Current issue with "Map Flow" and Spawn Timers...

(PixelTwitch) #1

Below is an image that shows the CURRENT and IDEAL map flow, based on distance as time.

mapflow.png882×1056 13.6 KB

What this image demonstrates is the imblanaced distance from the objectives, lack of defendable space from the objective towards the attackers spawn and side objectives that are simply not worth the effort in most cases… Obviously this is just an overview of the problem and is not exact case for some objectives. What you will find however is that the majority do fit the pattern of the “CURRENT” labled image.

The spawn timers also play a part in this also…
While it is true that ATTACKERS do wait longer then DEFENDERS to spawn. That time difference is often not only negated but totally reversed…

EXAMPLE
ATTACKERS = 20sec
DEFENDERS = 25sec
Distance for ATTACKERS = 12sec
Distance for DEFENDERS = 5sec

In this case the DEFENDERS still end up 2 seconds better off when it comes to getting back into the fight.
This is often negated by tweaking spawn times for each team based on the current objective.

Now, due to the fact that SD have already mentioned that they are looking into SET spawn times for both ATTACKERS and DEFENDERS regardless of map or objective. From now on maps will need to be deisgned taking Distance as Time into consideration.

Following the IDEAL setup the time it takes both teams to get into the fight should be around equal… To negate the over effectiveness of a first push I propose that the DEFENDERS get a 3-5 second initial spawn advantage to allow them to position and ready for the fight.

It is important that once an objective has been started that the ATTACKERS have the option to push forward to defend the objective from infront rather then having to fight at the objective. If this option is given at each objective it opens up the ability to make objectives take longer… Like upping the C4 detonation to 1:30-2:00 and doubling the length of time it takes to HACK/REPAIR… This is important because not only would it flip the teams roles for a decent amount of time. It also lengthens the overall minimum completion time and prevents 2-5min rounds…

Here is an example of how the whole map should progress…

mapprogression.png386×1014 48.6 KB

And here are the advantages in following the IDEAL objective setup and map progression…

[ul]
[li]Longer Minimum Round Times
[/li][li]Makes the most out of each maps play area
[/li][li]Should reduce the number of “Full Holds”
[/li][li]Gives the ability to create more complex objectives
[/li][li]Gives space for multiple side objectives
[/li][li]Prevents the meat grinder effect
[/li][li]Enables a set spawn timer across maps and objectives
[/li][li]Gives ATTACKERS ability to cut off renforcements via flanking
[/li][/ul]

Overall… I feel that the maps should be re-balanced in such a way that the ATTACKERS nearly always win. Due to the constant feeling of progression the games will feel more fun to play for the casual crowd and that will result in less rage quitting in public games. In competitive games it should keep the feeling of excitement high and make the defence the round that is most important to play well…

If you think I have missed anything out please do let me know… I just wanted to share my thoughts on the current system.

(Mustang) #2

Hahaha, I don’t know how long it has been mentioned that defenders spawns are too close to objective and that there aren’t enough side objectives.

Nice pictures though.

I can add something, it doesn’t have to be completely linear from attackers spawn to objective to defenders spawn, there can be somewhat of a triangular nature to the relationship.

(PixelTwitch) #3

[QUOTE=Mustang;498619]Hahaha, I don’t know how long it has been mentioned that defenders spawns are too close to objective and that there aren’t enough side objectives.

Nice pictures though.

I can add something, it doesn’t have to be completely linear from attackers spawn to objective to defenders spawn, there can be somewhat of a triangular nature to the relationship.[/QUOTE]

lol you NEVER READ THE PICTURE!!! lol

The images represent Distance and Time, not structure :slight_smile: so yea you can make what ever silly shape you like out of the maps :smiley:

(Mustang) #4

I did read the text actually.

Speed = Distance / Time

So unless you plan to magically increase movement speed then distance and time are directly proportional. :tongue:

(PixelTwitch) #5

[QUOTE=Mustang;498622]I did read the text actually.

Speed = Distance / Time

So unless you plan to magically increase movement speed then distance and time are directly proportional. :tongue:[/QUOTE]

Don’t get cocky… Kid…
I know what I mean… Even if I am unable to explain it :stuck_out_tongue:

(Erkin31) #6

Overall… I feel that the maps should be re-balanced in such a way that the ATTACKERS nearly always win. Due to the constant feeling of progression the games will feel more fun to play for the casual crowd and that will result in less rage quitting in public games.

But, this will create a frustration for the defender side no ? The impression that you aren’t able to defend the objective.

What I always liked in ET, and that I don’t found it in Brink, is the impression that the defense team has a fortress. With mines, wall, gates, etc. You could prepare the ground for the future war.
And in the attack team, when you break the defense, you really have the impression to be in enemy territory. And the short spawn distance for the defender team is important to give the effect of fortress.

However, your supposition interests me if it permit us to have bigger maps with more secondary objectives.

(BomBaKlaK) #7

[QUOTE=Erkin31;498627]But, this will create a frustration for the defender side no ? The impression that you aren’t able to defend the objective.

