Extraction's main problem


(.FROST.) #1

It’s been said many, many times before, through all of the builds and it was actually tweaked and all, but the problem still remains; Extraction is way too slow(coming from me right:wink:).

Yet not in the way the characters move(since they are pretty fast, their speed is just right imo), but in the time it takes to finish the maps.

The EV has to be MUCH faster, the time on the timer until the C4 charge explodes has to be shorter, respawn has to be cranked up a huge chunk, hacking should be faster and so on and so forth. You could be fast like a freakin blitz, but if the gamplay is working like a motherhugging snail, than everything will still feel like a MMORPG style grindfest, that will have you exhausted after 3 matches.

If RPG players would be XT’s actual target group, then it maybe could work, but since XT’s target group are most certainly FPS players, wich usually prefer fast paced action*, and being pumped with adrenaline, then the game should fulfill those “desires”. Grinding your brains out will most certainly repel those guys which are seeking the rush of a FPS game. And with the standard FPS guys out of the picture who’d be left?

There’s a great possibility, that I’m entirely wrong, sure, maybe I’m not quite part of the target group, idk, but I can definitely say, that Extraction isn’t a game I can’t stop playing. I had many awesome matches, but I also felt quite exhausted afterwards(and I’m talking post nausea times here).

Simply put; people would much rather play 15matches in 4hrs, than three matches in 70 minutes

*wich is, imo, much more tied to the overall gameplay and map size and layout than to the character’s movement speed.


(attack) #2

the tank have definitly to be faster .
im not sure about the “more” people faster tank point".
its pointless to have to stay with 4 people at tank and nobody can hold other strategic points.
c4 i dont know.
like you said the biggest problem is the size of the maps


(Protekt1) #3

I’m confused… if you make objectives faster you’re placing less emphasis on working to complete them. Wouldn’t it then become more about TDM?

I’m also a bit confused about your reference to a MMORPG style grind fest. What makes you feel that way about the game?

Lastly, I’m not seeing a big issue with the timing on objectives. Certainly we’ll see a few tweaks here and there, if not on specific objectives then on how fast a specific archetype completes objectives.

Oh… referring to fast paced gameplay. It is a pretty vague term imo. To me it means the ability to move around fast. A game like CoD sorta has this but since you’re forced to use ADS and that slows you down considerably that makes the gameplay rather slow to me. You can die very fast at every corner as well.


(acQu) #4

Fast-paced? So what does it mean :slight_smile: For me it is player movement entirely. Not just forward sprint, but the missing sideward sprint is a problem for me. When coupled with longer TTK and high spread it creates a very weird infight movement mechanic. I kinda miss the “booom headshot” feeling from W:ET, and the many options you had with infight movement (well it were not that many, but the circular crosshair movement where you could gain a bit of speed and which made you feel like a total animal running across the ground, literally putting all your energy into movement, combined with the sidewards sprint ability make the difference). I kinda miss that. Are we expecting any change in that regard, if someone from SD is reading? Will there be circular crosshair movement enabled to gain a little bit of speed advantage, will there be sidewards sprinting allowed? About the spread, well, this is the bane of having too much modern machine guns imo, if you watch closely, W:ET basically had thompson/mp40, and maybe sten, but you had to be very skilled with it, all other weapons are unique by itself.


(attack) #5

i still say the mainproblem is the implementation of IS.
do it like in qW same acc in IS.IS only zooms in.
hipfire shooter are very rare today and let the game be unique.
CS and TF2 only using hipfire too.


(.FROST.) #6

[QUOTE=Protekt1;467579]I’m confused… if you make objectives faster you’re placing less emphasis on working to complete them. Wouldn’t it then become more about TDM?

I’m also a bit confused about your reference to a MMORPG style grind fest. What makes you feel that way about the game?

Lastly, I’m not seeing a big issue with the timing on objectives. Certainly we’ll see a few tweaks here and there, if not on specific objectives then on how fast a specific archetype completes objectives.

