Dome – Blockout Evolution


(Silvanoshi) #1

Set near the Millennium Dome in London, our very own Dome features clustered buildings separated by wide streets, an underground tunnel system to sneak through if you should so desire, and an urban jungle for the many Mercs found in Dirty Bomb to navigate!

Speaking of navigation, Dome takes Dirty Bomb’s advanced movement mechanics such as Wall Jump and Long Jump, and puts them to good use throughout the map. Derelict buildings and spacious roofs have become a sprawling playground for skilled Mercs.

Blockout
Dome is in its blockout stage of development. For those not quite sure what a blockout map is, it basically means that the map has yet to receive the vast majority of the artwork that helps to make the location feel like a living, breathing space. The blockout phase focuses purely on gameplay and map flow. By focusing on those elements early in the map’s development, we can take internal and player feedback, and make quick map updates without the art team having to redo their time consuming work. This allows us to tweak and improve the map far faster than would normally be the case.

Quite a few changes have been made to Dome as, we’ll go through the details below:

A Brand New Objective: 2 becomes 3


*Please note that this image primarily covers the first objective. It does not feature the entire map.

The previous iteration of Dome was a ton of fun to play, but we wanted more! A third objective has long been on the cards, so we’re really pleased to get it into the map now. Due to Dome’s formerly short nature, an additional location allows for even more meaningful changes in gameplay and tactics, and creates a better sense of map momentum and pace.

Since we already had two C4 objectives, we decided to go with a carry. We still wanted to end the map with a bang, so destroying AA gun fit the bill perfectly! The obvious choice was to add new carry objective to the beginning of the level.

The Forward Defence
While it may seem like it’s infinitely more important for the attackers to play aggressively; thanks to Dome’s forward defence setup, defenders need to match that level of aggression in order to secure and hold their strongpoints. Rather than camping the objective, the defenders must push forward to the all-important strongpoints to hold off the onslaught of oncoming attackers.

With the defenders heavily entrenched, the attackers must utilise speed, mobility, and the element of surprise on their side. They’ll need to work together to strike at the heart of the defensive line and break through to attack objectives. The defenders on the other hand, will have to work hard to ensure that their strongpoints remain fully manned and almost impregnable at all times.

Should the defenders fail to ensure that their strongpoints remain secure, they’ll be scattered into the wind and forced to attempt a difficult split defence at each objective.

We’re keen to continue testing the notion of two primary plant locations right now, as they create more varied tactical choices that can be employed to outsmart the opponent. Having to commit to one of the primary routes introduces additional pressing choices that need to be made on the fly. Do you have what it takes to be the benefactor of this?

A Dual Bomb Objective (Objective 2)
Two bomb sites for a primary objective, a notion that prompted quite a bit of discussion amongst the community. A number of you took issue with that notion which is understandable as it isn’t something that we’ve done before.

We’re going to stick with it for the time being as we’d love to find out how you feel it fits into the new Dome setup. One of the things that we’re looking to do here is split group combat into smaller firefights by dividing the active combat area across a number of locations, to ultimately create multiple points of contention at this stage of the map.

Get To The Cover! (Objective 3)
It quickly became clear that planting and holding a bomb plant on what was formally the 2nd objective (now the 3rd) was really quite difficult. The open space left anyone around the objective rife to be filled with lead. As such, we’ve added cover around the point, giving everyone a better chance of being able to plant and diffuse without saying farewell to their noggin.

The Evolution Continues
On the whole, this update sees some sizable additions making their way to Dome. We’re eager to learn what you think of it once you’ve had a little while to sink your teeth into the map, but feel free to share your immediate thoughts after reading the article as well.

Until next time!


(spookify) #2

Confused…

My reading aint so good…

OBJ #1 Attackers grab data Core and deliver??? They can do this by Blow the Gates? Or simply run around them?

OBJ #2 You mention double blowing up of radars again where are they?

OBJ #3 End with a Bang? where?

If you have to blow up 1 or both of the gate I like it… Seems like simple but effect map progression…

Then what?

