20 year.
2006-02-27 13:56:14
Chowley
Member
+1|6957|Ireland
Looks great. I think it should be infantry and transport only, leave out the armour it would make it a more unique experience.

I think it should have the two uncaps though, its one of the things i really like about Ghost Town I think with the one uncappable you have the gimps whoring points at the front and the team players go to the back and its very frustrating for a commander or a team player. With Ghost town theres fighting allover the map. You could just change the premise to accomodate it.

The idea of the mall having an interior and maybe tunnels in the stadium are great, I love maps with interiors adds character or something. Most of the maps in BF2 are all so generic, just change the skins and the layout, heres a new map.

Anyway it would be great if EA accept it, good luck.
2006-02-27 14:05:16
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA
After reading some suggestions from you guys and rethinking the level a little I decided to tighten up the map a bit, at least for the 64 player version. I haven't edited the layout concepts for the 16 or 32 player versions yet.

Anyway, I removed the warehouse and moved the mechanic shop just south of where it used to be. I think most of the fighting will occur at the center of the map, which is why I justifed moving the mechanic shop and eliminating the warehouse. I also added a flag at the convention center and moved the parking lot flag to the park plaza area. I think this new arrangement brings the flags a little closer and should hopefully make the spacing between CP's more balanced.

https://img133.imageshack.us/img133/3773/spokane64revised1sa.th.jpg

Do you guys prefer the original layout or the revised one posted here?

Thanks for the feedback.

Last edited by LG-MindBullets (2006-02-27 14:06:25)

2006-02-27 14:26:12
Rutnab
Member
+15|6918
it kind of reminds me of Hue city

Last edited by Rutnab (2006-02-27 14:26:23)

2006-02-27 14:27:47
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6936|NT, like Mick Dundee

Brilliant idea... I like the idea of a PLA city map (they are the best BF2 army...). The rest of it is great, probably (if you can get it ranked status) end up more popular than Wake Island if it gets of the ground.

We already have three MEC city maps, make it a PLA one just to be different...

-EDIT-

Put lots of AA and two attack choppers in for each team no need for tanks then.

Last edited by Flecco (2006-02-27 14:30:29)

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2006-02-27 14:35:18
smefeman
Member
+0|7021
your map seems very comprehensive. i really like it, i hope you DO make it and that EA does approve it so i can PLAY IT
2006-02-27 14:42:38
BigDaddy83
Member
+1|6985

LG-MindBullets wrote:

Do you guys prefer the original layout or the revised one posted here?

Thanks for the feedback.
Let me ask you what you plan on doing with the CP's?  Do you plan on making non of them neutral?  Do you plan on making all but one neutral?  Do you plan on making all neutral?  Do you plan on making the US have the Stadium, and the PLA/MEC having 3 or 4 CP's then the rest neutral?

Personally, I don't think the Convention Center being so close to the Hotel is a good idea.  The other flags are kinda spread out.  But that all depends on your idea of the other CP's.

The way I would do it with your current load out is to keep the US at the Stadium initially, and push the PLA/MEC to the Hotel and Convention Center.  That would make all the other CP's neutral.  I'm not sure how that would play out, but it could be interesting. 

I think I like the new one better, in terms of balance. 

Where would the air power sit, assuming you add it?  I assume the vehicles would be in the major parking lots outside the Stadium, and Hotel. 

The more I look at the Convention Center CP, I don't think it should be that close.  I mean 2 PLA/MEC CP's that close would make it almost impossible for the MC to secure either one for any sort of time, especially if the armor/helo's are located at one.

What you could consider is removing the Convention CP, making the center CP's neutral, giving the PLA/MEC the Corner Store, along with the other 3 south CP's, and give the US the remaining 2 (3, counting the uncap) northern CP's.  That should provide some interesting battles in terms of balance.  I would imagine that quite a few alleyway fights would start up at the Corner store area. 

The only problem I can see with that setup is that it may cause too many fronts for the US to handle at the start of the game. 

Just some things to consider, since I personally don't like the 2 CP's so close together.
2006-02-27 15:28:35
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA

BigDaddy83 wrote:

LG-MindBullets wrote:

Do you guys prefer the original layout or the revised one posted here?

Thanks for the feedback.
Let me ask you what you plan on doing with the CP's?  Do you plan on making non of them neutral?  Do you plan on making all but one neutral?  Do you plan on making all neutral?  Do you plan on making the US have the Stadium, and the PLA/MEC having 3 or 4 CP's then the rest neutral?

Personally, I don't think the Convention Center being so close to the Hotel is a good idea.  The other flags are kinda spread out.  But that all depends on your idea of the other CP's.

The way I would do it with your current load out is to keep the US at the Stadium initially, and push the PLA/MEC to the Hotel and Convention Center.  That would make all the other CP's neutral.  I'm not sure how that would play out, but it could be interesting. 

I think I like the new one better, in terms of balance. 

Where would the air power sit, assuming you add it?  I assume the vehicles would be in the major parking lots outside the Stadium, and Hotel. 

The more I look at the Convention Center CP, I don't think it should be that close.  I mean 2 PLA/MEC CP's that close would make it almost impossible for the MC to secure either one for any sort of time, especially if the armor/helo's are located at one.

