Dome – Blockout Evolution

(tokamak) #21

Unless you start providing an actual rationale for these claims, straight up ‘believing’ you really is the only way someone is every going to agree on them.

(Glottis-3D) #22

guys, c’mon. lets get back on constructive rails

(montheponies) #23

I’ve mentioned numerous times the underlying problem with the current approach, which stems from trying to make maps that suit both modes (objective and sw). The stock approach from SD is for maps to be designed with an objective leaning, ie. relatively large maps, chopped into sections that give in round progression and take a relatively long time to complete.

These do not suit SW style gameplay where you would want relatively short games that are based around one or two primary objectives. Combine that with a lack of meaningful forward spawns and secondary objectives and you arrive at what we have just now. Just as a reminder here’s a previous post (#5) on the subject which you happened to agree with…

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/41624-Why-Objective-mode-is-broken-by-design?highlight=maps

Anyway, hopefully you’ll get time to play the game and see firsthand how the current maps actually play in both modes.

(ailmanki) #24

montheponies 1
tokamak 0

(tokamak) #25

The discussion never was about average map length. The mean in length of time is matter of taste and isn’t tied to SW or Objective specifically. If anything it would be Objective with the shortest maps as that would allow it to be played in campaigns. In the end the average map length boils down to preferred session length which really is boils down to personal preferences.

What we were discussing is the variance in map length. For SW this variance needs to be as low as possible while Objective mode fares better with high variance. Objective mode can afford to let each match on a particular map pan out wildly different. For SW the opposite is true. The more variance the less meaningful the completion time of each team becomes. Both rounds wouldn’t be as comparable at all as there’s too many small factors causing too many large differences in completion time. If the rounds are based on those jittery causes then there’s no competition going on.

That’s what SD is trying to prevent. That’s why DB maps used to be wide but have been rapidly narrowed down to a select few corridors. All because SW was seen as the main mode.

(Nail) #26

time to inflict my alcohol induced opinion,
No one is “discussing” much, Tok is adding bullet points to his opinion, ponies is trying to counter and remain civil, bonus points to both
To me SW is arena style maps and Obj is sandbox style maps, now you can stick an arena in a sandbox, but never the other way around. I was never into comp, even in W:ET, Obj was the gamestyle I liked. I’d like to see proper obj maps with classes, no probs with others being able to assist, but Engis should be the shizzz, like only always. We need classes and the maps that suit them.

Oh Ya, I like Dome

(.Chris.) #27

Huh? I don’t recall DB ever having wide maps, they used to have more stages but that’s about it.

(tokamak) #28

And those stages could be used as routes. Especially in Bridge.

(ailmanki) #29

The more variance the less borring. And SW is going to be faster borring.

(montheponies) #30

Again, speaking from experience that is completely wrong. The original format used in RTCW was two maps, with attack defense rotated such that each team played two complete SW rounds per map (ABBA). If you played SW competitively you would realise that no one wants to play a 30min map twice. The general consensus being that a 15min map length maximum, completable generally in 10min was ‘best’. If you care to check back on the forums I’m sure there are polls requesting community feedback on both length and number of stages.

(Exedore) #31

I’ve mentioned it perhaps indirectly before, but maps are now made with SW in mind. We don’t compromise any of the geometry for OBJ, we’d sooner bend the rules of that mode as that’s why we’ve kept a degree of flexibility in its rule set.

(tokamak) #32

Agreed! Once two rounds have to be compared against each other it’s important that they’re similar. That’s also what ruins the range of possibilities in a map.

(Sun_Sheng) #33

Agreed, 15 minutes is about right, although I’d personally be happy with up to 20 minutes per round if the map was big enough.

My personal preference for SW, or probably any game for that matter, is that it should be fast-paced with mercs that respond to my thoughts (i:e I don’t like to play Rhino type characters who can’t move quickly enough when I want to do things, or get stuck at a 2ft wall) and the match length should be long enough to allow me to try multiple tactics or develop a strategy (things like pushing 3 times on one side of the map to build pressure and focus there, then switching completely to a flank on the other side). After that, i’m pretty flexible

(Anti) #34

Bumping this thread to get some feedback on Dome now that you folks have played it. What do you like? What could be improved?

(BomBaKlaK) #35

1rst obj !

I dont like

  • 360° turrets over doors
  • Doors already open
  • Time to plant and time to build (explosive to long, build to quick)
  • Transmit point is fun but not suitable for this king of objectives, to narrow. Maybe a little room like in Island on ETQW can be better, and the location in the middle doesn’t help ether.
  • 1rst obj is like fort knox, really hard to do
  • This is a maze without real big area to fight, only the transmit point, and doors are to close from this point.
  • Objective design is still not fun, and I really hate carrying without shooting on all maps.
  • Still not fun and a lot of people clearly hate this map (like pixel)

I like

  • Alternative routes / Tricks routes
  • 3 main obj now !
  • The scale is better than on other maps.
(spookify) #36

I have played 10+ times now and still never got past the first Objective…

Here’s what I would do… All First Stage…

First Attackers need to plant at one or both the doors… (Get ride of the side none explosion route…) (Or keep the side routes but make them dyno too!)

Get ride of the carry… and make that Core room a lot bigger and put a forward spawn in there…

Then Attackers need to plant BOTH arty thingys to win…

THE END get ride of the back end of the map…

(The Forward Spawn can be recapped by a back raging Defender) Remember Travel time in SW is your enemy!

Please do this and then the map will be amazeballz!

—> The above give a story line of breaking 2 enemy wallz and establishing a forward spawn to then attack 2 arty/radar thingys that are messing with attackers air power…

Side Objective could be created to gap something between arty/radar thingys 1 and 2…

Get this --> Once one of the two arty/radar thingys are destroyed and the enemy falls back and heavily defends One of the two arty/radar thingys then the importance of side objectives are very important… A bridge or a Door hax or something to create another path to the heavily defended last arty/radar thingys would be huge…

(Glottis-3D) #37
  1. make one of the doors permanent.
  2. make transmit OBJ site bigger like in Island/Outskirts/Maridia
(prophett) #38

Should have to steal parts and bring them back to around where the attackers spawn to transmit.

(INF3RN0) #39

obj1.jpg1071×943 112 KB

Visual of what I described as the more ideal layout early on.

(RasteRayzeR) #40

[QUOTE=Glottis-3D;514548]
2. make transmit OBJ site bigger like in Island/Outskirts/Maridia[/QUOTE]

Agreed. It’s currently quite small and opened from everywhere. Maybe make it a slight bit bigger, and close one of the entrances so the team knows where to defent. Could be an interesting test.