DUST Search - Double bridge action

All Channels

Map Ideas

Double bridge action

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lillica Deathdealer Mango and Friends 447	Posted - 2013.11.21 20:45:00 - [1] - Quote Howdy. I was thinking about some of the issues people you lot have mentioned, mainly ladders, and what many of the people on dust really enjoy. From what I've heard one of the major problems with ladders is making them work with sockets and the mix and match element of things. I was wondering if by building the ladders into the terrain rather than the sockets, ladders could be used with less work ensuring they function? In any case, if this is not doable replace ladders with stairs whenever I mention them. The second thing many people have talked about is enjoying vehicle play, sheltered areas for infantry, bridges or areas that funnel the action to a point, and having more levels than ground floor in buildings. Combining all of these ideas I came up with an idea around a crater where two parallel bridges span the middle and in the middle, connecting the two bridges is a tower of sorts. The result from top down makes the two bridges and tower look like an H across the crater. The tower has space for a small socket at the top, and ladders or stairs building up to it along the outside. Additionally it may have an attached landing pad or inside area on some floors. On either end of the bridges are other sockets. This makes for a nifty four point map, five point map, or even one point map with objectives atop the tower or on different sides of the bridge. Given the addition of new rifle types with decent range, the tower would become an essential outpost for controlling the battlefield if you were focused on mobility. Vehicles could be useful both as transports, methods of breaching the tower, or the standard force projector role. I'm not knowledgeable on what is and isn't possible for map ideas. So please, give me feedback on what would not work in my post, and how devs would prefer posts in this section of the forums to be structured; what information they should include. This way I might give better, more focused ideas next time. Thank you for reading this! - Fear the Mango - Fear its friends - Closed beta vet, Forum warrior prof. III
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2013.11.22 16:00:00 - [2] - Quote Hello Lillica! Whether we had good success or poor success at them, I think most players have to admit that the "fight to take and hold the bridge" repeatedly creates the most epic and sweaty sessions in this game. So I ENDORSE and second your idea about having two (no more than three) bridges that are physically connected, or at least in tight proximity to a tower element (or could be something that descends down into your crater, Lillica). Something electronic in nature should be on the bridge that is key to making the prize at the end of the tower usable for your team. (This makes holding at least ONE of the bridges necessary while half your team tackles the tower) Whatever is in the tower (or structure built down into the crater), reaching it involves steep vertical stairs (CCP is trying to avoid scripting ladders) leaving mercs dangerously vulnerable to fire from whoever has chosen to defend the tower. (This makes the bridges a necessary position from which you can provide COVER fire for the poor brave blue mercs who are trying to assault the tower and reach the prize). I FEAR that your idea will actually LIMIT vehicle use (maybe only a dropship can tackle a map like that), but limited vehicle isn't necessarily BAD---some players have been asking for some vehicle-handicapping/vehicle-advantageous battlefields. Holding the prize + one of the bridges tips the match in your team's favor, and ultimately "codes" the whole facility so that further enemy hacking is now impossible, (or the enemy MCC is destroyed, etc) , and ownership permanently belongs to the EVE corp that hired you. Your idea really rocks, Lillica.
Lillica Deathdealer Mango and Friends 448	Posted - 2013.11.22 16:07:00 - [3] - Quote Thanks Celesta! I'll keep what you said about ladders in mind. As for the vehicle aspect, the way I see it they would be most useful in a skirmish mode with objectives on both ends of the bridge. The main point would be that a team who did not manage to hunker down inside the tower would have difficulty spanning the crater to reach the other points without getting shot by enemies posted up in the tower. This is where vehicles, being armored or extremely mobile, come in to play. No only could they bombard the tower, they could also cross the bridge or even skirt around the crater with ease. This means all play styles have an area they could be valuable in the map. What do you think? - Fear the Mango - Fear its friends - Closed beta vet, Forum warrior prof. III
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 43	Posted - 2013.11.22 18:02:00 - [4] - Quote I think we are now each thinking of a DIFFERENT and intriguing variation of a "bridges" map. I was thinking of the assaulting and controlling of a bridge (a narrow structure, hard for a vehicle to quickly own) as a necessary first step towards getting ownership of the tower. (capturing the bridge meant getting control of the "physical joint" where the bridge touches the tower). Yum! You're creating a "capture" at one end of a bridge (a utility structure wide enough for construction vehicle convoys), and thinking of capturing the tower as a necessary step towards getting ownership of the other end of the bridge. (hence you have a "prize" to fight for at BOTH ends of a bridge). Yum!!! I can't find anything weak or unsuccessful about EITHER concept. I think we should be given expenses-paid transportation and hotel to Iceland, so that we may further explore these two designs with CCP. ...it's the only way to treat good ideas properly, right?
Lillica Deathdealer Mango and Friends 448	Posted - 2013.11.22 20:29:00 - [5] - Quote I think our ideas could work respectively as the skirmish and domination variants of the map idea. Boom! Double action map creation! I'd actually like for CCP to give us an idea of what they want to see in our posts and responses on this section of the forums though, that way I can structure what I say to be most useful to them. - Fear the Mango - Fear its friends - Closed beta vet, Forum warrior prof. III
CELESTA AUNGM Kang Lo Directorate Gallente Federation 46	Posted - 2013.11.29 18:40:00 - [6] - Quote Lillica Deathdealer wrote: I think our ideas could work respectively as the skirmish and domination variants of the map idea. Boom! Double action map creation! I'd actually like for CCP to give us an idea of what they want to see in our posts and responses on this section of the forums though, that way I can structure what I say to be most useful to them. No, Lillica, don't stop there! Not with Skirmish/Domination?etc because they are just the Public Matches proving grounds. If EVE Online is as evolved as it appears to be, where players have actually migrated from the routines of doing "just ship combat" and "corporation turf wars" into tricky and precarious "ore refining on the other side of an ignored wormhole" or "risky mining prospects on a so far un-owned planet" ... then the devs could define a "particular planet LK-129 that Mango Corp found" as so harsh in terrain that the double bridge-n-tower facility is the ONLY facility type you can use there. Notoriously difficult facility type for a platoon of paid mercs to defend, if anyone discovers you are farming the ore on LK-129... Yet perhaps the type of ore on LK-129 is immensely lucrative... So the capsuleer has to really weigh the RISK he's taking... And if asked to guard and defend the LK-129 double-bridge facility, the merc clan has to decide pricy the contract should be for such a such a hard to protect map. Ultimately I'd like to see these imaginative maps employed in the mature joint-EVE-Dust playing field, not "tossed" into the kindergarten Public Matches arena.
Lillica Deathdealer Mango and Friends 449	Posted - 2013.12.01 03:31:00 - [7] - Quote Oho! You sir just brought up another way of thinking about the link that never previously crossed my mind. Indeed, by labeling certain outpost/facilities as being the only ones fit for certain planets and operations, it DOES enable the creation of risk vs reward stuff focused on tactical gameplay as a necessity to gain the truly lucrative rewards! - Fear the Mango - Fear its friends - Closed beta vet, Forum warrior prof. III


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.