Map designs. Please o please could a dev explain the reasoning

(wolfnemesis75) #81

[QUOTE=Kurushi;369070]Lack of forward spawns is not the be all and end all. They really are not needed in current Brink maps, although I would welcome them in future maps.

Making Brink sound simplified compared to ETQW due to lack of forward spawns is daft. Forward spawns do not make the game any more advanced. Current brink maps are set up fine without them, because it’s compensated for in the mapping. Does that make it a simpler game? Not really… you still have to complete objectives to earn that new position[/QUOTE]

This is what I’ve been trying to say as well. Yay! As the Attacking Team advances their front towards the Defending team, the defending team remains entrenched, receiving the faster reinforcements. This is the mechanic that is the core of the game. And Attacking Team must break through this trench. Like storming the beach at Normandy or something war-like that. :slight_smile:

(Kurushi) #82

thanks for quoting everything i butchered in an edit lol. I knew half of that would be misinterpreted so I ‘simplified’ things :wink:

(Kurushi) #83

Okay, I re-read, it wasn’t that bad. You shoulda seen the first draft :wink:

(DarkangelUK) #84

[QUOTE=Kurushi;369070]Lack of forward spawns is not the be all and end all. They really are not needed in current Brink maps, although I would welcome them in future maps.

Making Brink sound simplified compared to ETQW due to lack of forward spawns is daft. Forward spawns do not make the game any more advanced when it’s compensated for and compensation does not really make it any more simplified[/QUOTE]

I never said be all and end all… I said one of. And I think they are needed for obvious reasons, if the maps were fine… we wouldn’t have a thread or discussions like this. Your last part, I have no idea what that means at all, no one is talking about simplification or complexity… except that rather official hint that map design decisions were made to cater to the console crowd. So sure, we’ll say the maps are simplified versions of what originally started out as complex maps, and all the fun bits sliced off and big giant obvious routes and single focus areas were all that’s left.

(Kurushi) #85

You basically said Brink is my first objective based FPS. You’re saying it’s simplified.

There’s a fine line between “console port lolz” and and streamlined design. Taking away is not always a bad thing, even if it goes against what we’re used to

(ComradeWarden) #86

[QUOTE=.Chris.;368488]
I think there might be something in that you know. Perhaps this type is level design only appeals to a certain type of player (consolers) whilst the rest of us who’ve experienced SD’s past work are no longer the target audience?[/QUOTE]

got to this a bit late, but i play on the console and i still think the maps could of had better design

(wolfnemesis75) #87

[QUOTE=Kurushi;369087]You basically said Brink is my first objective based FPS. You’re saying it’s simplified.

There’s a fine line between “console port lolz” and and streamlined design. Taking away is not always a bad thing, even if it goes against what we’re used to[/QUOTE]

In design principle 101, less is more. :wink:

(BioSnark) #88

Your design principle 101 says instagib tdm on mirror maps is the pinnacle in game design. You can’t say having a balanced basic layout is boring and then go anywhere near where you’re going. Balancing spawn distance is far simpler than trying to accommodate an imbalance with spawn timers with three different body type speeds and ticking back map time a couple dozen minutes per objective.

[quote=Kurushi;369070]Lack of forward spawns is not the be all and end all. They really are not needed in current Brink maps, although I would welcome them in future maps.

Making Brink sound simplified compared to ETQW due to lack of forward spawns is daft. Forward spawns do not make the game any more advanced when it’s compensated for and compensation does not really make it any more simplified[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this. Forward spawns are a secondary objective. They aren’t necessary so long as the fixed spawns are repositioned appropriately or objective locations progress with a fair distance from both spawns.

What you’re missing is that the fixed spawn progression in Brink fails to fill in holes left by what may have been a cut feature in Brink or simple map design errors.

(wolfnemesis75) #89

[QUOTE=BioSnark;369117]Your design principle 101 says instagib tdm on mirror maps is the pinnacle in game design. You can’t say having a balanced basic layout is boring and then go anywhere near where you’re going. Balancing spawn distance is far simpler than trying to accommodate an imbalance with spawn timers with three different body type speeds and ticking back map time a couple dozen minutes per objective.

I don’t disagree with this. Forward spawns are a secondary objective. They aren’t necessary so long as the fixed spawns are repositioned appropriately or objective locations progress with a fair distance from both spawns.
[/QUOTE]

Perfect Balancing Spawns=Symmetrical Maps. Broken into More Symmetrical Portions after each objective is completed with the objective being equidistant from spawn for both sides. So each section is essentially a set piece rather than one continuous map in reality. Boring.

Spawn Timer is setting subjective/arbitrary time factors to influence a balance when balance is otherwise impossible. :slight_smile:

(.Chris.) #90

No it doesn’t, please stop this.