DB is made for 5v5 so in comp you will need 2 top and 2 back and a rover… Gross…


(Silvanoshi) #3

Ok, so a point of clarification. The image above is solely for the first (new) objective. The map continues on as normal further down (you can see the MG nest that you’re familiar with from the current live map in the lower right corner).

For the first objective, you need to carry the data cores from their pickup point to their delivery point. The gates are secondary objs which can open up a faster route to the primary for the attacking team.

The double obj for section 2 of the map remains much the same as it is in live right now. We want to test it out with this new map flow and see what you guys think.


(INF3RN0) #4

Will have to test before commenting, but the ideal doc run layout would have the pickup and deliver points swapped with those MG positions imo.


(spookify) #5

I agree I hate DB and the fact that we are delivering rather then stealing… Lets take something too the enemy…

Come on SD be creative with your objectives! Suit case nuke or an actually EMP that will knock out power and raise or lower gates directing flow…Forward spawns… Actual gate blow up that are the main first objective…

SD should (just like Anti just did with the draft) create a thread that comes up with creative Objectives…
Right now we have escort the EV, Deliver Date Cores TO the enemy and Blow stuff up that has nothing to do with the map…

Not knocking this map yet and cant wait to play it but remember SD needs to decide how many people these maps will play and then start designing and creating a story… Are attackers and defender going to have 5v5 and boom go from there…


(spookify) #6

When’s the go live of this map next week? :wink:

Early in the week or later in the week hahahahah


(Silvanoshi) #7

Thanks for the feedback so far guys, it’ll be interesting to see if you initial impressions change at all once you’ve had a chance to play it :).

Spook, they map will come online with the next update, which will be available…soon™…


(prophett) #8

I also think a steal, escape, and secure is more exciting than the current delivery setup.

When is this going live?


(spookify) #9

[QUOTE=prophett;514039]I also think a steal, escape, and secure is more exciting than the current delivery setup.

When is this going live?[/QUOTE]

If you guys do a TV spot mistasparkle has some great footage of me… That guy loves to spec me :smiley:


(Glottis-3D) #10

need to test the hell out of it!

and realy this is kind of pre-discussion that we’ve been asking for 2 years.
detailed map discussion.
good to have this eventually


(Mustang) #11

Harps on about advanced movement; only has two offerings. :frowning:
Slide, rampjump, mantle, less restrictive walljump/longjump, etc.

Very good news! :slight_smile:

:frowning:

I think you mean formally 2nd, now 3rd, but that aside, the issue wasn’t so much the open space, it was (and I presume still is) the lack of capturable forward spawn.


(BomBaKlaK) #12

So the question is : When can we be able to test this new iteration ?


(INF3RN0) #13

[QUOTE=Silvanoshi;514033]Thanks for the feedback so far guys, it’ll be interesting to see if you initial impressions change at all once you’ve had a chance to play it :).
[/QUOTE]

Well the fundamental goal of a doc run is to make both the pickup and delivery points viable areas of interest to both teams, with some moderate bias towards both teams (ie, spawning closer to deliver or pickup). The layout seems good for this, but the points are once again too heavily biased making this a deliver obj and not a doc run. The strategy this facilitates is obj humping, which is not dynamic or fun.


(Mustang) #14

Yea, why can’t we try a more diamond/square shape to the spawn/docpoints rather than a linear line through them all.


(Szakalot) #15

/\ What they said

Most exciting obj runs are short and heavily biased towards defenders. Beach or goldrush doc/gold runs demonstrate this mechanic well.

Other type of doc runs are longer, but provide escape route/respite from the enemy: ice, radar.

This however brings another problem in DB in the form of being able to run too fast with obj. If you are behind, you will never catch up, and map layouts do not allow for setting up ambushes.

Delivery obj can work, but they are really overdone compared to ‘grab this objective and get the hell out’. Personally, I’d like to see delivery objectives being generally easy, but provide only short-term tactical advantage,rather then be the primary objective of the map. Something along the lines of : deliver EMP charge - air purifier / barricade shuts down, locking down areas.


