| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
   |
Posted - 2012.11.02 17:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Pt 1 delves into minor changes to the static maps we have now. In future threads I will go into a LOT more detail, as well as discussion on map design goals. I didn't even bother on turret placement since they are non-factors (die near instantly) in most games.
Ashland
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=42725&find=unread
Both sides, extend the covered garage to the turret line, spawn moved inside, add back exit doors on both sides
Add a flat roof on A,B, and E with a center ladder, denies air bombardment but allows air drops
Add walls and roofs to the two pipelines walkways, extend to connect with platform directly above C
Remove road between C and D, block vehicle access to backside of C, move supply depot here
Line Harvest
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=42729&find=unread
Change vehicle road between MCC spawn and A CRU to infantry only switchback
Add a 2nd level and basement to center table, connect to pipelines and garages with planks
Add tunnel connecting table and back sides of A and B towers, supply depot moved to basement
Hollow roofs above C and D, move objectives to new second floor
Manus Peak
https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=42731&find=unread
Move B to inside the tower, preferably on a second floor or basement
Add interiors to central buildings, move supply depot inside these
Bury A and C objectives inside the hills by extending the terrain around them
Add ladder and exposed wrap-around platform 100m up at tower behind C
Motto of these changes: Infantry-sized objectives! |
Kain Spero
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
899
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Initially after talking with you last night I wasn't convinced about the map stuff. Now that I've mulled it over I think the maps really do need some love in terms of making infantry viable and making the maps more dynamic.
There needs to be positions that must be conquered/ defended by infantry. Whether that is accomplished by using interiors or manipulating the terrain I'm not sure. Adding interiors would be awesome as long as it doesn't hurt performance. I think adding stages to objectives (doors, gates, etc. that can be hacked to close off or open access to vehicles or troops to certain areas) would help a lot.
I think that part of the issue is that the null cannons are supposed to end up as something that can be dropped in as an installation. This would result in the need for these objectives to be self contained. |
Paran Tadec
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
902
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 18:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
I second interiors. However, Said interiors or buildings should be destroyable in some way (and the bill going to the owner on the EVE side of things). Example, Infantry use a building to cover an objective with snipers, you cant get them with a vehicle, so you call in an orbital strike and take the building out.
Doesnt have to be Battlefield's level of destructibility, but it should prevent infantry from having a nondestructible shield. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bringing this back to attention, the maps need infantry only objectives. |
J'Jor Da'Wg
KILL-EM-QUICK
RISE of LEGION
648
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 18:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Agreed. I like these changes suggested. |
BobThe843CakeMan
BurgezzE.T.F
132
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
O O O i can be regnum. Plz post this in the right area called feedback/request section of the website. Reason u didn't do it here regnum or do u only do it to people not in ur corp..... |
Regis Mk V
Osmon Surveillance
Caldari State
109
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Oh this is BS when I suggested interior objectives everyone scoffed at it lol. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Regis Mk V wrote:Oh this is BS when I suggested interior objectives everyone scoffed at it lol.
Must have missed it. I've been blaming the maps since Fanfest build, and especially since E3 build. |
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
633
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Yeah, maps need objectives that only infantry can get to, otherwise vehicles will always dominate like they do now.
The facilities need to be bigger than what we have now, which is like a single room here and there that can still have missiles and other vehicle weapons fired into all of the available doors and windows, making them really anything but a building that's infantry-only. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 19:49:00 -
[10] - Quote
At the very least, infantry should be required to lower the defenses before vehicles can advance (gates, chokepoints, artillery, shields, etc). |
|
|
Tiel Syysch
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
633
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 20:02:00 -
[11] - Quote
Noc Tempre wrote:At the very least, infantry should be required to lower the defenses before vehicles can advance (gates, chokepoints, artillery, shields, etc).
I want to say that something like that should still be internal in some way and not "lol just fly over with a dropship and drop people at the gate console" kind of thing. |
Noc Tempre
Imperfects
Negative-Feedback
1170
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 20:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tiel Syysch wrote:Noc Tempre wrote:At the very least, infantry should be required to lower the defenses before vehicles can advance (gates, chokepoints, artillery, shields, etc). I want to say that something like that should still be internal in some way and not "lol just fly over with a dropship and drop people at the gate console" kind of thing.
We are jumping the gun into part 2, new installations  |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
1569
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 09:26:00 -
[13] - Quote
Unlocking per request. |
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |