Fair enough - but all four of them have to be in the zone simultaneously and spread out in such a way that they negatively influence all of it. That is indeed a kind of fragility, but one that apparently doesn't come along often. Maybe my maps are just bigger than the norm, or my testers die a lot. I understand - what I mean is, what's the downside of stacking them? I'm looking at your inverted pyramid recommendation right now and not quite getting it. I understand the basic premise I think, but I can't tell from the pic how many respawn zones are in the various areas, and where they overlap exactly. Can you explain it here? EDIT - never mind, I stared at it until it sunk in. Basically you're suggesting three respawn zones per team, each extending farther into the neutral areas of the map so that the most weighting is applied to the back and the least is applied to the middle. That makes some sense. Though it raises another question of how to do flag-away zones; if you don't want people spawning near their own flag after it's grabbed, the pyramid approach gets even harder to map out properly, I think. I'll have to pull up one of my own maps later and start figuring it out. I think the biggest problem with turning respawn logic into math puzzles is that most people just won't get it and it ends up doing more harm than good as they take partial understanding of information and run in the wrong direction with it. It's great to break it all down like that (and you're the only one doing it, as far as I know - at least to that extent!). But we need a "do this and your map will work" breakdown for dummies. I had a similar problem with the people who recommended all those overlapping respawn zones in Reach. That was both too hard to understand AND actually incorrect (your method wins by being based on actual tests and not received wisdom).
The inverted pyramid scheme is one where the center of the map has the least zones. I started with three at each end. Each zone is longer than the next. Red zone 1: 1/4 of map Red zone 2: 1/2 of map Red zone 3: 3/4 of map This allows a gradual pull toward the red team end of the map, but allows the red team to be pushed away by the blue PE. The Respawn zones are used rather than Anti or Weak so that the steps are larger across each boundary. It gives each team 3/4 of the map to spawn on to reduce spawn traps, and this is necessary ONLY because of the PE primary radii which is simply too large for the map sizes we want to forge. The down side of stacking them is that you really do force the team to spawn in the zone and that in turn limits the spawning area on the map and more easily sets up spawn traps. The gradient approach of the inverted pyramid scheme is that you use more of the map without spawning at the enemy end with less potential as you move from your own end. Nothing else. It is the best I could come up with to reduce spawn traps and prevent spawning by the enemy flag. Flag away and flag at home are problematic for the dimensions we are talking about. When I wrote the article on the weights, I wanted it to be explicit as to what I did so someone with analytical skills could pick it apart successfully. The other articles I wrote I wanted to be simple to understand. I suppose your feedback suggests that I failed and I need to rethink how to present my information in the future. Look, another way to say it is this - 343i/CA screwed up and the system is broken fundamentally. We are not able to use it using a simple set of rules. We are only able to WORK AROUND the problems that their broken system has created the best we can, and to some extend the GEOMETRY of the map will impact our work around. My suggestions were only the general case. I could help give some advice for each specific map I suppose, but for the general case I tried to explain what to do and why so that others can think along the same lines. I know it is a bit of a math puzzle, but the complexity isn't our fault. I long for the days of a simple zone and we know with certainty we spawn there. But the emphasis must be something other than trying to prevent spawning by an enemy to make it possible. That is the origin of all these problems.
That's what happens when smart guys try to explain things to dipshits like me. It's great information though, once I was able to wrap my head around it I think I pretty well understand. I'm going to reconfigure my active (and just-released) maps using that method, and just ditch the flag away zones, as I don't often find they add a lot to the map anyway. And Audience - listen to this guy, not me. Or listen a little to me, but a lot to him.
i think i am grasping the basics of this. for one flag, how would you do spawn zones? you can do flag home and away for one team but not the other. so you would be left with a ctf zone and the influence of opposition for which points to be used. i only bring this up as i was attempting flag assault and once the attacking team has the flag i can use flag away to spawn the defending team further back in the map but how can i advance the spawn zone of the attacking team?
I don't see how a properly sized map would ever support flag status zones with any practical purpose.
Wow. Did not know any of this regarding H4's respawn zones. Makes me wonder why they changed how respawn zones functioned when they were practically flawless in Reach. Why should a team spawn OUTSIDE of a respawn zone, EVER? I get that the negative influence is overwhelming but... I mean that's just overstepping us as forgers. "Let's just not make things function the way they should for the sake of change!" -343i/CA I've read all your articles about Reach Green, I'll get around to reading your new articles. You are a spawn guru.
CertainAffinity confirmed that their motivation was to prevent spawning by an enemy at all costs. This is the problem they solved, but in so doing they broke spawning at a fundamental level across the board. The fact is that the way the zones are forged on the disc maps for CTF shows that they didn't spend any time thinking about how the spawning would play out. Well, there is one other possibility - they simply didn't care.