Here’s what a balanced map can be set up like:

The defense takes 10 seconds to reach the objective and has a spawn time of 30 seconds.

The attack takes 20 seconds to reach the objective (NOT SYMMETRICAL) and has a spawn time of 20 seconds.

There is a difference of 10 seconds between travel times meaning the defense has time to plant mines, place turrets and get into position.

There is also a difference of 10 seconds between spawn times, meaning that each side has an equal chance of getting to the objective after the initial spawn at the start of the map.

Here’s what an unbalanced map is set up like in favor of the defense:

The defense takes 10 seconds to reach the objective and has a spawn time of 20 seconds.

The attack takes 20 seconds to reach the objective and also has a spawn time of 20 seconds.

The same travel difference as before of 10 seconds, however now the defense spawn at the exact same time as the attack but they take 10 seconds quicker to reach the objective, in every situation the defense will reach the objective area way before the attack and as such can re plant mines and repair turrets without much interference from the enemy.

(Thundermuffin) #91

So, what you’re saying is that some of your team does not believe that gameplay is the most important thing when it comes to making a game/map/weapon/movement system? That would explain a lot of the problems BRINK had.

I can understand that consumers don’t understand that, but why worry about them? They don’t know that you didn’t spend 3million extra on pretty graphics and instead spent it on making the game play well. More people notice the fact the game doesn’t play well than they do the fact the game doesn’t look like Crysis. People can accept this isn’t Crysis, however people can’t accept the fact it plays worse than its predecessors.

(DarkangelUK) #92

[QUOTE=Kurushi;369087]You basically said Brink is my first objective based FPS. You’re saying it’s simplified.

There’s a fine line between “console port lolz” and and streamlined design. Taking away is not always a bad thing, even if it goes against what we’re used to[/QUOTE]

I was speaking to Wolf, hence saying his name at the start of the paragraph.

Sure, taking away is not always a bad thing… if done right… in this case I don’t think it was done right, therefore in this instance taking away = bad thing.

(Kurushi) #93

[QUOTE=Thundermuffin;369229]So, what you’re saying is that some of your team does not believe that gameplay is the most important thing when it comes to making a game/map/weapon/movement system? That would explain a lot of the problems BRINK had.

I can understand that consumers don’t understand that, but why worry about them? They don’t know that you didn’t spend 3million extra on pretty graphics and instead spent it on making the game play well. More people notice the fact the game doesn’t play well than they do the fact the game doesn’t look like Crysis. People can accept this isn’t Crysis, however people can’t accept the fact it plays worse than its predecessors.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to the facts of life, or at least game design. You’re naive to think that you can make everyone happy. Give the guy some respect for being open about it on a board full of people that can’t get their simple minds around me me me.

(Kurushi) #94

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;369241]I was speaking to Wolf, hence saying his name at the start of the paragraph.

Sure, taking away is not always a bad thing… if done right… in this case I don’t think it was done right, therefore in this instance taking away = bad thing.[/QUOTE]

You’re comparing forward spawns with Brink and ETQW when the games are quite different that’s the problem. They’ve not ;taken away; from ETQW, they’ve ‘added’ (nothing) to Brink. Because they’re different

(DarkangelUK) #95

(Kurushi) #96

It’s okay if you don’t understand but that picture doesn’t convey that :stuck_out_tongue:

(.Chris.) #97

Well, least we tried.

(Kurushi) #98

You did? That’s all that matters I suppose

(wolfnemesis75) #99

[QUOTE=.Chris.;369142]No it doesn’t, please stop this.

Here’s what a balanced map can be set up like:

The defense takes 10 seconds to reach the objective and has a spawn time of 30 seconds.

The attack takes 20 seconds to reach the objective (NOT SYMMETRICAL) and has a spawn time of 20 seconds.

[/QUOTE]Yes and no. The average gamer want to play more than watch a respawn clock. Spawn time is an arbitrary system imposed after the fact (not the map design per se) and comes into play after you die. Distance to travel from point A to B is the map itself, no? Not Spawn Timer ultimately. Two different schools of thought/design here.

There is no perfect solution if the map itself is not symmetrical each time the defense and attacking team face off at an objective especially if you consider variables like different body type speeds and access to locations! You can’t make everyone happy in the scenario.

In summation: You are frustrated that the defense has the advantage. Right?
:slight_smile:

(Azev2000) #100

@Exedore

This post makes me feel happy and sad. Happy that you realize gameplay should be top priority, and sad that even a lead game designer is overpowered by marketing to create something that looks better in a promo than the way it actually plays.

Remember the days when games were not sold by primetime TV trailers. Rather the talent of the developer and the new innovations in gameplay.