Patch

(BomBaKlaK) #141

Agreed on this, you just play on numbers chris

(.Chris.) #142

Yes but they are also okay with 2 objectives otherwise they would have voted 3 or more? The options are flawed but you can’t really claim 84% of voters wanted more than 2 maps from the results imo, that’s what I’m arguing.

You’re doing exactly same then…

(ailmanki) #143

No one wanted another 6objective map, so no… that assumption is flawed.
Cause there was no vote for “4 or more” neither “5 or more”
So your best bet was to vote for “3 or less”.

(BomBaKlaK) #144

The point is now we have small linear and boring maps … that’s all I see.
Sunday afternoon it’s around 17h after a patch and all servers are empty since 2 days, is this enough to say there is something wrong ?

(acQu) #145

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;487562]The point is now we have small linear and boring maps … that’s all I see.
Sunday afternoon it’s around 17h after a patch and all servers are empty since 2 days, is this enough to say there is something wrong ?[/QUOTE]

SD should start all over again :smiley: Starting with a nice setting/theme/universe, interesting characters, no modern weapons (or at least not every single weapon), strafe-jump, vehicles, lootsystem, pub friendly, less hectic and burning out, great shooting mechanics, great infight mechanics and movement, interesting and bigger levels (probably even open world), more interesting objectives, great gunplay (probably not hitscan), new and different engine … i am sure the art team will do a great job with this, as always :smiley: The root problem for me is that it is not interesting enough starting from the theme/setting, which in turn maps down to weapons, levels, characters, etc … imo.

EDIT and i really think SD needs to change a bit on their mindset regarding consumer behavior and statistics. It is all good and fine, but … well, it seems like “hey, is this what you like?”, “is it this what you like?”, “is it this what you like?”. I watched the interview at PAX from Locki, where he made priorities about the team and the consumer, and for who this game is created. I think, if i remember correct, he said the exact right thing AKA first create a game you, as a company, yourself like. Then comes the consumer, or something :D, i really can’t remember the exact words, but the message was: “WE are creating a game WE like first, then create a game the consumer likes”. For now, it seems the exact opposite, which leads to something as generic as xT (or at least, xT is build on a very generic MMS ground). Herein lies also a big problem from my perspective. You actually forgot to play your own game and judge it from the fun-aspect of it, for the most part at least. Or there is not enough distance (judging your own product is hard, especially if it is ingredients mixed together toppled with those nice characters). I feel the characters build on another core game = half the win. There needs to be another great concept (something like ETQW2) built alongside this.

EDIT2 of course, this is going in the direction i want SD to go personally AKA open world, something like ETQW, because i think this is the latest trend, and making a F2P game like this is much more promising regarding income, because in an open world, naturally, more stuff can be done, more playtime can be achieved. Going the WoW route actually, RPG FPS MMO type of stuff, this is what you should do, and not create a very hardcore “just shoot” game, with a bit of objectives here and there and very tiny and linear maps. These objectives, can be built easily into an open world game. Well, just my 2 cents. I just came to realize that xT is not at all a game i would like to spend my time on. I am more of the pub gamer, and i see xT is more competetive-oriented. Then, i feel, you should have just copied W:ET, which had bigger maps, and a far better shooting mechanic (as opposed to this weirdly mixed cover-based infight aspect of xT). Naturally, W:ET2 would drag me in for more time than xT. It had the shooting, movement, guns and levels nailed to a perfect combo imo. But i can not imagine a F2P model build on just W:ET2. This is why i say open world is much more promising, but also alot more work of course. Ah blah, i don’t know anything actually, just talking potatoe here :smiley:

(Ruben0s) #146

[QUOTE=.Chris.;487526]Camden was split up so it could be played at some game show without it taking too long to play the map, people liked what they played so we got to try it out and SD made this thread:

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37780-Trainyard

Seems a fair amount of people were in favour of splitting maps and suggested they did the same for other maps, which they went ahead and did and now everyone is crying.[/QUOTE]

Damn I’m so negative in that thread.

“I still wait for the day that I’m going to like a map in xT”.

Anyway. I agree that the community asked for split up maps, when reading the thread. (Especially competitive oriented players seem to like it, can’t see a reason for pub players to like it…)

And most of us asked for maps which could be finished faster. Including me. But I still think that chopping maps into parts is the wrong decision.

Hell… W:ET has bigger maps (goldrush >>>> londen bridge) which could be finished faster.

(acQu) #147

Sorry this is so offtopic: but what do you think about a game like serious sam merged into something hardcore open world like Planetside, merged with DayZ lootsystem and Quake 3 movement system and ETQW objectives :DDDDD

damn :smiley:

EDIT sorry, do not reply … :confused:

(rookie1) #148

Why not Different stories for the same map
Eg Alt Trainyard:
Helico with Data had crash in spawn def sector ,Bring the data from the wreckage to the Helico awaiting near last objective (original long version)
1 objective ,Doc run , good map length ,
If doc is drop its respawn at a nearest check points ,so you dont have to retake the doc far at the wreckage

(montheponies) #149

Each to there own, dont really see how it’s any different to most RPGs - you wander around find some stuff and put it in your inventory, use it, rinse and repeat? Think i did that back in Dungeon Master in 1990. Anyway my point wasnt to say that my taste in FPS is the correct one, just that coming at Dayz, I just dont get it and wont give it the time it probably deserves because of the choice i have to play other things that more immediately conform to my taste.