What I always liked in ET, and that I don’t found it in Brink, is the impression that the defense team has a fortress. With mines, wall, gates, etc. You could prepare the ground for the future war.
And in the attack team, when you break the defense, you really have the impression to be in enemy territory. And the short spawn distance for the defender team is important to give the effect of fortress.

However, your supposition interests me if it permit us to have bigger maps with more secondary objectives.[/QUOTE]

Yep that’s it, I ask for this since over a year but they prefer to cut the maps in half …
Maps is the master issue of this game ! No doubt

(prophett) #8

D spawns being too close isn’t the issue. Defenders spawning too fast is.

On waterloo you have to beat two waves of defenders to plant, and then defend it against another two waves…

20s spawns are too fast for D.

(Glottis-3D) #9

on some maps, the 20seconds can work very well.
like on area22 in ETQW.
because there attackers could (and literaly had to) capture Defendors’ forward spawn and push them back
on some maps the layout of the map allowed for attackers to defend the plant - so that even 2 waves of defenders wasnt enough to defuse.

this is all Map-issue. a good map design is needed. and then we can speak about spawn-times, so that to balance the map to perfection.

for me. if the defendors spawn-time is more than 25 seconds, than the map design had flaws (it was biased in favour of defence).

(prophett) #10

20s isn’t working well with either map in db (partially because the maps are bad).

(Glottis-3D) #11

this thread is more “How to make a proper map, in regards to travel-time-to object and respawn-waves-time.”

i think most important is the Time-to-first encounter, where all the first battles in the map begin. this is the place for a secondary. or a forward spawn. and this is where the actual battle-layout is placed. with corssfire, trickjumps, sideroutes etc.

(xdc) #12

simple, make the maps less linear, therefore less predictable. moar execution

(BomBaKlaK) #13

Yep this is it ! Definitely maps are THE issue

(Rokkamaisteri) #14

More the ways to move around the map has, more chaotic it also easily becomes for both sides. I don’t believe that’s what fixes the issue only.

I don’t think all maps are bad either, I personally believe the Whitechapel is really great map to play. It has these traditional chokepoints, but has these paths to create defense on multiple places and form attack from quite many different paths. Also starting is easy enough for attackers, so it’s not necessarily staying as a meatgrind in single point.

(Glottis-3D) #15

ok. lets just wait for those updates of all maps. i am sure all of them have changed. just not yet updated on servers.

(BomBaKlaK) #16

Hummm … curious last time they cut them in half. Next stage is to make a box ?

(Ashog) #17

[QUOTE=prophett;498716]D spawns being too close isn’t the issue. Defenders spawning too fast is.

On waterloo you have to beat two waves of defenders to plant, and then defend it against another two waves…

20s spawns are too fast for D.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely this. Maps aren’t a problem - the spawntimes are. Who cares if the defenders spawn is too close? Just increase their spawn time. Hell, increase everybody’s spawn time!! (but more for defenders ofc.)
Only then the gameflow will stop being a constant senseless bashing w/o any gameplay value other than DM.

Regarding timing of defenders spawn in such a way that they get initially 3-5 seconds earlier than attackers to the objective can work only for the first objective, because the spawn timers are not symmetrical for both teams and all objectives. The only way imho is when map kills all teams simultaneously after 1st objective is done (which is artificial and silly) or to block off for a short time the 2nd objective by some map tool (e.g. slow opening gate or barrier or slow explosion) which is complicated and requires a lot of imagination from mappers.

Hopefully the spawntimers will be set individually (or already are, I haven’t thoroughly checked yet) as planned per team per objective.

(DJswirlyAlien) #18

I guess all the objective games I’ve played have done the same thing by default and I just think of it as the norm.

So question for you, how is this different from what players get in Counter Strike or Team Fortress?

(Ashog) #19

Well, I haven’t played CS much (dislike it) but isn’t there anyways only 1 spawn per round? -> incomparable.
TF - no spawn delay (instant spawn), but the weapons are to large extent more explosive + armor - > totally different, more arcade style resulting often in spamfest on the bridge between two bases (on pub) :). Also it’s CTF, so no need to defend the planted dynomight or hack or repair smth for 20 seconds - kill, grad and run, that’s what it basically is. Maps are often symmetric (bases are mirror images of each other). So altogether also incomparable.

(stealth6) #20

[QUOTE=Ashog;499084]Well, I haven’t played CS much (dislike it) but isn’t there anyways only 1 spawn per round? -> incomparable.
TF - no spawn delay (instant spawn), but the weapons are to large extent more explosive + armor - > totally different, more arcade style resulting often in spamfest on the bridge between two bases (on pub) :). Also it’s CTF, so no need to defend the planted dynomight or hack or repair smth for 20 seconds - kill, grad and run, that’s what it basically is. Maps are often symmetric (bases are mirror images of each other). So altogether also incomparable.[/QUOTE]

CS is 1 spawn per round, but TF has respawn waves. You don’t need to defend dyno etc, but you do need to push into the flag room which can take some time. Preferably you want to coordinate your team to get into the flag room quickly clear it and get out within 1 spawn wave so you only have to deal with the defenders once or twice.