Spawn waves in TF? Is it a TF2 feature? I am quite sure that QWTF and TF classic and most probably Q3F didn’t have waves - just instaspawns…
Current issue with "Map Flow" and Spawn Timers...
onYn
(onYn)
#23
I feel like one of the main differences to games like CS, and the goal of how to balance a map is that objectives aren´t taken within one swoop all the time. And I am not talking about pub games here, but about organized competition. It should be a constant fight where you never know if they will be able to finish, or incase of a plant protect it even if they won one fight at the objective. The defense should still be able to counter, allways. This is the case in CS as well, but I feel like it should be much more possible to happen in DB. It´s so important to be able to have a valid option of taking back the objective, or rather decide to fall back to the next objective and set up defenses. Of course in the end the whole map should deliver an average finish time of let´s say 13 minutes in the end so the balancing needs to be really tight. However, I feel like this is one important part, to make the long rounds in objective base games exciting enough to play and spectate.
That´s actually my concern, about making the spawn times equal for all maps, and just adjusting the map length. In the future map times will change, because of teams developing better strategies and being able to capitalize upon picking up single defenders much better, but also because of meta changes within the merc system - assuming that abilities will have a significant impact on the game. Those changes will affect the maps in a different extent. Simple individual spawn time changes for adjusting the map balance for any future build update would be much easier than stretching the map, or moving the spawns then.
And yes, this are, like I found out this is called in English, blind assumptions about SD updating and balancing the content after release.
Ashog
(Ashog)
#24
Nah, original popular TF was QWTF (for quakeworld). TFC (classic) was a Half-Life mod/total conversion.
Didn’t play TF2 since they had ditched grenades. TF w/o grenades isn’t TF. But hell, even then TF2 was much spammier than original one with all nades.
BomBaKlaK
(BomBaKlaK)
#25
So from what I saw people playing on Victoria mostly dont like the game, they said “the game sucks”, "maps are ultra small ! is there any bigger maps? ", “stupid map design”, etc … mostly due to the lack of 1rst objective access, really easy to spawncamp the 1rst attacker spawn.
But people playing on WC enjoy the game a bit more, I read a lot of “this game is awesome”, “I enjoy much better this map than the other”, “ha maps are not all small as the other one”, etc …
So what the next move about maps ?
Cause for the moment WC is for me the only real playable map, still not good but much better than the other maps.
BomBaKlaK
(BomBaKlaK)
#27
the 2 new maps got some good improvement but I still absolutely dislike them ! Both !
Battersea and Greenwich with the capture zone as objective (seriously … keep this for another gamemode !)
Battersea :
- 1rst capture zone is not really interesting …
- 2nd obj (1rst door to blow) is a massive meatgrind, I suppose it’s a remake of battery (beach, high ground for defense, etc …)
- 3rd capture zone to hold is meh … even if the design f the room is much better with multiple access, the objective is not interesting.
The level design got some improvement like multiple acces a bit more routes, interesting tricks jumps, etc …
But objectives design is horrible, and the map is really small as usual now …
Greenwich
- 1rst objective with a DOUBLE CAPTURE ZONE !!! Seriouly W.T.F ?
- I can’t tell more we alway stuck on the first objective …
Design of the map is nice, multiple secondary obj, multiple access, differents levels, sneaky access.
But same as battersea the objective are really uninteresting, boring, small, …
I really hope some better maps, i’m really afraid about the map pool.
1 playable map for the moment, waiting for BIG improvements.
Alchemy
(Alchemy)
#28
I think that having the side objective so close and down the same path still creates the meatgrindy feel and still gives the defenders a strong adv.
I think creating some space between side objs and main obj can add alittle more depth and add some variance. I feel that if routes/lanes to the different objectives (The main ones aswell as the side/small ones) had more space inbetween them so defenders can’t guard all of them(ala london bridge where all the paths are 3-5 secs away from each other) it would create a more give and take flow to the game.
Kinda like this
I also think that adding side obj like forward spawns, good deployable cover, good high ground, and maybe even things like shorter cooldown buff. To make taking side obj really worthwhile, but also adding a good risk reward to the map, defending all 3 obj would be ideal, but you risk spreading too thin and losing 2/3 of them.
What are your thoughts?
PixelTwitch
(PixelTwitch)
#29
lol I think you miss understand. The graphic was not supposed to represent a shape just distance 
so yea thats the kinda thing I was talking about
BomBaKlaK
(BomBaKlaK)
#30
I play a bit more greenwich today, and I like the last obj even if it’s not yet finished. There is plenty of tricks jumps, alternatives routes you can build or destroy to give new acces etc … and there is space !!! Dam we need more maps base on this idea of alternatives tricks jump routes, alternative route with side obj, etc … that’s make the game much more breathable. Curious to see the evolution and the art pass.
but definitely the first obj is not working at all.
PixelTwitch
(PixelTwitch)
#31
[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;500639]I play a bit more greenwich today, and I like the last obj even if it’s not yet finished. There is plenty of tricks jumps, alternatives routes you can build or destroy to give new acces etc … and there is space !!! Dam we need more maps base on this idea of alternatives tricks jump routes, alternative route with side obj, etc … that’s make the game much more breathable. Curious to see the evolution and the art pass.
but definitely the first obj is not working at all.[/QUOTE]
it’s funny because we did a few draft games using this map and almost everyone was seriously kicking off about how bad the map was. The complaint is that the final objective is far to open and bla bla bla.
What I am getting at is I am wondering if many people even know what they like right now.
If multiple people on the forums are all asking for the same thing, (more open better maps) but then complain about maps that offer it. (Greenwitch, Battersea), Then I seriously do not think I understand what they are asking for.
Mustang
(Mustang)
#32
I thought the main complaint was that people didn’t know map to be fair, I’d like to play it some more if people are willing.
BomBaKlaK
(BomBaKlaK)
#33
Sorry but I really don’t like battersea for the moment, absolutely not open, and objectives are bull****.
Yes the last obj on greenwich is far to open, but this is not my main concern here, this part is on the work, there is only few stuff so for the moment, it’s not representative of the final objective. But the 2 doors you can destroy or build, the space you have with big room, buildings, alternative access, etc … It’s way better than the previous versions.
Actual maps are just horrible, look like rats boxes, without any alternative route, useless and boring pseudo side obj, there is no space, everything is a narrow corridor, you need maximum 20s to reach the objective, and 25 to reach the opposite spawn, this is so narrow, even in 5v5 or 6v6 it’s a big mess. There is no time to breath, always in a frontal fight cause there is not enough routes or side obj are useless, this is just not fun at all, this lead to a uber super meatgrind !
Nothing tactical at all …
So if nothing is done in regard of the player base who clearly don’t like the actual maps, this game will end in a 0,001% player retention like brink did ! That’s all.