Rejected Fort battle map : sectors/fields numbers

Discussion in 'Development Discussions' started by Plagada, Mar 5, 2011.

Share This Page

?

Should a coordinates system be implemented in fort battles.

Poll closed May 22, 2011.
  1. Yes

    35 vote(s)
    63.6%
  2. No

    20 vote(s)
    36.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Plagada

    Plagada Guest

    Poll: To determine if a coordinates system should be added to fort battles, Yes to pass it on to developers, No to reject this idea/concept. You will have 2 weeks to vote once on your opinion. No votes can be recast so vote accordingly. If you have any questions please post to thread before casting your vote. No further changes can be made to post #1 for 2 weeks.

    Proposal
    Numbering sectors/fields (fort battle map).​
    Details
    Players currently use the four cardinal directions to locate themselves : North-East-South-West, or specific name of location : flag, soldiers tower (South-West), workers tower (South-East), duelers tower (North-East) and adventurers tower (North West), wall R, building H, door, etc.
    Transmit orders is possible - this way - but I think it would be much more effective if each sector/field had a specific number.
    Not only the instructions could be clearer but coordination would also be facilitated.
    • Fields could be numbered based on the following grid :
      a/0 → 34

      x​
    • Sectors numbers would depend on the fort size and would present a capital letter "S" (for Sector) before the number.
    Visual Aids
    [​IMG]
    Sector & field - unoccupied

    [​IMG]
    Sector & field - occupied

    Or

    [​IMG]
    Source (1)Source (2)

    Administration

    • Does this idea meet the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria ? Yes
    • Does this idea appear on any of the Previously Suggested Ideas List ? No (keywords when searching : fort, battle, map, grid, number, coordinates)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2011
  2. Good Feather

    Good Feather Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    197
    Yes I like this concept. As I was doing a fort manuever and trying teach somone how to move it would have been easier to say look at the battle in this blueprint view.
     
  3. Plagada

    Plagada Guest

    Numbering sectors would allow a global identification while fields numbers would help for an individual localization.
    Identify sectors and fields are both practice features. It would just depend of the case.

    Sectors coordinates would be used - primarily - by leaders to transmit their orders while those of fields would - mostly - be used by players who would communicate for an exchange of place, for example.

    Other examples :

    • Advance towards East desired, passing by the North coming from the West, the commander ordering "walk together in sectors 03 and 04..."
    • Request to occupy a sector to block the enemy progression : "Someone in the sector 01 to stop the enemy advance !" And if the volunteer is not at the good place but in the right sector nevertheless (he locks the opponent but he is still in his line of fire), the commander could ask him to "go back in a3 in order to shelter himself from the enemy fire !"

      Fields coordinates could even be more effective than a sector number, sometimes : instead of ordering someone to move to one sector in order to hinder enemy movement, as illustrated in the previous example ("Someone in sector 01 to (...)"), an order that would indicate the field number in this scenario would directly recover the time lost by both voluntary movements of the player (to the sector and then to the appropriate field) : ask "someone in a3 to block (...)" would be more appropriate in this case ; and would respond to the strategic necessity expressed by the general. While if it is the sector number which is call here, the risk of wrong placement in this sector remains.
    • Etc.
     
  4. TJ Tuttle

    TJ Tuttle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    88
    How much simpler than west side move to North Central....NOT.

    More complicated for players to understand ( instead of just glancing N and seeing N Central they would have to look at the map...locate the sectors. etc ) and does not offer any real improvement.

    NO.
     
  5. Blackfyre

    Blackfyre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2010
    Messages:
    263
    Likes Received:
    29
    i say go for it since its not deducting anything from fort play. Orders can be given in the manner they are given now... if some leaders find this new/alternate way of leading too demanding and involving too much micromanagement they can simply opt out of using it...

    YES
     
  6. Good Feather

    Good Feather Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,190
    Likes Received:
    197

    You would think.. but I cant always vocalize in words... move to the big box in front of my character... um move 3 spots down and 3 over to the right.

