DUST Search - Sticky:Manus Peak Skirmish

Dreylor Thunderfall wrote:

I like the dynamics of this map as an actual "Attacker" vs "Defender" map. The folks that Spawn on the South are clearly defending their territory.

CCP has done a very good job of creating the sense of an "uphill battle" with this map. The Attackers have a disadvantage as they have to attack uphill, and have a bit further to travel.

Not all battles start out fair. When these battles are to actually decide the fate of districts it will be important to know that Attackers start on one end, Defenders on the other. Attackers may have fewer resources available, and must plan accordingly.

As people work in Corporations and Alliances you can bet that strategies for each map will be devised to overcome some of the shortfalls.

In the current state of testing, I can understand why the balance feels off... it is because it is... and I believe that is by design. Only CCP can confirm or deny that though.

I think it is actually a bold and brilliant design choice, myself.

-=Drey=-


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 8 post(s)
Lexotican Fury Chatelain Rapid Response Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2012.12.18 20:30:00 - [1] - Quote Dreylor Thunderfall wrote: I like the dynamics of this map as an actual "Attacker" vs "Defender" map. The folks that Spawn on the South are clearly defending their territory. CCP has done a very good job of creating the sense of an "uphill battle" with this map. The Attackers have a disadvantage as they have to attack uphill, and have a bit further to travel. Not all battles start out fair. When these battles are to actually decide the fate of districts it will be important to know that Attackers start on one end, Defenders on the other. Attackers may have fewer resources available, and must plan accordingly. As people work in Corporations and Alliances you can bet that strategies for each map will be devised to overcome some of the shortfalls. In the current state of testing, I can understand why the balance feels off... it is because it is... and I believe that is by design. Only CCP can confirm or deny that though. I think it is actually a bold and brilliant design choice, myself. -=Drey=- Hm. I forgot the games were listed as Attacker/Defender, and forgot to take the overall perspective into consideration, the bigger picture. If playing not from a fair deathmatch perspective, but a conquest perspective, then the imbalances in the maps do make sense I guess, but there is still something a little off about it. If the maps are designed to be specific to the feel of conquest battles, then the attackers should get more than one general attack angle to make up for the lack of cover or added time to get to the positions. The maps do not feel like conquest maps enough, if that is what you are going for. The bigger picture should be made more obvious to the mercenaries on the field, if the map is designed on that bigger picture. It feels weird for defenders to red-line the attackers, by nature of the concept. Ah, it was from this map that I thought it was kind of like wave race, when in an LAV, driving at full throttle, about to run someone over to only be launched into the air over their head from minuet fluctuations in the terrain angles. Fun-fun. DUST514, the new 'Wave Race'. Looking both ways before crossing the road, was never so important.