Blockout map feedback

(Anti) #1

Hey,

We’re super keen to get Battersea and Greenwich right so we’re looking for as many ideas and as much input as possible from you folk.

We’d prefer it to all be in the same space so I started this thread on the Nexon forum: http://forums.nexon.net/showthread.php?1049440-Map-Feedback-Battersea-and-Greenwich

Hey folks,

We’re super keen to get feedback of all types for the two block-out objective maps Battersea and Greenwich. We’d really like to ace the gameplay on these before any art work starts on them, to ensure they work well for Extraction’s mechanics and give a great experience.

When we achieve this we can then take everything we’ve done with the design of these maps and work it back into the older maps, bringing them all up to the same high standard. We can only really do this with your feedback though. What is working for you with these maps? What isn’t? Where could we add things to improve them and make them better?

You folks get to spend the most time playing these so your input is really helpful.

If you can please post any thoughts, feedback and suggestions there that’d be great.

Please try to keep the thread on the topic of maps, rather than mechanics.

(tokamak) #2

Awesome! Downloading

(Finko) #3

I try to gather my mates today, for testing sesion :slight_smile:

(BomBaKlaK) #4

Battersea :
I really dont like this map, first objective take place in a really little space, the attackers 1rst objective is not fun (travel time to short and bad spawnpoint location, only 1 main exit) Objective style (capture a zone) is definitely boring and not fun, I hate this objective.
Door to explode is a bit more valuable objective, but I don’t know there is something a bit weird, in defense we have only 1 real access to diffuse (balcony) if you came from the spawn, and it’s really easy to camp.

Second part is really weird with this big open space, I hate the position of the other capture point ! (I hate capture point !!!)
To difficult to defend, and really bad obj design … (Did I say I hate capture point and location ?)
Not enough possibilities and last obj to plant is boring, you can’t diffuse it, the space is to open and attackers got a big advantage, when they capture the point (really bad location) then the map is finish … defense has no chance at all on this map. Design is really weird …

Greenwich :
I like this map for multiple access, more open than most of the existing maps (corridor syndrôme) some Secondary obj to use to get some new access
But I still don’t like capture point !!! Look like objective for stupid players … I hate this !!!
Make some real consistent objective not an automatic obj style, people got to be involved in what they do, and obj guy need to be vulnerable during action, with cover from others. Here we have only a bunch of people staying at one place shooting everything in a big mess … I hate capture points !!! I don’t play BF or COD for this stupid style of objectives … (If we can call them objectives …)

Alternative LB :
We can climb on the new wall around the defense spawn near the GH building and def need a shorter route to the trasmission obj I think.
Easy for attacker to take the point and block the defenders in the spawn. And the beginning of the map is still not so fun.

Global feeling : maps are way to short !

(zeroooo) #5

set up a server where only map6 is running, cant test it otherwise

(shaftz0r) #6

really dont like the defensive side of the battersea first plant. once thats planted, first phase is basically over. second phase is just kind of a cluster. fights tend to happen on the platform or in small hallways. pretty meh at best.

map6 is a neat alternative to obj design, but overall, its really boring. short routes on defense make it pointless to stay alive. just die and respawn right next to obj. would never work in sort of competitive situation

overall maps are just way too short and feel really uninspiring. again, no forward spawns, or quality side objs make it boring and almost pointless

(BomBaKlaK) #7

This is also my feeling … overall maps (new and old) feel really poor in term of objective design / side obj and size is really small. the first size of the maps like Camden was perfect, now we have half of the maps … I really don’t like it ! Maps scale need to be increase imo.

(BomBaKlaK) #8

is Greenwich in 2 part and we have only the first part ?

(Anti) #9

We’re likely to switch to having some servers like that very soon.

(Anti) #10

Do you not enjoy the secondaries in Greenwich? If so could you say why?

(shaftz0r) #11

they arent contestable at all. way too far forward for defense to go anywhere near, and they take time to make any difference if the def does go that far forward. also they dont have enough affect for attackers, for defenders to really care about contesting. they’re just extra things for attackers to do for ****s and giggles. it isnt like a covert rushing forward and popping a cp or a quick flag cap to contest a forward spawn, they just dont have enough significance to try and sacrifice a rush

(INF3RN0) #12

Are there secondaries? Where are they? I think the map would benefit from some really interesting side objs. I don’t mind the idea of multi-objs as it presents a new kind of challenge, but I don’t feel like the map compliments the concept. There should be doors to hack, barricades to build/blow up, bridges to lower, etc. The more opportunity to form strategies on the go or around capturing and securing all points as efficiently as possible ought to be present.