    If I could just say move to Zone A3 would save me typing a sentence in the limited time I have to general
     
  7. TJ Tuttle

    TJ Tuttle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,077
    Likes Received:
    88

    Yeah, i agree with that..sometimes it might be easier.
     
  8. Elmyr

    Elmyr Guest

    I just don't think it's necessary. If it were implemented, I'd prefer something simple showing coordinates...

    [​IMG]

    For the most part, specific directions should be up to the leader's communication skills. With a good leader I know exactly what he's talking about. The biggest problem is when they name specific players, e.g. "target x's sector" or "fill y's sector". Generally I know exactly who they're talking about, but occasionally I'll have no idea and spend the entire round hovering over different players to try to find them.

    And I disagree that "move to zone A3" would save time. Anyone who has done any serious amount of fort battles can visualize the map and know exactly where they want people to go. Naming specific sectors would require translating what you know to the coordinate system. You can tell everyone in every sector to move west, but if you're naming specific sectors, you will have to tell each specific sector a different specific sector to move to, and know the coordinates of both. Which brings up a different problem with this kind of micromanagement: different sectors are different sizes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2011
  9. momo momo momo momo

    momo momo momo momo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    21
    it's going to be "like" a chess board...you give coords and people move there..you got my back up on this.
     
  10. Rebow

    Rebow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2010
    Messages:
    2,050
    Likes Received:
    146
    It's one of those "why wheren't it implimented in the first place" kinda idea.

    Yes from me.
     
  11. elvarro

    elvarro Guest

    YES, it would be very useful for better coordination in fortbattles.
     
  12. j dahl

    j dahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    18
    In my opinion, this would make things allot easier. They already use this on the PL worlds, except they use external pictures for the visualizations of sector numbers. If this were implemented in-game, one would be able to move to an exact spot within a matter of seconds, instead of trying to understand where the general is asking you to go for the whole round....and it is too late to move.
     
  13. -Neo-

    -Neo- Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,773
    Likes Received:
    122
    i like theidea, but i think its too complicated, and would rather a basic coordinates system as Elmyr has put it. when you hover over those squares the corrdinates come up.
    as simple as.
     
  14. John Sibley

    John Sibley Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2010
    Messages:
    392
    Likes Received:
    22
    100%
    5 stars
    I agree with Rebow on that last statement.
     
  15. Plagada

    Plagada Guest

    This is exactly the goal : bring some precision to facilitate exchange of place and allow the general to give clear orders (for experienced players and beginners).
    It's the only claim.

    I also thought of a grid similar to Elmyr's one (), but upon reflection, I think that display coordinates in the tooltip is preferable : it is more intuitive and faster, and more aesthetic...
     
  16. Kengur

    Kengur Guest

    I like the idea! definitely agree with Rebow! I even prefer it to Elmyrs idea.
     
  17. Definitely a YES it will save time for the person who is leading the battle.And thanks for elmyr who improved it.:)
     
  18. Unforgiven1

    Unforgiven1 Guest

    I agree with Elmyr it is not need to complicate fort fights it is easier for ppl to learn where is west,north,east and south and if i say everyone move north that means they will move north dont see what is wrong with that and why to put names on the sectors it is usles.

    Sorry but no for this! There is no so many orders to put something like that in game.
     
  19. momo momo momo momo

    momo momo momo momo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    314
    Likes Received:
    21
    actully its much easier for example:
    if its the regular game and i am captin and tell to who evee to move i would be like" you move north 3 squares up and 5 right"

    but if it's with corrdinates it would be like"you go to (L9south) "
    you see its much easier with coords.
     
  20. Unforgiven1

    Unforgiven1 Guest

    If i give order target central north sector everyone will target there, or target north sector near wall same thing north is north everyone need to be there. There is no 1000 sectors in fort, and this would be good if forts are biger with mutch more sectors, but for now it is usles. For me is silly thing to call sectors A890890, B329032, C40938493, D4383098 etc.. This is just mine opinion, and i have no intention to lead discussion now about that. :) Still no!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.