(tokamak) #16

Defender bias maps are always more fun as it a conflict that everyone in both teams can catch up on and respond to. If the match is a steamroller then both the winners and the losers feel like it’s out of their control.

SD deliberately avoided a defense biase however, that’s because a defense bias ruins stopwatch mode. I think that setting out to make a SW as the main mode from the outset has really corrupted the testing process so far. The entire process hinged on it and it created really streamlined, eroded, maps that attackers pass through like a chipotle.


(montheponies) #17

[QUOTE=tokamak;514147]Defender bias maps are always more fun as it a conflict that everyone in both teams can catch up on and respond to. If the match is a steamroller then both the winners and the losers feel like it’s out of their control.

SD deliberately avoided a defense biase however, that’s because a defense bias ruins stopwatch mode. I think that setting out to make a SW as the main mode from the outset has really corrupted the testing process so far. The entire process hinged on it and it created really streamlined, eroded, maps that attackers pass through like a chipotle.[/QUOTE]

Really?

My view is that we have maps that favour absolutely no mode, don’t delude yourself that somehow SW has been catered for with the current crop of serial objectives that make maps feel small and cramped, with no to-ing and fro-ing, as the map is fundamentally gated and linear.

Beach, Ice, Base, Frostbite - all relatively small maps that suited SW as the prime objective was available to be completed from the get go and the entire map was played throughout the round.

I’ve asked before, but do you actually play much, as your posts always come across as theory based rather than on empirical evidence.


(tokamak) #18

That’s exactly what makes them SW maps. For Objective the huge variance that comes with back and forthing wouldn’t be a big deal. But for SW it would either lead to stalemates or the match already being decided in the first round.

SW needs a very low variance on completion times to make teams feel like they’re competing for seconds. That’s why the maps are being streamlined right now.

I’ve asked before, but do you actually play much, as your posts always come across as theory based rather than on empirical evidence.

I’m afraid you’re mistaking substantiating points with actual arguments for theorising here. If you’re unable to deal with the reasoning then that’s fine, just don’t resort to ad hominems like that.


(Glottis-3D) #19

OBj is a mod for very different outcomes. with a room for mistakes.
SW is all about balance. the point is SD somehow decided to balance the SW to “no fulldolds”. and this is the opposite of balance. it is imbalance by defenition.
i would like to see every SW map balanced. not depending on whether they are fullholdish or not. at least not at start points where the layout is NOT YET finished.

any specific OBJ needs to have a
-quickest play. (defence mistake)
-normal play defence use their usual bias for time killing from start. but secondary objects, including IRREVERSABLE objects get rid of that def-bias. so that obj becomes not def-biased.
-long play, or fullhold, wrong tier teams or strat mistakes by attackers.

and the maps should be balanced at every obj by its NORMAL play.
def-bias -> they own -> chain of secondaries -> attacker-bias -> attackers win.

this is exactly why we need good secondaries, forward spawns etc.


(montheponies) #20

[QUOTE=tokamak;514189]That’s exactly what makes them SW maps. For Objective the huge variance that comes with back and forthing wouldn’t be a big deal. But for SW it would either lead to stalemates or the match already being decided in the first round.

SW needs a very low variance on completion times to make teams feel like they’re competing for seconds. That’s why the maps are being streamlined right now.[/QUOTE]

I’ve played competitively on RTCW (low-mid level) so don’t really need someone explaining the concept to me, nor do i need an explanation of objective mode. Believe me when i say the current maps are nothing like suited to SW, as I would recognise it from competitive RTCW / W:ET.

I’m afraid you’re mistaking substantiating points with actual arguments for theorising here. If you’re unable to deal with the reasoning then that’s fine, just don’t resort to ad hominems like that.

No I’m really, genuinely, curious as I’ve never saw you on any servers, unless you play under a different name?

Personally I dont know how you can possible conclude that the current maps are based upon SW requirements, guess if your frame of reference was ETQW you wouldnt know any better.