(attack) #13

nice that you ask us.
i will think about it.

(Anti) #14

There is the Forklift that gives access to the hanger roof and a van that gives access to the MG nest balcony.

(prophett) #15

Would also like to add that if the defense are able to push up to the blown wall it is extremely easy to spawn camp the “T” in the road there.

(attack) #16

i tzhink my main problem with battersee is that there is at the first spawn no way to the left. if you would ad a left way to the obj house,you would reduce spam and move the def point more the house than to the way to it. thats only my first thoughts ,im not sure about it.

(BAMFana) #17

My opinion on Greenwich and Battersea remain largely unchanged since the versions I played while the game was still in alpha. Greenwhich is a fun map with cool roof access routes that create a vertical element and flanking opportunities. Battersea, on the other hand, is not a particularly fun map to play, and especially the first area with all the ladders and other access routes with limited room to maneuver, is particularly un-enjoyable. I wish I could be more constructive in my feedback, but this is the best I can do right now.

(INF3RN0) #18

I did end up finding them the other day. They were cool, though I’d like to see more. I really enjoy the layout overall, however it could easily benefit from more dynamic side objs.

Battersea being an almost polar opposite in terms of map structure is the main reason why I find it frustrating. Even though there’s little corridors and the like, the objectives are way too confined and the routes leading to the objectives bunch up (think 1st barricade on LB), as well as most areas being almost too open. You end up having every person on your team within arms length of one another and it becomes chaotic. This was the fundamental problem with most maps to begin with. The last obj on Salvage or the 1st/2nd objs on Volcano dealt with the layouts in an ideal way to me. In xT there’s always parts of the map I like, but never the obj area itself.

(Kl3ppy) #19

Map6 or Greenwich is basically the same as the one on the alpha blockout server, right?

I really like that you have some real options regarding the ways how to get to a spot. Also the secondaries are useful because you open new routes. Also should there be an option for the other team to destroy/close the opened routes. It’s a bit sad that at the left side (from attackers PoV) almost nothing is. Maybe open up the left side a bit, giving more fighting space. The last time I played the map was in the alpha and I remember that almost every fight was either on the right roof or in the barn on the right side where one flag is. When this flag was captured, you attacked the 2nd one and it was almost simple to get the second one.

Battersea:
First objective is hard to disarm. The ladders and small platform are not really designed for hard objective fights. The second part would imo improve if the entrances from the 1st to the 2nd stage would be a bit further away from eachother. Defenders already have the height advantage and the exits are all coming to almost the same place. The interaction with the cranes is a good idea, I don’t know maybe it would be better to create a secondary objective here, like repairing a generator which moves the crane so one defenders route gets blocked and when defenders destroy the generator, the crane moves back. Maybe put the generator a bit further away from the objective so attackers have to made a decision, invest some time to close a defenders route or try it without blocking but give attackers a way to flank.

(Glottis-3D) #20

ok, Greenwich.

  1. The carryable object to make a ramp for roff-route is ok.
    the roof-run is a good shortcut.
    but i am not sure about the timings.
    the time to run ti the battory+carry it back+deliver…does it worth the effort? especilly since it is reversable(so you probably are forced to do it several times).
    i need to play the actual match in the map, not 2v2 or other exotic mess.

I like more irreversable objects, which are far more difficult to make, but change the actual layout in match.

  1. i dont like that there are 2 objects, both capture-like. this is actually in no way an object, cause you dont DO anything, dont INTERACT. even spawn-point with this mechanics are less entertaining. but objects? this does feel like a DOmination mod.

and 1 more thing. both ‘objects’ are very exposed. and there is now advantage for any team - they just play king-of-the hill.

proper 2OBJ stage for is when number of objects bring deeper tactics.
Like with Refinary in ETQW.

  • defend both? too risky
    defend one - but which one?
  • easier to defend, but longer to run to, OR
  • defend the closest to spawn but more exposed?

what happened in those little matches in Greenwich is just ‘Kill the bad guys at 1 obj, recap it ---->>> run to nex obj, do the same thing ----->>>> run back etc’