Oh… referring to fast paced gameplay. It is a pretty vague term imo. To me it means the ability to move around fast. A game like CoD sorta has this but since you’re forced to use ADS and that slows you down considerably that makes the gameplay rather slow to me. You can die very fast at every corner as well.[/QUOTE]

-I’m not placing less emphasis on objectives, but it’s beyond annoying when you get your charge disarmed for the 5th time and you can do nothing against it, since your spawn is halfway across the map and you still have to wait 10 secs in Limbo.

-MMORPG grindfest was meant as a metaphore; that you have to do some things over and over again, and then again. With other words repetetive. And if there is a genre that’s most famous for being repetetive, than it has to be the RPG genre. There’s nothing wrong with getting killed over and over again, but there’s a whole lot wrong with getting killed over and over again and achieving nothing. It’s those moments when I sit in my seat and are really wondering; what the eff em I doing here? Is my life really so boring, that I should enjoy being virtual canonfodder?

And I kinda explained two, or three times, how I’d define/explain fast gameplay in regard to Extraction; but I’ll do it again:

-faster objectives
-smaller maps
-faster respawn
-a map with lots of side-routes, wich would make it easier to evade the enemy, and would in course of that speed up the gameplay: more routes=faster gameplay, less routes=slower choke point grindfest gameplay.


(stealth6) #7

Couldn’t you just have made the title “The maps take too long”, now this thread is probably going to go all over the place.

As for the length of the maps imo it’s because of the map design, which I’m pretty sure SD is aware of.


(acQu) #8

[QUOTE=.FROST.;467588]And I kinda explained two, or three times, how I’d define/explain fast gameplay in regard to Extraction; but I’ll do it again:

-faster objectives
-smaller maps
-faster respawn
-a map with lots of side-routes, wich would make it easier to evade the enemy, and would in course of that speed up the gameplay: more routes=faster gameplay, less routes=slower choke point grindfest gameplay.[/QUOTE]

Ew…even smaller maps :eek: That’s insane. Maps need to be massive imo, with steel, nature, chaos, destruction. xT kinda limited itself with just wanting to be Urban and London, although maybe they will expand across multiple cities, but still, just Urban is another thing which gets me all wiggeli and jiggeli :penguin:


(.FROST.) #9

Massive maps = Battlefield, Planetside and maybe Tribes(doesn’t really count though, since the chars are 5 times faster than in a normal FPS game, maybe even faster than that)


(.FROST.) #10

Idk, I want quick action shots, but with interesting objectives, not just dumb TDM, absolutely not. But XT, as it is now, doesn’t give me that rush most of the time. Also the weapons should be less effective on range, than they are now. You might say; whut?!?! So people would use IS even more often?!?!?

No! since actually, when you reduce effectiveness up to a certain degree, people will not even bother using IS. And the attackers wouldn’t get picked off from afar over and over again. Reducing effective range of the weapons adds to faster progressing matches. People would quit camping, since that would mean the’d have to wait until the enemy comes in reach, wich would mean in return, they(the enemy) are advancing and you are going to lose. You’d have to get your a$$ up in order to make a difference.

Not only would that crank up the overall pace of the game, but you’d also have more 1vs1, eye to eye, gun-battles, instead of SMG sniping medics.


(acQu) #11

That’s true, scale up to 8 v 8, bigger maps (Camden is a minimum) + advanced and fun movement = xT got me again :slight_smile: But like this, and if the movement stays like this, i am not going to have much fun with xT. But yes, it makes sense to make the maps shorter, like we have seen with Camden and Pax, IF the movement and player size stays like it is now. It is just another approach to fix what we see is wrong. I already see the problem with movement, from which the map sizes should be derived. As movement is not ok for me, i would want to see a different system in movement first, and then adjust the maps around the new movement system.


(1-800-NOTHING) #12

@.FROST.
i agree with the effective weapon range issue.
just because you can see the enemy off in the distance shouldn’t necessarily mean you can kill it right away.
i kind of think that’s the purpose of sniper rifles, and not ARs/SMGs.


