Extraction's main problem

(attack) #21

[QUOTE=S0und_;467615]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.

First of all, 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, leaving this side) ~24sec
Phase3: (left side, 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

And i’m comparing 2 objectives to 4!.

I’m not sure if you played W:ET on Oasis, but i[/QUOTE]

but et had much longer respawn times , so you could time your attacks to get some defeners fullspawn

and why the contrast between camden and oasis
waterlo and oasis would be better

(attack) #22

i would say the main problem is maybe they create the textures and details before the gameplay on the map is smooth that is so much unneeded work and let changes at map be much more work intensive

(.FROST.) #23

The different development departments work parallel. You are basically suggesting, that either the texture-guys should go on vacation, until all the major map/gameplay problems were solved, or that they should swap over to the map design-guys(wich would suddenly make a lot of map designers I would think).

And I only have very limited knowledge, of the actual map building process, but I’d think there’s not much difference between a textured and a un-textured map, since 3D objects and textures are stored and loaded seperately. With other words; you could easilly remove all textures instanly, and you’d have a completely un-textured(blockout) map, wich you’d probably perceive as more flexible for changes. But that’s only a subjective impression I’d think.

(S0und_) #24

[QUOTE=attack;467618]but et had much longer respawn times , so you could time your attacks to get some defeners fullspawn

and why the contrast between camden and oasis
waterlo and oasis would be better[/QUOTE]

it was like 20/30? what we have in Xt, 15/20? (i’m not sure tbh)

Honestly it’s kinda pointless to complain about the gameplay/maps right now. Even doing organised pugs is NOTHING compared how certain tactics will work on maps with a proper team. Anyone spent a decent amount of time on creating attacking/defensive tactics? transitions between phases? Just becase you are on teamspeak you still have no idea where you suppose to be on the map/phase. I think there is plenty of time to do map fixes (like EV position on LB/Phase1) in the open Beta.

[QUOTE=attack;467618]but et had much longer respawn times , so you could time your attacks to get some defeners fullspawn
and why the contrast between camden and oasis
waterlo and oasis would be better[/QUOTE]
this is actually true, but i can’t test it alone, since you need atleast one defender to start a map.

(Erkin31) #25

Long games doesn’t affect the fun for me , I have no problem with this in DB.
For me, the" fast paced" thing is unrelated with the duration of a game. It’s only a question of movements of our character.
Make a respawn of 2sec and small maps will not give us a fast paced game, as Quake 3 will remain a fast fps even with respawn of 30 seconds .

I even found that the spawns are too close of objectives in DB.

(.FROST.) #26

[QUOTE=Erkin31;467637]Long games doesn’t affect the fun for me , I have no problem with this in DB.
For me, the" fast paced" thing is unrelated with the duration of a game. It’s only a question of movements of our character.
Make a respawn of 2sec and small maps will not give us a fast paced game, as Quake 3 will remain a fast fps even with respawn of 30 seconds .

I even found that the spawns are too close of objectives in DB.[/QUOTE]

That’s just talking about words. Just forget, that I’ve ever said fast paced game*I meant, that I want quicker matches(hope that satisfies your need for the proper term). And as I’ve said a couple times in this thread; you can be fast as light, but that wouldn’t help you a thing, when the EV decides to go with 5 km/h, or your charge gets disarmed for the 5th time, because it takes ages for that thing to blow up. Let’s not forget the crazy spawntimes and the sometimes quite remote positions of your spawn. Add to that the close proximity of the enemy spawn to your objective and matches stretch way beyond their welcome.

*(even though I’d think the term is entirely correct, since it implies the game/match is fast and not necessarilly the character; cause that’s what I’d call a fast moving character, but whatever.)

(BomBaKlaK) #27

[QUOTE=Erkin31;467637]Long games doesn’t affect the fun for me , I have no problem with this in DB.
For me, the" fast paced" thing is unrelated with the duration of a game. It’s only a question of movements of our character.
Make a respawn of 2sec and small maps will not give us a fast paced game, as Quake 3 will remain a fast fps even with respawn of 30 seconds .

I even found that the spawns are too close of objectives in DB.[/QUOTE]

+1 maps are to small so spawn are just near the obj.
and yes fast paced is only about movement, and EXT is clearly not a fast paced game for the moment.
I don’t have any problem with a 20 min timer to.

(S0und_) #28

Ok, timings on Waterloo:

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

Attacker:
(Wall)
Phase1: right building(curved stairs): ~27sec
Phase1: between the two building: ~23sec
Phase1: left building: ~28sec
Phase1: pump: ~19sec

(PDA)
Phase2: left side(escalator): ~28sec
Phase2: right side (where the pump is, then into the building, second floor way) ~34sec
Phase2: Defender: (stairway) ~14sec
Phase2: Defender: (escalator) ~18sec

(the 2 container)
Phase3: middle (next to the escalator) ~20sec
Phase3: (pump repaired) pump: ~16sec
Phase3: Defender: right side: 13sec
Phase3: Defender: left side: 12sec

Special thanks to : 1-800-NOTHING

(1-800-NOTHING) #29

personally i don’t find the map length to be exhausting, it’s the combat that wears me down.

view kick from being hit + recoil + input lag/frame rate issues + unresponsive movements/delayed actions + latency/damage weirdness issues + high spread and skinny hitboxes + more hidey holes than a swiss cheese + high RoF/unpredictable TTK + constant engagements = too much.

