Thx for the post strychzilla. Lots of great idea there. About SD’s “largest flaw”, their “map design”: They have a small team, younger, new employees/team members, a new engine (UnrealEngine), and making DB is probably a sort of trainee-project with hands-on learning? So everything takes time to implement right, I guess. We need to keep that in mind, I think.
So these issues about “minimal to no cover” and “defence spawn directly on top” (all valid arguments) will be addressed. I hope. Still, it is a good thing to keep on discussing these isses so that they are kept alive and eventually fixed or dealt with.
I try to think about cover and defence whenever I make a new custom map for W:ET: there should be plenty of time and opportunities set up a solid defence. It can be the attackers having wiped out the enemy and planting and setting up a defence around that plant. Or it can be the defenders setting up their first defence near a dynamitable objective. Guys that are about to set up a defence need the proper time and resources to do that. It is fun part of a team-based multiplayer shooter: planning, setting it up, and the suspension before the enemy arrives, and, eventually, the joy of having successfully pushed back the enemy’s first attempt to break through.
Why are the defences hard to set up in DB? Well, as you say, the spawns are sometimes badly placed and the map design is sometimes not perfect. Why is that? I think it must be because the developers have a shortage of time. They probably (I am just guessing) have tons of other issues to address before adjusting the spawns and details inside a working map.
You say that they are “designing with no direction, no architecting”, well I think they do have a plan. It is just that everything takes time, that’s all. Everyone knows what should be done, but doing it takes considerable time.
About the models/hitboxes: Yes, increasing the size of the hitboxes might be something to test.
Sprint canceling for actions should be removed, agree. Let’s test it please.
We should also be able to change to any character while in game. Sometimes there is a character that is needed for my team to proceed, and I want to switch so badly. Let’s test it too.
About “you need to seriously put a lot of attention and time into making the most fluid gameplay experience ever” and “you need to put a lot of work into your maps”: I think SD are avare of it, their DB team is working their a**es off trying to implementing it, but everything takes so much time given the premises.
Still, as I said, it is important to discuss it, so that we do not forget to polish this aspect of the game: SD should make sure that they create maps that will allow players (that are about to defend something) plenty of time and opportunities set up a solid defence. On a good map, the players will say “you sit there, and I sit there”. Sometimes it does not have to be said, it is unspoken, and the set up just happens. It is great. And if the defence holds, it is a magical thing.
On some of the current DB maps, it is not quite like that. It is more like “Oookey, where do I sit, there are so many corners… Hm, maybe you can sit there, and I can sit… “ pew pew pew “Arrrgh, I got shot by returning enemy players”.
Let me be more specific. Waterloo station, the second objective, that Terminal you know, and the third and final objective, the Containers: Assume that you are attacking and that you want to set up a defence around these “hot zones”, to fight back the returning enemy team. There just too many places to sit. The map, although nice looking, feels complex and too detailed around those objectives. In essence, it would be enough to have a more minimalistic design (think: the objectives, the walls and some crates). At least that is what it feels like to me.
Why have we this current situation? I think it is because it is extremely important that new games get positive reviews. The reviewers have soo little time to spend on each game and they do not dig into the true core of the game, they just scratch the surface. Consequently, games have to look good, to improve the chance of getting a positive review. On the other hand, players just want the weapons, good movement, and their objectives. So, the developers are more or less forced to focus on map design and looks, and, due to lack of time, they cannot perhaps focus so much on perfecting the details that are important for gamers. The solution? Continue to make the maps nice looking, but let the players test the hot zones and listen to their advice about what crate to put in (and where) what waggon to remove and so on. In short: listen to the players advice about how to simplify the hot zones.
Concrete example: In the hot zone around the second objective, on Waterloo (that terminal, upstairs), there are some white, broad pillars and some benches, if I recall correctly. Remove it. (Maybe keep one pillar.) Make that zone a lot simpler, cleaner. In the same zone, in some corners, there are debris (luggage and stuff). Although the map look ecstatically nice with details like this, it is hard (impossible?) for a defending player to get all the way into that corner. Remove the debris. The players that are setting up a defence want to feel that they “own” that corner. They do not want to feel debris (with a clip brush) that pushes them out into the corridor. “Oh, the map maker wants me to be unable to set up a proper defence here”.
Someone may counter my argument and claim that it is important that the defence is not too solid. So that the returning enemy players have a fair chance to break that solid defence. Nah. You cannot reason like that, imho. It is always possible to break a solid defence, even for newbies, if the weapons are used wisely (e.g. nades, grenade launcher, or the soldier with a Riot Shield that you suggest strychzilla) so it should not be a problem.
About “repair a command post”: Yeah, where are those? Even if you cannot use Command Post for copyright reasons, just toss in something similar. A thing, in the centre, that a class/character can build/fix.
About “crazy loadouts”: hell yes. I am all for testing new, extreme stuff. The main idea here, if I interpret you right, is that we want to see some extremes, i.e. “personality”, of the characters.
As you said, SD are testing new stuff all the time, “the direction you are taking the game right now is the best course for the game to succeed”, so we just have to wait. The current game design is not the final one.
Personally, I am just glad that something like DB is created and implemented and that I get a chance to see it happen and later will be able to play the game on servers with players. Will the game be a huge success? Well, the scary thing is that you never know. I salute SD for taking the risks and wish them all the success. It cannot be easy to develop somehting like this and at the same time listen to and comment all our ideas and feedback 
Still, it is paramount that we do send in comments and critical suggestions, and you post was awesome in that respect strychzilla.
Still, it is paramount that we do send in comments and critical suggestions, and you post was awesome in that respect strychzilla.