What you could consider is removing the Convention CP, making the center CP's neutral, giving the PLA/MEC the Corner Store, along with the other 3 south CP's, and give the US the remaining 2 (3, counting the uncap) northern CP's.  That should provide some interesting battles in terms of balance.  I would imagine that quite a few alleyway fights would start up at the Corner store area. 

The only problem I can see with that setup is that it may cause too many fronts for the US to handle at the start of the game. 

Just some things to consider, since I personally don't like the 2 CP's so close together.
Yeah, I had a little voice in my head saying that the Hotel and Convention Center points were too close. It's nice to have someone reinforce the voices in your head every once in a while. So I've gone back again and revised the map slightly.

Update 2:

https://img480.imageshack.us/img480/9296/spokane64revised26ms.th.jpg

I moved the convention center CP back to the parking lot and added a helo pad near it to give the location a plausible importance (Still don't know if I'll have helo's or not). I also went through and labeled the CP's with USMC, PLA, and Neutral flags to more clearly show what I had in mind. Added some potential helipads also.

I thought about making the center flags neutral, but if the PLA doesn't get an uncappable base I think that they should start out with at least 6 of the 9 flags. With this configuration I think the US will have the opportunity to control the north shore if they take the initiative, and the PLA should be able to defend the center and south side. I have a hunch that the Power Station and Park Center CP's will be the most contested flags.
2006-02-27 15:39:12
BigDaddy83
Member
+1|6985

LG-MindBullets wrote:

I moved the convention center CP back to the parking lot and added a helo pad near it to give the location a plausible importance (Still don't know if I'll have helo's or not). I also went through and labeled the CP's with USMC, PLA, and Neutral flags to more clearly show what I had in mind. Added some potential helipads also.

I thought about making the center flags neutral, but if the PLA doesn't get an uncappable base I think that they should start out with at least 6 of the 9 flags. With this configuration I think the US will have the opportunity to control the north shore if they take the initiative, and the PLA should be able to defend the center and south side. I have a hunch that the Power Station and Park Center CP's will be the most contested flags.
Well, I like what you've done with the south CP's, but I think there could be some problems with balance if you do it that way.  As a PLA Player, I would feel that I had enough CP's to have permission to base-rape at the start.  As a US Player, I would feel that I'd need both hold off the PLA's baserape, and secure the other CP's.  I think that including a PLA base so close to the US non-cap zone is going to really cause some problems. 

If you make all the northern bases neutral, that might help.  That way the US has to expand in two directions to fight a succesful battle, and the PLA can hold them off by capturing and maintaining the center bases and gaining a foothold in the in the north.  Both would have to fight in the same direction.

The problem I see with your current setup is that the PLA can capture the north eastern base or two really easily, and lock the US to 2 or 3 CP's.
2006-02-27 15:53:57
PFCStenzel
Check your AA alarm...
+82|7065|Idaho, USA / Age 30
Looks good LG.  Riverfront park is full of great sniper Places to hide and pick off Other troops.  Let me know if you need any info or pictures as I will be up in spokane on the 13-15 of march.    Let me know.
2006-02-27 15:53:57
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA

BigDaddy83 wrote:

Well, I like what you've done with the south CP's, but I think there could be some problems with balance if you do it that way.  As a PLA Player, I would feel that I had enough CP's to have permission to base-rape at the start.  As a US Player, I would feel that I'd need both hold off the PLA's baserape, and secure the other CP's.  I think that including a PLA base so close to the US non-cap zone is going to really cause some problems. 

If you make all the northern bases neutral, that might help.  That way the US has to expand in two directions to fight a succesful battle, and the PLA can hold them off by capturing and maintaining the center bases and gaining a foothold in the in the north.  Both would have to fight in the same direction.

The problem I see with your current setup is that the PLA can capture the north eastern base or two really easily, and lock the US to 2 or 3 CP's.
Unless the PLA gets an uncappable base, I wouldn't want them to have any less than 6 CP's to start with. The problem with giving the PLA an uncappable base is that it doesn't make much sense that they can't be completely removed from the city if the USMC's primary objective is to do just that.

However, from a purely gameplay perspective, without consideration for what is more realistic I'd prefer to simply give the USMC the Arena as an uncappable base and the PLA the South Hotel as an uncappable base to start with and have all other CP's be neutral. Maybe I could arange what 3 bases are neutral to begin with. For example, I could make the Power Station and the Park Center neutral but give the PLA the Corner Market and the North Hotel.

I hope I'll get some more feedback from other members.
2006-02-27 16:05:08
iNfeQtioN
Member
+0|6931
I would love to work on that,...
PM me if you need me for something,...
I LOVE THIS MAP..
2006-02-27 16:11:25
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6964
I think this map should also have some boats (RIBs or Jetskis) anlong the river.
x
2006-02-27 16:18:03
LG-MindBullets
Member
+10|6992|Kirkland, WA

Superior Mind wrote:

I think this map should also have some boats (RIBs or Jetskis) anlong the river.
I was definitely thinking of having boats. Not quite sure yet whether I'm going to make this for BF2 vanilla or for SF. I would prefer to add it as a standard BF2 map though so more people have access to it.
2006-02-27 16:28:07
kessel!
Peruvian Cocaine
+261|7036|Toronto Canada
spokane seems like a shit place to live

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard