|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5193
   |
Posted - 2014.12.07 01:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
I do not believe I am alone when I say that Maps and Game modes are lacking and super-effing repetitive. I've played since Replication so I have seen this **** go round and round and more than anything and I miss the old Manus dearly but LogicLoop (work-elsewhere in peace) told me that my steeze is long gone so no chance of seeing that good ol' map again. I regard Maps and the interaction between the map and players as a very high priority. At this point I see enough light weapons and sidearms to be content with the weapon layout and I'd like to see a slower rate of introduction now and a shifting of focus onto the nature of maps and game modes.
Anyways primary issues with maps, map features, and their tie to game modes are below:
- Large Flat Open spaces
- Everything is still Caldari
- Lack of progression (I will explain)
- Access and object design
1. Large Flat Open Spaces
Large open spaces are pretty much why the maps are so boring. There's all this deadzone where it's not only risky to run through but overall adds to the lack of POW, PIZAZZ, and BLAM. I believe that large open spaces should exist in order to support the weapon ecosystem, primarily the ranged weapons, but when the whole map is open space.....I think you get the picture.
The maps seem to be tailored so that between Objective W and X is large open spaces, while objective W and X are enclosed in a sense. Between Objectives X, Y, and Z are lots of infrastructure and cover, etc. So it's like you get these stalemates between the city objectives and the outskirts, particularly due to the uneven spacing and clustering of objectives.
A good idea would be to implement terrain variation, more infrastructure, and more devices to act as cover. This would primarily be so that you could give, lets say a shotgunner or other close range weapon a chance to move across these spaces with less risk. However there should be significant spacing so that the ranged weapons previously mentioned do not lose their niche. So basically lose the abundance of open spaces without losing the ranged weapons.
2. Caldari Everything
Dude really? The turrets are Caldari, the bunkers are Caldari, the little guard towers are Caldari, the CRUs are Caldari, the Supply Depots are Caldari, and even the barricades look Caldari. This contributes to the lack of identity of a map perhaps a missing aspect of FW. Caldari everything has been around for so long that it just needs to change to spice **** up. Give us Gallente Turret hulls for the Large Blasters and it would count for something. Create more racial "little structures" that act for the same function. Little stuff that when combined goes a long way to adding map flavor.
3. Lack of Progression
In mathematics, a Riemman sum breaks up the area under a curve into smaller pieces and sums them together. The smaller the pieces, the more accurate the area thus infinitely small pieces results in the actual are. This is how maps should be approached. Instead of creating large wholesome objects and areas, smaller pieces summed together should be designed so that the map is "better"
An example would be like ladders. A lot of infrastructures have these really long ass (safety hazard) ladders to their summit and it's where a lot of mercs tend to, die. So what if, instead, platforms (like in orbital artillery) were installed and the ladder was broken into smaller and safer ladders. Another example would be the previous mention "large spaces", where the spaces should be broken up a little more.
Basically, breaking the map and objects into smaller pieces should result in the ability to progress further across distances because then there would be areas to break and recuperate.
4. Access and Object Design
The Null cannon is actually poorly designed. It is susceptible to snipers yet has all this protective covering that really mitigates access to the Null Cannons and does little protection. Meanwhile turret hulls are a good design because they offer easy access and very good protection for what it's worth. You can only engage a turret operator from a certain quadrant, while Null cannon hackers can be attacked from like 3 different angles.
The bunkers are almost of sound design. The front slit for shooting out of is likely too wide and offers enemies pretty good access to attack. However if this slit was shorter, then the front would give the inside mercenary the best access to their own bunker because it would allow them to shoot out and allow less fire in and granted access to the bunker is only through the back and even then sight is block between the door and the slit allowing safe access to the bunker.
Hopefully a developer will read this and understand my concepts. Things are pretty flawed as is, all you have to do is put in a little thought on the subject and you kind of realize that the tinier elements of the map system are what make the whole.
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5195
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:31:00 -
[2] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:There are few enough spaces for tanks to operate now. ..... not every stretch of planet will be filled with hard Cover.
Let's neglect roads and I'm not saying to all spaces but fuq tanks anyways lol
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5195
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
But, addressing the OP: The introduction of speeder-bikes (or SLAVs) and MAVs (or HAVs with transport slots) would enable people to move between objectives without being gunned down...vehicles are a part of this game Bojo, remember the roles they can serve...(HAVs as they are now can be used as mobile cover to cross flat-open terrain when coordinated, and mine's been used as such)
While that may be true the spaces we are talking about are like those 50-60 meter deathtraps and would it really be efficient to call down a vehicle to drive it for 6 seconds? Vehicles in mind are for traveling long distances, hundreds of meters, not shuttling an individual across a little field. Plus that involves the division of labor and time to create persy-transport vehicles and a whole other skill tree, etc....
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5198
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 03:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:
Call in vehicles ahead of time, and have them there as support in other roles and to provide mobile cover while crossing small areas, while for larger areas, calling in light transports becomes an option (Such as the Bikes, SLAVs). I personally would switch over to a more supporty HAV Hull if one was available in order to assist my team. As for division of labor...this is still a team game isn't it? Or did I miss something?
lol you misunderstood "division of labor", I meant that CCP would have to break off some devs to design and implement SLAVs and MAVs, etc. I should've said it would require the diversion of labor.
Anyways you are overshooting the mark. There is a quota on vehicles and vehicles are in fact exempt from Ambush so......
Let's say I have an AR and enemy has RR. I want to engage said enemy but there is all this open space between us and I need to get just close enough to use my weapon. Really not much I can do unless there are intermittent breaks in the space for cover, right? That's the end game of the cover. In order to give shorter range weapons at least a chance to close the gap and take out the enemy. I'm not asking for the rail rifle to lose, I'm asking for the chance to challenge.
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5198
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 04:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
True Adamance wrote:
Lol sorry there was more I meant to suggest.
All I'm saying is that on most maps now vehicles do not have access to the objectives themselves..... the more notable being A on Manus Peak in Skirmish and A on Line Harvest in Domination.
Supporting infantry is no longer easy or valuable when I could just go out and massacre infantry elsewhere.
This is true
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5204
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 08:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
OK let's neglect vehicles and if anything yall should ask CCP for some better roads then.
Bojo For CPM
|
Bojo The Mighty
Condor Squad
5204
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 08:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thaddeus Reynolds wrote:Bojo The Mighty wrote:OK let's neglect vehicles and if anything yall should ask CCP for some better roads then. Ok, for the sake of this discussion. I think that a deployable cover piece of equipment would be a great idea to help mitigate this issue, as it allows for players to set it up as needed; however, this solution only works in the tighter areas (let's say below 50m) where cover is typically easy to come by anyway, while doing little to mitigate foot-slogging in the 50-100m ranges. I'd personally enjoy some more clutter...have it be "Clutter Sockets" to take the edge off running huge distances...things like downed exo-atmospheric dropships or even fragments off of capsuleer vessels that "crashed providing orbital bombardment." Set pieces that break up line of sight, while adding even more character to the map....also some connecting tunnels would be nice...I really like tunnels in FPSs
Deployable cover would be a great addition but it would have to function like OBs, because it defeats the purpose if you have to run to the middle of the field and stand there and call it in. Must have map selection. Next subj.
Bojo For CPM
|
|
|
| |
|