| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Max Trichomes
Quantum Kittens Syndicate
68
   |
Posted - 2012.07.05 23:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
I am just going to be blunt, the map design in Dust 514 is poor, at best. Maps are mostly open fields with a bit of clutter and crates scattered around for cover. The maps are missing buildings and installations. Now the previous map was marginally better, but it still fell short. Admittedly it did have more pathways, impassable paths, and a few buildings at the end.
The open field maps we see in Dust need more, they need buildings and installations through out. Current maps cause vehicles to be very OP'ed (OverPowered), when in reality it is not the vehicle that is OP. There is no good reason to go infantry on the current maps. There is nearly no where a drop suit can go where a tank/dropship can not, and a drop suit is way more squishy. Having complete access to nearly every corner of the map in a tank is why we often see tanks that go 30-1. Having no buildings with infantry sized doors is why there is no where to hide from the dropship drop of doom on yo head. Snipers also get the short end of the stick with no buildings. Snipers need buildings to go in to and be able to snipe out of, both buildings in useful spots by objectives and off the map. These buildings would also be very useful for anti-vehicle infantry. It would give them some real cover in which to fight from. With anti-vehicle infantry more than a minor annoyance to upgraded tanks, tanks will need support infantry with them to deal with the enemy AV infantry. This promotes even more team play. Even the assault suit wearing grunt gets to have fun, killing all the people busy looking out the window not watching their back. Buildings also serve as a good place to put drop links and as relay points for a squad to meet up before assaulting an objective.
On these maps there are all sorts of places we should have buildings. The roads between objective should have buildings, as well as buildings on the outskirts of the map. I want to see hangers with rifters and ship building components, amarr slave quarters, gallente factories, and I want to fight in them. There should be rural maps, and urban maps, but both need some buildings. For example, on the new map, that big square platform toward the middle of the map should have stairs, and infantry access to the top. The staircase could be covered (like a parking garage) with windows (inwards and outwards) at each of the 3-4 floors. It might even be cool to see one of the objectives in a building, like one of those large buildings on the sides of the map. Put 2 sets of stairs in the building, with access both from top and bottom. An organized team could drop a full squad with a dropship on the roof and then storm the building, or they could just go in on the ground floor. With just a bit of creativity one can imagine all sorts of cool buildings and the places they should be. Since I don't plan on making a TL:DR I don't want to go on and on about all different building ideas.
With the open field maps it makes a majority of engagements long range engagements, even more so when hit detection gets better. This makes many weapons and vehicles OP'ed and many others very UP'ed (UnderPowered). The maps make the short range weapons really UP'ed. There needs to be CQC and mid-range engagements, and not just right around an objective. Even though the shotgun is a beast up close, it isn't that effective in Dust because you are going to have to charge through an open field to get to me with that shotgun.
Adding buildings to the map will add a lot of depth to the game. It will also make some of the things people are complaining about being OP'ed not so overpowered. These open maps seem very very empty and basic, and they promote that kind of game play. |
Thick McRun Fast
Crux Special Tasks Group
Gallente Federation
177
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 23:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
These are small maps part of a much larger chunk of terrain.
They will also be partly randomized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmCRti9dFM may as well skip 10 minutes in. |
Pokey Dravon
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
583
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 23:51:00 -
[3] - Quote
Hmmm the game is supposed to have a lot of focus on vehicular combat....and the maps are tailored to allow for a lot of vehicular combat....sounds like working as intended.
Aslo, Forge Guns and Swarm Launchers fix everything. |
Sdfvnr
Immobile Infantry
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 23:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Wasn't it the case that each and every installation in eve will eventually have a semi-unique map to go with it? I would imagine that the lack of balance would then become part of the gameplay: more defensibile installations would be more valuable than ones that favor the attacker.
That being said, for the random, non-corp matchups like we are playing now, the only maps that should be used at all are the cream of the crop - the most balanced maps that have areas for every playstyle, and I agree that this current map does not qualify for that at all. |
Longshot Ravenwood
Algintal Core
Gallente Federation
680
|
Posted - 2012.07.05 23:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sdfvnr wrote:Wasn't it the case that each and every installation in eve will eventually have a semi-unique map to go with it? I would imagine that the lack of balance would then become part of the gameplay: more defensibile installations would be more valuable than ones that favor the attacker.
