and having escort-able objective routes swinging by the defense’s spawn
I actually like this. Escort has an advantage because they have a finite amount of progress they have to make, and for the most part the game is balanced towards allowing them to make progress even if it is in small amounts at a time. You never make negative progress in an escort mission.
To me having the occasional hump to give defense a brief advantage makes it more interesting.
[QUOTE=kel;368589]I actually like this. Escort has an advantage because they have a finite amount of progress they have to make, and for the most part the game is balanced towards allowing them to make progress even if it is in small amounts at a time. You never make negative progress in an escort mission.
To me having the occasional hump to give defense a brief advantage makes it more interesting.[/QUOTE]
I figured out with the addition of Pryo mines (now I have 3 te he he 
) you can lay them down near the enemy spawn and take the fight to them. Like laying a bear trap. Drop a turret on an angle they can’t see, get their attention with a couple of bullets. Lay low. Then they get stung by a bunch of bees, some fire, and a couple bear trap mines. Blast the wounded walking wounded. Then repeat. Did it on every map on offense last night. Take the fight right to their doorstep! Worked every time. 
Hot Tip: Slide through the gate on CC while your bud plants HE. Take out the stragglers running heedlessly towards the gate. Set up shop under the bridge doing what I outlined above.
GAME OVER.
This is why creating maps for Quake and Unreal is so much fun. Mash shapes together, whatever fits, later on you can make it pretty but until then, anything goes, whatever makes for interesting fights. We used to have LAN parties where we gave everyone two hours to create a map with the Unrealeditor and afterwards we would simply play them for the rest of the week(end), utterly bizarre, unbalanced and often ugly things, but damn they were fun to fight in.
Aproaching reality however makes things much more complicated. That’s why all those warehouse maps are so popular, particular shapes don’t seem as forced.
Brink doesn’t have that excuse however, you’ve got the ark and unlike Baghdad and Stalingrad, it’s a non-existent location with a compelling mix of archaic industrial tones and quirky organic design. There’s very little spatial compositions that couldn’t be fitted using a combination of these two poles.
And I’m with Chris, from a developer that created Goldrush, fans can expect more. Many ET maps had the strength that they weren’t partitioned between the missions. That meant that holding certain areas after they’ve lost some of their importance still made sense as these areas could eventually become important again. I always thought that that’s where ‘Enemy Territory’ got it’s name from.
There’s a reason Security Tower is the most popular map in the polls.
[QUOTE=tokamak;368591]
There’s a reason Security Tower is the most popular map in the polls.[/QUOTE]
Basically lots of points where people complained a lot.
Yet somehow…
So what is it ? Because less craked corridors to get lost all the time (reactor) ? More recognizable map parts ? more open spaces ? variety of objectives (soldier/op/any/medic) ? well balanced chokepoints ?
You tell me…
I personnally like them all, except maybe reactor (only saw the victory cutscene twice on this one), because maybe I haven’t mastered it yet…
LOL Exedore your post really made me smiles since it has to be one of the best use of unnecessarily overcomplicated words I’ve seen lately. Which in turn gives the perception you gave a valid answer when in fact you haven’t, other than to disagree.
You cannot honestly believe that bad level design does not affect player retention and if you do, wow I would seriously have to question that from a lead designer/programmer.
Any badly designed product regardless of the industry it comes from will lose customers. That’s just a simple fact of commerce.
Yes there may be other factors outside the design which may have affected why players have left or not bothered to try the game but you can’t seriously be saying you disagree with what the OP said, bad design = people walking away.
[QUOTE=Cep;368613]LOL Exedore your post really made me smiles since it has to be one of the best use of unnecessarily overcomplicated words I’ve seen lately. Which in turn gives the perception you gave a valid answer when in fact you haven’t, other than to disagree.
[/QUOTE]
“A cursory evaluation of decepticon capability indicates a distinct tactical deficiency!”
In other words, we’re out numbered!
Ha ha ha!
Sorry for the words, but this is not what I said… I said it’s not the only factor, nor possibly even a primary factor.
I won’t for a moment deny it’s a factor, that’d be like saying my job is pointless. 
[QUOTE=Cep;368613]LOL Exedore your post really made me smiles since it has to be one of the best use of unnecessarily overcomplicated words I’ve seen lately. Which in turn gives the perception you gave a valid answer when in fact you haven’t, other than to disagree.
You cannot honestly believe that bad level design does not affect player retention and if you do, wow I would seriously have to question that from a lead designer/programmer.
Any badly designed product regardless of the industry it comes from will lose customers. That’s just a simple fact of commerce.
Yes there may be other factors outside the design which may have affected why players have left or not bothered to try the game but you can’t seriously be saying you disagree with what the OP said, bad design = people walking away.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should look those words up in the dictionary
I don’t need to Kurushi I am well versed in the English language to understand what he was saying but I won’t take your bait
Unfortunately in my experience when I come across people who use fancy words when they could just as easily give a straight forward answer its usually because they either think they are better then everyone else or they are trying to sound intelligent because they haven’t actually got a clue what they are talking about and are hoping you will not either.
Wolfie that’s a classic quote!
Actually play ET:QW and come back…
You don’t understand the point I’m trying to make at all either.
It’s not about the setting that’s superfluous to the discussion, the game can be set anywhere and the same basic principles of level design apply. This thread isn’t about aesthetics so please stop referring to them as if they count towards the gameplay in any meaningful manner.
Brink makes some mistakes in the way the maps are set out, not in how they appear.
Distances between spawn points and the objectives and the locations of choke points are crucial. Get these wrong and you get a poor map no matter where the map is set.
Here’s some of SD’s best designed maps:
[QUOTE=Cep;368652]I don’t need to Kurushi I am well versed in the English language to understand what he was saying but I won’t take your bait
[/QUOTE]
You’ll be telling me you’re a AAA game level designer next
Mediocre
Lol actually no I am not a game developer, though everyone dabbles but I do/have designed/developed/managed software projects for medium to large business and still do.
every map in this game is balanced VERY well for them being asymmetrical, aside from CC. and even that one isnt all that bad if you rush the first objective.
Chris. Those maps are huge! That’s my point. Two different design goals when working with smaller areas and a more CQC like Brink. Not apples to apples comparison. My Point!
In an attempt to help you retain your sanity, .Chris.; I just wanted to chime in and say I agree with the point you’re making.
[QUOTE=*goo;368715]In an attempt to help you retain your sanity, .Chris.; I just wanted to chime in and say I agree with the point you’re making.
:)[/QUOTE]
Heh, thanks.
It’s not down to size of the maps, ET:QW was indeed slightly different as it had more variables to contend with thus the layouts had to accommodate the usage of vehicles and fire support. However the same core basics applied, make sure the spawn points are in sensible positions, make sure each team can get to the objectives in an orderly fashion and give them ample space in which the map can take place in a manner that isnt dictated by who can spam the narrow entrances the most.
Also ET maps are roughly of a similar size to Brink’s maps. (The first two I posted)
[QUOTE=.Chris.;368722]Heh, thanks.
It’s not down to size of the maps, ET:QW was indeed slightly different as it had more variables to contend with thus the layouts had to accommodate the usage of vehicles and fire support. However the same core basics applied, make sure the spawn points are in sensible positions, make sure each team can get to the objectives in an orderly fashion and give them ample space in which the map can take place in a manner that isnt dictated by who can spam the narrow entrances the most.
Also ET maps are roughly of a similar size to Brink’s maps. (The first two I posted)[/QUOTE]
This is a good argument, because it is about design. Which I like. Once you throw vehicles onto a map, you right there have different design parameters compared to a game like Brink that does not incorporate that into the mix. You have to run from spawn in Brink. The problem is if the defense in Brink is far from the objectives when they respawn, then the offense just has to wipe most of them out, then the defense cannot get back in time. Without vehicles as a component, you have to consider this element.
Brink is CQC. ET has sniping as a viable option if you are too far away to get back to defend in time. Brink does not. I could go on. Once you eliminate certain ways to counter the distance required and time to travel back from spawn, you realize that certain adjustments need be made.
In the case of Brink, both spawns are close to the objective. And the objective if an escort, will pass close to the enemy spawn as the map size is constricted as the offense makes progress away from their own deployment area. Sure, you could send the enemy away to another spawn as soon as the escort portion closes in proximity to the enemy spawn, or it can be designed as it is currently. As the offense pushes forward gaining the advantage the defense has an opportunity to counter as the Offense swings ever closer to their deployment area. CQC. Like an inch at a time idea for the design of the maps.
I use Container City as an example of this. Get the bot to the crane and fix the crane. Then the map and spawn constricts and the same scenario is replayed. On the opposite side of the map. CQC is what it comes down to as the core principle here, rather than large open spaces and vehicle travel as part of the formula.
I’m gonna stick my broken record back on here, Brinks linear map design is giving the illusion of small maps. Brink maps aren’t that small, it’s the forced linear objectives that make them appear small as you’re only ever at one section of the map for each objective. ET’s open objectives meant covering most of the map was encouraged and advantageous and required tactics and weighing of cost vs gain… wandering anywhere other than near the active objective in Brink is pointless and just puts your team at a disadvantage.
Wolfnemesis: bites Chris’ fist as well