On topic the argument about the number of objectives is just so fatally flawed. A single objective map can be fantastic, provided the map is designed well enough, with meaningful side objectives, flanking routes and capturable spawns that shift the dynamics of the map. I would love to see map designed around this premise - that doesnt equate to taking a 4 or 5 objective map and truncating it arbitrarily.

(BomBaKlaK) #150

[QUOTE=montheponies;487578]
On topic the argument about the number of objectives is just so fatally flawed. A single objective map can be fantastic, provided the map is designed well enough, with meaningful side objectives, flanking routes and capturable spawns that shift the dynamics of the map. I would love to see map designed around this premise - that doesnt equate to taking a 4 or 5 objective map and truncating it arbitrarily.[/QUOTE]

I’m agree with this point of view not really the number who matter but when there is ONLY this (no spawn point, no meaningful side obj, flanking route are not really flanking or just useless …) So the point is we need more deep gameplay actions who matter and give a real advantage. Since maybe 10 month we speak about capturable spawn point, objective design etc … And what we got ? nothing … still the same **** !

Shapped by gamers … lol

(spookify) #151

The game gets worse every time I play it… My FPS was in the 60’s! Thats with 2-GTX 580’s!!! REALLY!!

(Mustang) #152

I have 90-120 on a single GTX580 with all settings maxed.

(.Chris.) #153

Same but on a GTX560 and just from turning off some options, no special configs.

(Wezelkrozum) #154

What is your CPU load? I see you got an i7-2600k so that shouldn’t be the bottle neck. But I know someone who has the same graphic cards (2x HD6870’s) with twice the fps I have (I think it is INF3RN0). And for me the bottleneck is my cpu.

(attack) #155

i have a i5 4670 k
radeon 6870
4gb ddr3
50-115 fps on low details

(Humate) #156

Camden was split up so it could be played at some game show without it taking too long to play the map, people liked what they played so we got to try it out and SD made this thread:

http://forums.warchest.com/showthrea...7780-Trainyard

Seems a fair amount of people were in favour of splitting maps and suggested they did the same for other maps, which they went ahead and did and now everyone is crying.

I dont think I participated in that thread other than voting, but I would say 3 objectives per map with decent objective structure (and objective design) is fine.
The biggest issue i feel is XT needs a skill based movement system to really make use of 3+ objective maps so that transitioning b/w phases actually matters. Otherwise theres no reason not to auto-respawn everyone at the next objective.

As for chopping up maps, I thought at the time it was a band-aid solution for full holds, until they created new maps.
Was not expecting every map to be chopped up, hopefully thats not the case.

(Kl3ppy) #157

I think trainyard with the doc run or Camden without blowing up the AA would a good map. Length should be ok.

(.Chris.) #158

[QUOTE=Humate;487602]I dont think I participated in that thread other than voting, but I would say 3 objectives per map with decent objective structure (and objective design) is fine.
The biggest issue i feel is XT needs a skill based movement system to really make use of 3+ objective maps so that transitioning b/w phases actually matters. Otherwise theres no reason not to auto-respawn everyone at the next objective. [/QUOTE]

I think 2-3 is perfectly fine, they just need to add in secondary objectives that can turn the tides in favour of one side which can be contested and where appropriated reversed, forwards spawns, side entrances/barriers, constructable ramps/bridges and so on. At the moment it’s just a matter of rushing at the objective, enter the meat grinder, hopefully do objective then if lucky onto the next one.

Personally I was never a fan of some of the more long drawn out maps in ET:QW, mainly the MCP ones, take valley for example, build bridge, escort mcp, hack shield generator, blow up contaminator, just went on for a bit too long for me, however maps like Sewer and Salvage were right up my street, just 3 objectives with a nice flow and chances to really screw up the attacking side by recapturing forward spawns on the sly just before they respawn.

[QUOTE=Humate;487602]As for chopping up maps, I thought at the time it was a band-aid solution for full holds, until they created new maps.
Was not expecting every map to be chopped up, hopefully thats not the case.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Camden generally had full holds which would have looked pretty bad for first public showing so they trimmed it down so the map could be played in short intervals so could get higher turn over of visitors trying the game out if I remember correctly. I personally would like an extended Trainyard or reduced Camden, depending on how you look at it still with 2 objectives, Ditch the switch objective and just have the destroy objective, add in a forward spawn near where the defence currently spawns at first objective which the attack can capture to spawn bit closer to the destroy objective. Then reintroduce the doc run objective and have the map end when completed. Would need some layout tweaks but I can see it been nice.

Regarding trimming other maps, I do think trimming the EV escort run on LB was a good move, not played enough to comment on other changes in depth.

(Humate) #159

Personally I was never a fan of some of the more long drawn out maps in ET:QW, mainly the MCP ones, take valley for example, build bridge, escort mcp, hack shield generator, blow up contaminator, just went on for a bit too long for me, however maps like Sewer and Salvage were right up my street, just 3 objectives with a nice flow and chances to really screw up the attacking side by recapturing forward spawns on the sly just before they respawn.

Yes with objective structure and objective design, Salvage is definitely a good example.
It plays awesome with smaller teams, you have a myriad of ways to attack - and the pace is determined by the players not the objectives.

(BomBaKlaK) #160

Actually there is not even 1 maps I like …
Player retention is near 1%, so I think i’m not the only one