Beta Map Stream

[PsychoPigeon]

if you think just one would be necessary then you'd also be fine with having the US spawn 3x the distance away from the objective?

I find most players don't actually retreat as soon as they lose the objective, they actually try and stay there as if I'd let them just camp the spawns. It has to be this way as I have no control over the timer for the spawn protection, all I can do is delay it before another pops up further forward. Or just make the map a lot smaller so only 1 spawn is required and the objective is only a short distance from the last, like the stock maps.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

if you think just one would be necessary then you'd also be fine with having the US spawn 3x the distance away from the objective?

I find most players don't actually retreat as soon as they lose the objective, they actually try and stay there as if I'd let them just camp the spawns. It has to be this way as I have no control over the timer for the spawn protection, all I can do is delay it before another pops up further forward

OK, its obvious you want to leave them, and NO I don't think its necessary to move the US spawn back.

Sorry for trying to give some useful feedback

 

[PsychoPigeon]

It's not about me wanting to leave them, it's just if I did what you suggest that would be the result so essentially you're advocating the US spawn being a huge distance from the next objective which I don't think would please many people on the US team. This is why the stock maps are the way they are I think

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

After playing some more, have you thought about adding an extra objective between B and C?

- or -

moving Objective B closer to C? There is a huge gap there. It may help make C easier for the Allies to capture, and maybe you could reduce or eliminate one of the Red Zones in the process.

 

[Marta]

Cannot wait for the brewed version. Bump.

 

[Korpisolttu]

Indeed can't wait for the brewed version! I played this map months ago and I totally fell in love with its jungle theme. I recall it had some performance problems, not sure about the newer versions? It didnt bother me anyways since the fps was good enough at least for me. I've dreamt of having server with this map, and this dream could possibly come true now. We've planned to add this map alongside with the other custom maps on our upcoming RS-campaign server. Kitajima is already on the list since its brewed.

We will try out the campaign with historicial loudout, which means that we put each map to their real regional territories if the map is based on some real battle. So I'm here to ask, are the Kitajima and Stream based on some real battles or are they fictional? Fictional means that it gives some margin for the map territory selection, but it doesnt afterall matter whether its real or fictional.

 

[G_Sajer]

Oh Gawd yes. This is one of my favorite RSTE maps. Very well done. Can't wait to get it back on Crucible.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

They're both fictional, I'll brew asap

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Link

https://www.mediafire.com/?gic28pzaccyja72

 

[peumobil]

Thanks You .

 

[Marta]

Thx.

 

[®omano]

Your map name in the zip should have been renamed with the S in upper case and not the "s" in lower case in TE-Stalag13.roe (not TE-stala13.roe) because all reference in ini filename are with upper case "S" (and it is better looking typography) => THINK ABOUT LINUX SERVER PEOPLE WITH REDIRECT

 

[PsychoPigeon]

on my PC it is 'RSTE-Stream'

 

[®omano]

Replied to the wrong topic, as you know your map is not Stalag 13

 

[Korpisolttu]

We've played Stream on our server now couple of times with players from 2 to 12 and bots max 20. I like the map, its visuals & ambient, but here's few things I noticed:
In campaign as japs attacking, ammo cache (G) wouldn't explode. I threw two satchels down, and two on top of it, no effect. Also object (F) didn't get destroyed by one satchel, didn't try more, just captured it. I couldn't get ammo replenishement (satchels) from ammo crates. I didn't try all tough, but at least the crates near D, E, F & G didn't work.

Some people on the server liked that the map was too big with too far spawns, but tbh I think that wouldn't be a problem with over 40 players. One of the server regulars told me that it would be nice if the fragile huts actually got detroyed by satchels and artillery instead of covering you from explosions. I told him that would be nice yeah, but that would be propably hard work for mapper aswell.
Nice bridge destroy animation at the end of the game btw.

And for the last, some screenshots of the beautiful landscape:

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

Spoiler!

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Nice pics. Yea map is a bit long, I got carried away

 

[Korpisolttu]

Nice pics. Yea map is a bit long, I got carried away

I'm still being optimistic even though one of my good RS mates told me that its too big. I'm waiting for bigger test groub. If the map size is really a problem, maybe moving spawn closer to cap would be enough? Anyways if we manage to get more players for the map, I'll tell you the results.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Personally I like the bigger maps and this is one of them. The game has plenty of small maps for those people with shorter attention spans

 

[titsmcgee852]

The map is a good length, but the two times I've played it with a full server the attacking team runs out of time at the last objective. More plays will yield more comprehensive results. I do however <3 this map even though it kills my FPS.

 

[Drecks]

The problem of this all is the community and players. They are divided. One half shouts we want bigger maps we want more room to fight. Next part shouts bigger maps and traansportvehicles (not on this map). Than there are some maps with vehicles and I really seen this. People walk I wait for them to jump in and they walk.....
Next the bigger part dont say anything and plays Appartments and Spartanovka.
So the people who wants to test these custom maps never gets over 30 players to bloody test thesre maps. Good riddance.