Attackers and Defenders

(madoule) #41

i don’t get this. its reuse of resources. recycling in a good way. i do agree it can not be compared with the original however it find it extra value.

it would be a completely different thing to receive new maps from the same level designer staff. don’t get me wrong, best case would be monthly map updates from staff that’s been working on the original story maps (keeping the quality of staff in mind). those maps would fit in and give more details on the story. but that scenario honestly would be paradise. so i’ll take mirror maps too…

(tokamak) #42

You’re all pretending like maps are rudimentary objects on which you can place objectives at will. This is not the case in the slightest. The maps have been build around the objectives, then the maps take further shape in designing the routes around these objectives, adding focal points, corridors, bottle necks and whatever the developer can think off to create interesting scenarios. To think that all that can easily be switched with some other content and provide a truly new experience is just foolish. And the notion that maps can be ‘reversed’ is even more ridiculous.

(DarkangelUK) #43

Have you created many maps yourself? I know Chris has, and possibly others contributing here… and it’s naive to think he doesn’t have any idea how the construction, or even re-engineering process works. Recreating part of a map to add objectives and create a flow is less time consuming than creating a brand new map from scratch… that should be obvious. The idea wasn’t to provide something truly new (the fact ‘use an existing map’ should had hinted at), as was said… it’s a refreshing rework of a map. The City 17 example fit the case perfect.

(tokamak) #44

You only revisited very small sections in City 17 later on in the game. The rest was all new content.

Now don’t get me wrong, for the sake of the story it’s great to re-visit old areas. The Ark is a small place and any sequels to the game would require to take in the same place again (plus added islands I guess) But that’s an entirely different reason than recycling old maps. If you’re going to do that you’re better off starting with a clean slate and look at what serves the map best rather than producing a chewed out knock-off simply because you could.

(madoule) #45

tok, you are arguing great. but with all respect, take a step back and look at your own quote:[QUOTE=tokamak;258792]You’re all pretending like maps are rudimentary objects on which you can place objectives at will. This is not the case in the slightest. The maps have been build around the objectives, then the maps take further shape in designing the routes around these objectives, adding focal points, corridors, bottle necks and whatever the developer can think off to create interesting scenarios. [/QUOTE]

we were not pretending any of that sort! you are 100% right about the rest.

again nobody said that. we only spoke of switching sides: resistance spawning on security spawns and vice versa. that would be mirroring the map imo. this again IMO can work , altering a few mechanics e.g.: order of the objectives. those are per-existing mechanics used on several maps by the devs too

(tokamak) #46

Okay then there are mixed views going on here. Some people want maps to have the same direction, some want to rehaul the map for a different story, some want to simply throw in other objectives. It’s hard to keep track of them when everyone uses the umbrella definition of ‘using the same maps’.

Reversing the direction is by far the worse thing you can do to map. The entire map lay out at geometry have been designed so that they can be defended well. It would be akin to a scenario where one side needs to break out of a besieged fortress, oh well, Lord of the Rings already showed what happens if you try that

The story itself is also meant to develop in one way, the map develops from areas of low importance to areas of high importance. The security could’ve landed anywhere on container city, this point just happened to be the most convenient to them. There’s nothing significant about the peer they start on and you would require some serious fluff-judo to make it a significant point to fight over.

Now as for keeping the direction, it would still be bad idea. Firstly because it’s not really the objectives but the maps themselves that dictate the gameplay. Whether you need to blow up or construct the objective, the game remains largely the same. Just go back to ETQW and imagine different objectives while keeping the map. Hardly anything changes. Compared to reversing the direction you would generate very little extra content and frankly it wouldn’t be worth it.

As for revisting the map for the sake of the story this is great, but then you can think of re-combining sections from different maps, imagine how the areas stood the test of time etc. Something like Blizzard did with their last WoW add-on Cataclysm. They drastically changed already existing conditions. However you have to keep in mind here that they even used a higher budget and more resources in general to re-design these areas and the result is very tasty indeed.

So I hope I cleared up some confusion here. My position on three different ideas.