(attack) #13

[QUOTE=.FROST.;467595]Idk, I want quick action shots, but with interesting objectives, not just dumb TDM, absolutely not, but XT, as it is now, doesn’t give me a rush most of the time. Also the weapons should be less effective on range, than they are now. You might say; whut?!?! So people use IS even more often?!?!?

No! since actually, when you reduce effectiveness up to a certain degree, people will not even bother using IS. And the attackers wouldn’t get picked off from afar over and over again. Reducing effective range of the weapons adds to faster progressing matches. People would quit camping, since that would mean the’d have to wait until the enemy comes in reach, wich would mean in return, they(the enemy) are advancing and you are going to lose. You’d have to get up your a$$ in order to make a difference.

Not only would that crank up the pace of the game, but you’d have more 1vs1, eye to eye gun-battles, instead of SMG sniping medics.[/QUOTE]

maybe simply increase the spread in distance and remove IS to get it better balanced


(Smooth) #14

Excessive map length/duration is being addressed as a very high priority, it may take a while (no pun intended) for you guys to see the results of this though.

:slight_smile:


(.FROST.) #15

I definitely wouldn’t go so far to remove IS entirely*, but I’d definitely increase the spread on longer range shots. Especially with smaller arms.

Even if I would like that(wich I don’t), it would neglect the whole selling of weapon skins, sights and weapon tags therefore it wouldn’t be a very realistic demand.


(Rex) #16

Do you want to prevent retakes?

I don’t think the maps are too big, it’s more the map length maybe. Character speed (strafe) and spawn times do still play a role.

What, why would it become more TDM?

[QUOTE=Smooth;467602]Excessive map length/duration is being addressed as a very high priority, it may take a while (no pun intended) for you guys to see the results of this though.

:)[/QUOTE]

Good. Very essential for comp.


(BomBaKlaK) #17

+1 for bigger maps with less obj (3 or 4 max)

  • Make the obj more intense, with a longer route and capturable spawn.
  • More different access not only a “springles can” design.
  • Side objs are still really optional or just useless.
  • Weapon IS put more distance in the fight so that’s no more a run & gun, but a corner camping game.
  • More reward for headshot only, need a low damage bodyshot (6 to 8)

The biggest problem (I think everyone is agree) is the maps, some ppl feel like maps are to big, personally I really think maps are to small. So small that side objectives don’t really matter, cause you can run just in front like a lemming, it take the same time and side obj don’t give you a real advantage.

the second problem is the movement … so slow …


(.FROST.) #18

Not entirely preventing them, but reducing them to a bearable minimum, yes, that was the idea behind it.


(Rex) #19

There should be always chances for retakes, but I agree on a minimum around 1-2.


(S0und_) #20

[QUOTE=.FROST.;467588]-I’m not placing less emphasis on objectives, but it’s beyond annoying when you get your charge disarmed for the 5th time and you can do nothing against it, since your spawn is halfway across the map and you still have to wait 10 secs in Limbo.
[/QUOTE]

If you are talking about Camden: you need 15sec to get back to plant (+10sec spawn). Planting the objective is one thing, defending it, is an other one.

I suggest you to do some tests:
exp:

Seconds = how much second do you need to reach the objective from your spawn point

Camden (attacking side)
Phase1: (left side, warehouse) : ~20sec
Phase1: (right side) ~17sec
Phase1: (under the bridge) ~19sec

Phase2 (electric fence side): ~15sec
Phase2 (warehouse side) ~18sec

Phase3: (middle) ~18sec
Phase3: (warehouse, i don’t have numbers)
Phase3: (left side, corridor, leaving this side ) ~24sec
Phase3: (left side,corridor, through the bridge) ~31sec

Phase4: (right side):~13sec
Phase4: (left side): ~18sec

Contrast to W:ET oasis:

Phase1 (to the flag, in the middle): ~23sec

Phase2 (to North, left side): ~26sec
Phase2 (to South, right side (behind the Axis spawn, pump)): ~35sec

in ET if your engineer(s) died (+unlucky spawntime) you could easily waste 1min from your attack, while the rest of the team were doing “nothing”.

I’m comparing 2 objectives to 4!.