Map time length and amount of objectives.

(Valdez) #1

Just wanted to get everyone’s opinion on this.

(INF3RN0) #2

Can’t vote on the poll because it doesn’t have my pick of 16-20min with 3-4obj.

The time is fairly reasonable as a max limit. The number of objectives however really should be around 3 in my opinion. 4 might be alright. It really all depends on how the objective works. Escorts are so slow that it already takes over 10minutes just to get the EV to the end without any obstacles. A lot of the other objectives are dependent on a number of variables, however it feels like a lot of the objectives completely revolve around killing the defenders all at once so you don’t have a constant flow due to their lack of spawning waves. I imagine that the fastest times that could be set would be well under 10minutes if spawn waves existed for defense, as well as making them somewhat longer. Otherwise the objective implementation on the maps is a key factor. Escort on LB feels completely focused on preventing barriers from being built in the first place and trying not to get hung up on the cell objective. WC feels like chaotic TDM. WL has a fairly good feeling to it for the first 2 objectives, but then turns into chaos at the last part. Camden has a lot of it right, but still feels like there’s way too many objectives to be realistic (5). In the end 20minutes is a reasonable time for pubs and comp from my experience and usually 20minute games at higher levels of comp don’t happen often if that’s the worry. The only thing that can be annoying is when a team full-holds an objective for 20minutes, but so far that only seems to happen in unbalanced games; definitely not the constant full holds of Brink. If some of the chaotic objectives were re-worked some I don’t think we would be concerned with the time limit.

(nailzor) #3

I prefer smaller map times with just a handful of objectives, like 3-4 and implement objectives that are optional (Example: you do not have to blow up the side entrance - but if you want an alternate route of attack, go ahead - but blowing this side door also gives the defense an edge too!). This I feel adds another piece to strategy and tactics.

A 10 minute map that can POSSIBLY be beat in 3 minutes, a 15 minute map that can be beat in 5 - this kind of map design is exciting to me because it keeps everyone on their toes for the entire match.

Maps that are 20 minutes long which you can only beat them as fast as a vehicle goes really hinder the ability for high skill teams to shine as they are limited by the map design - no matter how much they dominate - they can only go as fast as the slowest process.

Also a side note, I prefer the game style of focusing more of “was the final objective completed” as opposed to, did you complete phase 1, did you complete phase 2, 3, 4, 5… Might as well be, did you actually complete the map - or not?

The current state of things there are full holds even on pubs of 8v8 which can be pointed towards map length, design, and game mechanics.

(INF3RN0) #4

ETQW had large 3-4 objective maps including a ton of side-objectives with a 20min time limit, and a 5minute set time was very possible. This was mostly due to the lack of escorts lol. DB might be fine with a 15minute limit if it’s realistically possible to complete the entire map with well balanced teams. In the end the time limit is based off of the ability to complete every objective in the ideal scenario.

(tokamak) #5

Yeah the poll is really limited. I like long matches. ETQW maps were 20 minutes sure, but the campaign narrative was really strong so it was more like a 60 minute timespan. If DB isn´t going to have a campaign structure then the maps need to be longer otherwise the influx and outflow of players will be too high to keep the games coherent and the server populations stable.

(Samurai.) #6

Yeah im also thinking along the lines of less objectives but introducing more spawn points/choke points to give the option available for defense to hold longer times if successful/attackers to be quicker if they take advantage of an unorganised setup over these key points in the map.

Also yes, im not a massive fan on these escort objectives, they really do slow down the pace of the game, especially as attackers cannot repair while it is moving, and defenders have limited available tools to disable (airstrike & nades?).

(tokamak) #7

[QUOTE=Samurai.;432231]Yeah im also thinking along the lines of less objectives but introducing more spawn points/choke points to give the option available for defense to hold longer times if successful/attackers to be quicker if they take advantage of an unorganised setup over these key points in the map.
[/QUOTE]

I think that would make the pace of the game feel artificial.

(nailzor) #8

Regarding public server populations I think its hard to encompass everyone, but I generalize there are a few of player “types” which most players can relate to:

[ul]
[li]Hop on and play for a short period
[/li][li]Play for a couple hours
[/li][li]Redbull Marathon Night o’ Gaming!
[/li][/ul]

To maximize happiness and cater to these different types I think you would need a mix of short, medium, and long maps.

For me I am constantly in and out during the day so I prefer to hop on for a hot minute and get a round in then peace out. I feel anything over 15 minutes max time is pushing it because then if you are in this group that I have described you are potentially “hopping on” for a good 30 minutes just to play 1 round. Where as if you have a 8 or 10 minute map, you know that worst case scenario, its going to be less than 20 minutes and you can dine and dash in and out of the server after having a good time.

