Hey there,
I have a few points of feedback about Bridge, regarding several positions and areas: https://imgur.com/a/2AWxD
I wrote this fairly quickly, but I want to have a proper discussion about Bridge and how to improve it. If there are points you disagree with, post it here and i’ll be up to respond.
Thanks for posting auwi, I will take a look at your ideas, bridge isn’t at the top of the list for balance adjustments but every bit of feedback helps for later adjustments.
I disagree about the generator section - before the introduction of Turtle and Guardian it was way to easy for the attackers to simply break the generator with explosives up to the point where it made not much difference whether or not the generator was actually running. Now it’s much better again.
I can only repeat my previous criticism here - the last section needs a change in paths. Unlike Chapel where you can still recover from a team wipe because the objective has to be carried towards you, a single bad spawn phase on Bridge usually means you lose both carriables without being able to even catch up with the delivering merc.
For the barrier generator, a solution could expand the room and move the generator so it doesn’t have a direct line of sight for attackers. To compensate this, create a new entrance from back alley so it will be easier to push defense team inside the room.
Devs need to work on 7 or 8 new maps, not to waste their time on old maps… They are already too slow.
@Begin2018 said:
Devs need to work on 7 or 8 new maps, not to waste their time on old maps… They are already too slow.
Are you kidding? Development speed is fine if not too high… Look at the balance fiesta that is vault, a map that was pushed out too fast and spent too little time in testing.
Exactly, they need to spend more time on new maps instead of wasting time on old one.
I started to play at the very beginning of open beta, and really, they aren’t fast…
I like Vault, what’s the problem you are talking about?
@kopyright said:
I disagree about the generator section - before the introduction of Turtle and Guardian it was way to easy for the attackers to simply break the generator with explosives up to the point where it made not much difference whether or not the generator was actually running. Now it’s much better again.
That is a bit of the issue, Turtle and Guardian can be used easily to protect the gen, and Javelin/Nader/Stoker can take down the generator too easily. To fix this, I think the generator could be put somewhere outside, but have twice (even triple?) the amount of health so other fire supports can help out too. This way more mercs can be effective against the generator than just a few explosive ones, and incentivize engineers again too.
I can only repeat my previous criticism here - the last section needs a change in paths. Unlike Chapel where you can still recover from a team wipe because the objective has to be carried towards you, a single bad spawn phase on Bridge usually means you lose both carriables without being able to even catch up with the delivering merc.
I agree with this part, there should be some kind of cooldown or something so defenders can get back into their base to defend the 2nd core, rather than it just being taken again. It’s not a major problem since instant respawn was added after obj completion, but worth to taking a look at?
@Begin2018 said:
Devs need to work on 7 or 8 new maps, not to waste their time on old maps… They are already too slow.
Quality over Quantity, any kind of content in DB is up for feedback to help improve it. Ignoring current maps to make newer ones doesn’t help, because those newer maps might not be as good as expected. It’s a great focus to try to improve the current set of maps, because higher quality/ better balanced maps are better for players than just a bunch of eh-ish maps.
I was always against being able to destroy the generator through the use of abilities, as it sort of takes away from the “objective” feel. You don’t have to necessarily fight to take over the room and protect it, instead it’s just “okay guys swap to 4 Naders”, or in a competitive environment, swapping to 3-4 Mercs that can nuke it down.
However with the current layout, it would be quite unbalanced if it were not possible to destroy with abilities, as Defenders have a huge advantage having to hold a tiny doorway.
@auwi said:
It’s a great focus to try to improve the current set of maps
No, it’s boring to play the same maps since 2 years and an half. They already changed Bridge. The game should go forward now instead of wasting time on minor fix.
@Begin2018 said:
Exactly, they need to spend more time on new maps instead of wasting time on old one.
I started to play at the very beginning of open beta, and really, they aren’t fast…I like Vault, what’s the problem you are talking about?
At release, the 1st objective was way too easy to defend - the MG had a roof, so you couldn’t airstrike it, to flank the MG you need the generator which was in the open, meaning it was hard to repair, easy to destroy.
Removing the roof of the MG and moving the generator made it balanced.
Small changes like these can vastly improve how the map plays, and no, they don’t take much resources away from developing new maps.
I agree with all of the points in the OP except for the MG nest on last point. I feel like its supposed to be a “high risk, high reward” kinda thing, where you have to make the conscious decision to go up to the nest, knowing that there is only one way out.
The thing I most agree with is the generator situation. It is way too easy to blow that generator without a plant, but 90% of the time that’s what you have to do, because the room also has too much defensive advantage.
I feel like it’s pretty balanced, but it shortcuts the engineer mechanic.
As for the sniper position, the only problem is if the other team didn’t bring any long range. Defending snipers have about 5 positions including the balcony itself where the attacking snipers only have a few.
I would much rather they deal with snipers being able to take high ground and pull way back and expose barely the tops of their heads, making it really hard to dislodge them without flanking.
To be honest bridge is, and always has been, a massive mess. It has improved since its initial versions but it still needs work.
@Begin2018 said:
@auwi said:
It’s a great focus to try to improve the current set of maps
No, it’s boring to play the same maps since 2 years and an half. They already changed Bridge. The game should go forward now instead of wasting time on minor fix.
That sort of mindset leads to having a large array of maps with only a small handful being actually played because the rest are aneurysm-inducing to play. From a professional standpoint (and this is from experience) that sort of approach has more downsides than its worth for a game aiming to be competitive.
For example look at games where maps are very rarely updated and just map after map gets pumped out like tf2 did back in the day. There are maps where certain classes can abuse the flaws to be downright broken and are still a problem even today. Overall they’re better off fixing the problems now so that they can divert their full attention to the new maps when they start churning them out rather than having about 15 or so maps to re-balance all at once (which would then take away from their ability to make any new content during that time). Need I remind you of the Summer Squash 1-3 which came from them ignoring blatant problems for an extended period of time in favor of fresh content.
@-OCB-Wildcard said:
To be honest bridge is, and always has been, a massive mess. It has improved since its initial versions but it still needs work.@Begin2018 said:
@auwi said:
It’s a great focus to try to improve the current set of maps
No, it’s boring to play the same maps since 2 years and an half. They already changed Bridge. The game should go forward now instead of wasting time on minor fix.
That sort of mindset leads to having a large array of maps with only a small handful being actually played because the rest are aneurysm-inducing to play. From a professional standpoint (and this is from experience) that sort of approach has more downsides than its worth for a game aiming to be competitive.For example look at games where maps are very rarely updated and just map after map gets pumped out like tf2 did back in the day. There are maps where certain classes can abuse the flaws to be downright broken and are still a problem even today. Overall they’re better off fixing the problems now so that they can divert their full attention to the new maps when they start churning them out rather than having about 15 or so maps to re-balance all at once (which would then take away from their ability to make any new content during that time). Need I remind you of the Summer Squash 1-3 which came from them ignoring blatant problems for an extended period of time in favor of fresh content.
Wanted to add another thing : it seems obvious that devs should think about existing maps when designing new mercs (and i want to trust them to do so, otherwise it would be really dumb). But there will always be cases they dont think about that players will find out. So the need to rework maps will always be here as long as they’re adding new mercs.