(Protekt1) #30

@rex, Objective gameplay is about coordinated attacks and doing the objective while 3-4 other guys watch your back. If you reduce the need for your back to be covered, you’re in essence reducing the objective side of the game. That is my view at least. I definitely could see some things being tweaked though.

(acQu) #31

[QUOTE=1-800-NOTHING;467692]personally i don’t find the map length to be exhausting, it’s the combat that wears me down.

view kick from being hit + recoil + input lag/frame rate issues + unresponsive movements/delayed actions + latency/damage weirdness issues + high spread and skinny hitboxes + more hidey holes than a swiss cheese + high RoF/unpredictable TTK + constant engagements = too much.[/QUOTE]

I feel exactly the same. When the game is a bit more polished, then hopefully it will be better, but still, the constant engagements are hugely overdone and make the game pretty exhausting. You have no chance than constantly fight, fight, fight. I know, it is a huge part of the game, probably the main part, but it feels too stressy. Can be only relaxed by decongesting (is that a word?) the maps, e.g. more side routes, which spread the happening, and generally more space, which the movement system kinda does not allow. This is noticable really well when playing Camden 3 v 3. It almost seems too big then. Never experienced this in any other game where it is really tiny nuances (e.g. making maps a bit more bigger) have such huge impact and immediately affect almost anything. It is because everything is just so small in xT in general.

(Rex) #32

Oh, you don’t say!

I have no idea what you are talking about.

(Protekt1) #33

[QUOTE=Rex;467708]Oh, you don’t say!

I have no idea what you are talking about.[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t trying to educate you, it is called setting a premise and following it up with a conclusion.

And I thought it was clear that I was talking about covering your teammate’s back while he performs objectives. If the objectives are performed easier/faster than that is the result imo.

Have a nice day.1

(.-COM-.PAIN) #34

[QUOTE=1-800-NOTHING;467692]personally i don’t find the map length to be exhausting, it’s the combat that wears me down.

view kick from being hit + recoil + input lag/frame rate issues + unresponsive movements/delayed actions + latency/damage weirdness issues + high spread and skinny hitboxes + more hidey holes than a swiss cheese + high RoF/unpredictable TTK + constant engagements = too much.[/QUOTE]

Have to agree here. The shooting just doesn’t seem right still. I have nearly 2000 hours in L4D2 after stopped played WET. L4D shooting is so much like WET. I’ll sound like a dead horse but the recoil in this game just turns me off and the game gets turned off as a result. The shooting in this game shouldn’t be this hard if there is any chance for it to go mainstream.

(Bloodbite) #35

[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]

isn’t this something that could potentially be solved by a radical rebalancing of the characters as a whole? ie, Heavily increased damage values against the EV, faster objective interactions (or maybe just plant/defuse)?

Those would naturally rely heavily on complimentary spawn timing and runs the risk of outbalancing any and all use of mines, maybe a little for turrets too…

Is the in-session XP leveling idea, ala ET, still on the table or is that now completely out with the MOBA style character approach?

(stealth6) #36

[QUOTE=Bloodbite;467722]isn’t this something that could potentially be solved by a radical rebalancing of the characters as a whole? ie, Heavily increased damage values against the EV, faster objective interactions (or maybe just plant/defuse)?

Those would naturally rely heavily on complimentary spawn timing and runs the risk of outbalancing any and all use of mines, maybe a little for turrets too…

Is the in-session XP leveling idea, ala ET, still on the table or is that now completely out with the MOBA style character approach?[/QUOTE]

I watched Cynical brits thoughts yesterday: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37522-PAX-Prime-2013-Interview-amp-Gameplay?p=467500&viewfull=1#post467500

There he says that there will be in-session XP building that you use for ultimates?

(Volcano) #37

as far as i know the panzer that is being made is a “ultimate”

(.FROST.) #38

Increasing the damage values of the EV would only slow down the game even further and would make escort missions much more of a chore.

Imo everything concerning attacker-objectives should be speed up. They already did that with the all can do all. But now it’s time to tweak the objectives themselfs again. Attackers are still and allways were on a disadvantage, since they have two enemies; the OPFOR and time, whereas the defenders have only one enemy; the attackers, and one ally; time. That’s so imbalanced by nature, that you simply have to “help” the attackers in order to keep people from rage quitting.

(attack) #39

[QUOTE=.FROST.;467806]Increasing the damage values of the EV would only slow down the game even further and would make escort missions much more of a chore.

Imo everything concerning attacker-objectives should be speed up. They already did that with the all can do all. But now it’s time to tweak the objectives themselfs again. Attackers are still and allways were on a disadvantage, since they have two enemies; the OPFOR and time, whereas the defenders have only one enemy; the attackers, and one ally; time. That’s so imbalanced by nature, that you simply have to “help” the attackers in order to keep people from rage quitting.[/QUOTE]

the easiest way is still balance with mapdesign.
c4 time should give the possibility to defuse
how easy it is to defuse must be up to the map

(attack) #40

[QUOTE=stealth6;467800]I watched Cynical brits thoughts yesterday: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37522-PAX-Prime-2013-Interview-amp-Gameplay?p=467500&viewfull=1#post467500

There he says that there will be in-session XP building that you use for ultimates?[/QUOTE]

in SW modes in et and in the most competition this was disabled .i also never liked it because its unbalanced if the first defender have 3 nades and the other one 1 nade