Doshneil Antaro
Dem Durrty Boyz
Public Disorder.
148
   |
Posted - 2013.11.10 18:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
New maps need to be better thought out and allow easier use for all weapon types. The idea of some weapons having no role on a battlefield is a poor excuse to force limited play styles. Every weapon should have a chance on any map. If you think about level design with these ideas in mind, then from there you still can make maps that are heavy cqc, long range, tank, etc, as long as all other weapons still have a use on the map. I hate to say it, but games Cod does a great job of this with their map designs, though I am in no way that CCP design such small corridor maps like it. Rather just take lessens from them and incorporate them in to these more open style maps we have.
For starters what is COD does is creates routes for each different play styles. They have a long range, cqc, and med range routes to run on in almost every map. This allows a player to choose his route depending on his weapon choice and utilize it at its given range to its maximum ability. This makes the game fun as no matter what or how you choose to play, you have a chance to succeed. The maps should not set you up for failure. So let's take a look how we could implement good map design into dust for the different play styles.
For the following examples I will be using Skirmish as an example. Also control points would be slightly more exposed, with cover-áspread out, we're all weapons are viable, but combat becomes hectic.
CQC and Medium range weapons: let's think about 4 letter maps. Think about the route for these two play styles in a shape of a diamond, with the control points at the corners. Along these routes, there would be tons of cover, buildings, as well as gaps just above the medium weapons effective range. The buildings would obviously were cqc could prevent medium range weapons from pushing forward. Meanwhile, on the roofs, your laser and mass drivers are repelling the attacker's push. All medium and close quarter weapons are unable in this said scenario.
Ground Vehicles: diamond shaped area to both sides of the infantry route. Many dips, slight Hills, and big rocks for cover spread out. Tanks especially gain effectiveness at check control points, as well as the gaps the infantry have to cross.
Long range and AV specialist: circle path outside of the vehicles diamond, smaller circle inside. Lots of high ground, little actual cover other than running back behind the peaks. None of these areas inside any team's red zone. Even though it is a circle pattern, field of views need to be limited so that one player can not cover multiple control points from any one spot effectively. The lack of cover allows sniper hunters, tanks, as well as the AV players to easily mow down long range players, but have to be sneaky, because the lack of cover works both ways.
Aerial Vehicles: I have no clue about these.
Redzones: Smaller areas slightly further back then they are now. High cover steep sloping mountains impossible to climb or stand on, or big walls that can not be stood on with gaps wide enough to fit 2 tanks side by side through. This eliminates red zone camping, and gives vehicles a better role, while also giving as safe spot to spawn in at . This is were derp ships and lav's shine.
In closing, such a setup allows all weapons and play styles viable on all maps, have a counter, as well as eliminates redline combat. Also, any weapon could be used from any route you want, just there would be better options for them.
|
Doshneil Antaro
Dem Durrty Boyz
Public Disorder.
152
|
Posted - 2013.11.10 21:39:00 -
[3] - Quote
Captain Crutches wrote:Disagree. While all maps should have at least some spots for each play style to shine, I like the variety presented by different maps having layouts that might make one style more effective than another.
For example, if one map has 2 or 3 excellent sniping spots, while another map has a dozen okay ones, a good sniper will be able to find and utilize any of them to support the rest of his team that might be up close using ARs or shotguns. It also forces individuals and squads to adapt their style to the environment and not just "this is where assaults go, this is where heavies go, this is where vehicles go, etc". Some maps might favor large tank battles in an open field, others might favor CQC in a full urban setting. Otherwise it just gets boring doing the same thing for every map.
Keep in mind too that a long-term goal is to have Dust maps reflect surface infrastructures put down on planets by Eve players (the new Research Facility map is the first example of an infrastructure). CCP can only design the sockets, they can't control what people will place where, so maps will eventually become so varied and unpredictable that this adaptation is a good habit to get into early on.
My example was of one type of map with pure balance for all. And I more than agree with you to an extend, as you have just elaborated my opinion that as long as each map allows good use of all weapons, than we can then tweak them to emphasize an individual play style as you mention. I said as much in fewer words in my opening statement. I think you were just too focused on my example, which in no way is how I would want to see every map. It was just showing how a single map could utilize my idea ina vanilla way. |