For the pub player types that want to play for hours on end, it is nice to have a steady mix of short/medium/long based maps - but just not TOO long with too many objectives.

I’d like to have the opportunity to ninja an objective every now and then on maps - not be forced to wait on phase 3 to be completed on EVERY map :slight_smile:

SD’s map work regarding RTCW, they created the maps Tram Siege (20 minutes) and The Damned (10 minutes) - both fun maps to pub, and although they catered to these described audiences of players, they were often removed from rotation on pub servers… not due to time lengths but due to actual map design and objectives. This - I hope we can help avoid. (Rocket was another SD map that actually did see a good amount of pub time from my knowledge)

Also - a bit unrelated from the original poll, but it would be nice if server side settings were created so that pub servers could host say, 24x7 London Bridge and modify spawn times and map length etc. 45 Minute LB with 5 second spawns on defense and offense - let the battle begin!! I’m not a fan of this, BUT public server mods like to at least have this ability.

(nailzor) #9

[QUOTE=Samurai.;432231]Yeah im also thinking along the lines of less objectives but introducing more spawn points/choke points to give the option available for defense to hold longer times if successful/attackers to be quicker if they take advantage of an unorganised setup over these key points in the map.

Also yes, im not a massive fan on these escort objectives, they really do slow down the pace of the game, especially as attackers cannot repair while it is moving, and defenders have limited available tools to disable (airstrike & nades?).[/QUOTE]

I forgot to mention more capturable spawn points, good call. I’m glad to see this is a mechanic in game as we see on Waterloo.

Regarding choke points, I find the choke point on Waterloo directly after blowing the wall near the luggage area a bit too defense-sided. I do not mind choke-points, but as long as they are balanced.

(Volcano) #10

Supply depot length, blow first door, blow main door, build crane, drive home rich

(zeroooo) #11

i think 3 or 4 obj is the maximum!!!

do it like in QW, good teams should be able to rush through a map in 5 minutes and if the defenders are good its no problem if the map takes a bit more than 10 minutes, 15 or even 20 minutes would be okay if the opponent team is playing good…

maps like we have them at the moment are much too long. just waterloo is okay, too many objectives and everything…

(Kl3ppy) #12

I like 3-4 Objectives and about 15-20 mins. But if a map is rushed, it should be possible to win it in abou 5-10 mins max.

(.Chris.) #13

Very limited options to vote from so won’t vote.

Say what you want about wolf09 but the maps there were pretty nice mostly, normally consisting of 2 stages with a few objectives spread across them and a side objective for good measure. After playing ET:QW’s maps these were a nice change. They could last long time on pub but in matches they could be completed quite quickly, apart from a couple of them like Tesla. Hell I think wolf09 had better ratio of good to bad stock maps than both ET:QW and ET (for matches).

(tokamak) #14

Yes and letting go of that constraint would also greatly increase the artistic freedom within a map.

The only thing that stands in the way is how they want to reward players in F2P. If you give a fixed amount of rewards for each game then you want equally long maps otherwise long maps will be seen as inefficient (and yes players who reason like that are still players who are important to this game). This can be solved by making the map rewards relative to the game-length. IE a modifier on top of all the effort done within a map. That way it doesn’t matter how long you play, the endings of a map would merely seen as milestones in which the game takes stock of what everyone has done so far and then proceeds.

Long and short matches also make it generally harder to plan your sessions and thus make it more addictive.

(DJScream) #15

Voted 11-15 min map times with 4-5 objectives but the ideal option would have been max 15 min map with 3-4 objectives.

(warbie) #16

Less objectives for sure. What happened to setting up a defence and going for a full hold? - that’s when these games get really exciting.

(Breo) #17

1 object per 5 minutes (that would be 3 in this case) + a few minutes for the difficult objects. I would say 17 or max. 18 minutes maps in total, because 15 minutes (Crysis2) feels too short and 20 min (ETQW) too long for me :s

(Rex) #18

Couldn’t vote, but I’m for 15-20mins map time with 3-4 objectives, but you should be still able to rush through in about 5-10mins.

(Kordin) #19

Voted for 2-3 objectives. I think, u should be able to do every map in 5mins if u just rush through it and the defenders are really bad. Maps like Whitechapel where “rushing through the map” means 15mins are rly bad… But with good defence a time between 15 and 20 minutes would be ok…

(Mustang) #20

20min with 4 objectives.