That being said, for the random, non-corp matchups like we are playing now, the only maps that should be used at all are the cream of the crop - the most balanced maps that have areas for every playstyle, and I agree that this current map does not qualify for that at all.
I'm curious as to what playstyles you feel are and aren't being catered to on the current map? |
Card Drunook
DoC Deck of Contractors
79
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 00:16:00 -
[6] - Quote
I think the biggest playstyle left out right now are more slow paced ones (not counting when once side is pushed back to it's starting spawn. If you're configured for slow steady movement around the map, right now you'll spend half the game with nothing to shoot at and the other half getting shot in the back all the time. There's no areas where you can "put your back to a wall".
All that said, right now the developers seem more focused testing mechanics than gameplay. And for that the map has been pretty useful. I'm sure once they have the mechanics of the game more fleshed out they'll focus on the maps (and how they effect gameplay) more. |
Knarf Black
Subdreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
397
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
As an AV scout (Swarm/SMG), I'm enjoying this style of map. The wide open area where the attackers spawn is great for tank hunting, with just enough cover to make things interesting while leaving me vulnerable to sniper and assault fits. Inside the installation there is enough verticality to give dropships some cover, and a nice smattering of smaller spaces for closing in on infantry.
I do kind of miss the long haul and multiple routes from the last build, though. |
Rasatsu
Much Crying Old Experts
437
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 15:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Pokey Dravon wrote:Hmmm the game is supposed to have a lot of focus on vehicular combat....and the maps are tailored to allow for a lot of vehicular combat....sounds like working as intended.
Aslo, Forge Guns and Swarm Launchers fix everything.
Not so.
The game is going to be focusing on different stages of combat, from the initial siege and open terrain to close-quarter combat for the final capture. |
Eqyizo Friend
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
So far I agree that the map design is very poor. Not to mention that traversing the maps in any way is tedious. Everything to this game has a very unresponsive feel to it, even the menus.
If the gameplay doesn't improve, I wont be continuing playing this game. And maps really add to how the game plays. |
Lurchasaurus
SVER True Blood
Unclaimed.
808
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:59:00 -
[10] - Quote
the current ambush map on plateaus is only 1/5 of what it is going to be at release....chill lol |
|
|
zerkin gerend
Villore Sec Ops
Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 07:50:00 -
[11] - Quote
and the point of this post was???
maps randomized. and we are playing on just a chunk of it
its not like bf3 were you have 10 maps |
Milk Supreme
ZionTCD
Legacy Rising
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Maps need to be something like this
http://play.esea.net/global/media_preview.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fttp2.dslyecxi.com%2Fimages%2Fchernarus_big_hq.jpg
or
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y12/MajorEd/ArmA/agw/C4/mapoftakistan.jpg
or even
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2024/bootmplan.jpg
giant sprawling maps with pockets of urban development where entrenched infantry can hide, while most of the map is open terrain where the cooperation between infantry and vehicles will be the only way of success
definitely not happy with the tiny cramped maps we have currently |
zekina zek
D3LTA FORC3
Orion Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 11:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
quit complaining about hte "OP VEHICLES" and just get a freaking OP VEHICLE! |
EnglishSnake
Zumari Force Projection
Caldari State
1012
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 11:36:00 -
[14] - Quote
We have seen 2 maps
2 MAPS
Go watch fanfest video called seeding the universe i think |
TiMeSpLiT--TeR
Planetary Response Organisation
Test Friends Please Ignore
326
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 13:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
Who seeds the universe? PC EVE players? |
Tony Calif
Seraphim Initiative.
CRONOS.
2002
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 13:55:00 -
[16] - Quote
You want MORE large open areas? You are crazy. The main problem is player count. Bigger map, harder to find people. "small maps" Luke we have now are perfect. Imagine what we have now, with 32 players per side. Fantastic.
Edit: Crater lake was amazingly well done. If you didn't play last build, don't knock it. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |