Reducing the meat grind feel by increasing spacing


(Protekt1) #1

I don’t think just simply making maps take less time really fixed the “meat grind” feel at all. It did when you removed a particularly bad objective (like the hack objective on waterloo). But it was like removing the symptom over fixing the issue which tends to be spacing between objectives, players, and other players. I am going to pick two map objectives and explain.

Lets take London Bridge’s first objective for example… this is perhaps the worst of it. And lets compare it to white chapel’s first objective, one that simply does it better. Both are a little bit similar since you’re repairing the EV. But the thing I want to focus on is positional on both sides that promotes players to split up and grab optimal shooting positions rather than clump up. Okay, white chapel is not perfect in this regard, but still much much much better than LB.

On WC you have several strong defensive positions all spread out for the defenders to take that they can almost always grab. You can grab the bridge, the alcove closest to the EV with the stairs leading down to it, and the street with some cover. Attackers have similar positions to grab that can cover an engineer who is repairing. Some of these positions conflict with each other, meaning a team is motivated to fight over positioning. Attackers for example have the far end of the spawn area, the platform leading to the bridge closest to their side, two spots coming from their spawn that can hit pretty much every defender position, and the street with adequate cover. These positions often help out your team by sometimes simply making a strong enemy position weaker or sometimes useless.

On LB it is much different. The map promotes defenders to all just cluster up around the EV. It is also an awkward place to fight because of clipping with the EV and very limited movement space. The 2 story building across the street can hardly help attackers defend the engineer because there are few spots where they can actually hit from. This means taking that building really only helps attackers by reducing the positions defenders have by 1, and it is one of the weaker defender positions since it only can shoot the sides of the EV.

The bridge can barely help attackers. It just happens to be another relatively weak defensive spot for defenders so they can harass attackers going to the building (the guys who aren’t doing much because taking the building is not necessary or that helpful) and guys running towards clusterf*** city (the area around the EV behind cover etc). Taking the bridge means attackers can harass or even stop defender reinforcements. This is its best function imo for the attackers. Still doesn’t help them in the grind over cluster****city.

This leaves really two routes that really help the attackers overcome defensive clumping around the EV. You have the left most route that leads straight into the heart of the fight, through a very narrow aortic-like doorway. And the street which can be accessed by a variety of paths, pretty much everything can lead to the middle street. The street is good for flank attacks, but also happens to get backraged by defender respawns.

Now I think no example of an issue is best left without a suggested solution. This is what I would do to change LB to fix what I see as a problem with some of the objectives on the maps in the game so far.

  1. remove some of the cover in cluster city. The 2 story building should be capable of much more than it currently does. This would make the 2 story building a higher value position for both teams to try and take and hold. Attackers will want it to help clear defensive clusters around the EV. And defenders will want to to help bum rushes from the aortic door And because the 2 story building will be a spot of contention, you should make it more enjoyable to fight in. More movement space is a big start. Get rid of the shelves and whatever that make it even smaller than it already is.

  2. This also relates to number 1, but make cluster city a more enjoyable spot to fight. It isn’t terrible by any means, but it also is quite tight in certain spots. Mainly around the attacker entrance. Perhaps there should be a whole other way to get into cluster city for attackers, like a second door. The main culprit is that wall of cover next to the EV, which is between the EV and the attacker’s door (aka aortic door). Move that wall of cover so it can still give attackers some cover from being hit from the street, but less infringing with the EV to make combat around the EV a pain in the…

  3. the above two changes in turn make the bridge a better spot as well. While the bridge already has its uses, it will also become more important towards the attackers to help take the 2 story and the defenders to help them counter the 2 story when they attackers have it since they can get onto the bridge easily from the EV area. This makes no position over powered while removing the OP position aka cluster**** city.

As a result there should be at least one more position to fight over. I’m not sure if my WC comparison is hitting the mark as desired. But WC has the bridge, the street, and that alcove to fight over. There is much more spacing between objectives and positions. This means there is more spacing between objectives, players, and other players. This makes it less of a meat grind!

edit:
Yes this post is a bit of a meat grind. Added 3 section under suggested solution. Fixed some text.


(BomBaKlaK) #2

i’d like to see the maps scale around the scale (maybe just a bit smaller) of Salvage, Volcano, Island or Sewer, and in this 4 maps there is so many ways to defend or attack, this is never the same fight over and over like it was in BRINK and like it is in Extraction. Waterloo is suppose to be an Oasis remake but look at the objectives and all the possibilities we have on Oasis, and now do the same with Waterloo. It’s like a playschool remake for dummies, and that the same for Cluster city vs goldrush. The maps from your previous game got something we all love over here, Freedom ! We are not lab rats !

All this maps I talk about (Sewer, Salvage, Volcano, Island, Oasis and some others) are good for 5v5 and that’s still fun with 12v12 !
In Extraction it’s better with 5v5, but when you play 8v8 pub it’s just a massive meat-grind, with only frontal fight, no real side way or secondary objective who can drastically change the fight issue, etc … so pub play is just boring and ppl left the game after few hours of testing.
Like said before No pub = No money = Dead game. And I’m pretty sure that bigger maps with more space, and more access, with better objectives design and real side obj can help a lot ! Even maybe save the game cause the gameplay is not so bad.


(attack) #3

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;485674]i’d like to see the maps scale around the scale (maybe just a bit smaller) of Salvage, Volcano, Island or Sewer, and in this 4 maps there is so many ways to defend or attack, this is never the same fight over and over like it was in BRINK and like it is in Extraction. Waterloo is suppose to be an Oasis remake but look at the objectives and all the possibilities we have on Oasis, and now do the same with Waterloo. It’s like a playschool remake for dummies, and that the same for Cluster city vs goldrush. The maps from your previous game got something we all love over here, Freedom ! We are not lab rats !

All this maps I talk about (Sewer, Salvage, Volcano, Island, Oasis and some others are good for 5v5 and that’s still fun with 12v12 !
In Extraction it’s better with 5v5, but when you play 8v8 pub it’s just a massive meat-grind, with only frontal fight, no real side way or secondary objective who can drastically change the fight issue, etc … so pub play is just boring and ppl left the game after few hours of testing.
Like said before No pub = No money = Dead game. And I’m pretty sure that bigger maps with more space, and more access, with better objectives design and real side obj can help a lot ! Even maybe save the game cause the gameplay is not so bad.[/QUOTE]

to be fair goldrush was a far better map for 6o6 than 5o5 .
mas like radar are nearly unplayable in 5o5

btw protect good post :slight_smile: (only wc is for me the definition of meatgrind :D)


(BomBaKlaK) #4

[QUOTE=attack;485675]to be fair goldrush was a far better map for 6o6 than 5o5 .
mas like radar are nearly unplayable in 5o5

btw protect good post :slight_smile: (only wc is for me the definition of meatgrind :D)[/QUOTE]

I dont talk much about goldrush size, cause there is 2 versions, one for 5v5 like they did for the new London bridge, and the original one good for pub but not for match. And radar is one of the most played map on 5v5 ! just in case


(attack) #5

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;485678]I dont talk about goldrush on this cause there is 2 versions the one for 5v5 like they did for the new London bridge, and the original one.
And radar is one of the most played map on 5v5 ! just in case[/QUOTE]
sw_goldrush was also played mostly in 6o6 after it came out.
about radar: when i quit et it wasnt enjoyable.the map is too big for 5o5 .
if you argu with most played map.
the et community isnt famous for new maps! there are maybe 8 maps which i could see be played.
means they would play the same maps even they play 10 o 10.

i still have horror dreams of supply :D.


(tokamak) #6

W:ET never felt like a grind even though you could be fighting over the same objective for an hour. It was always a massacre, sure, but you were always probing for weak spots in the opponent’s approach rather than just constantly walking into a grinder a la TF2 or, well, Brink.

Segmenting maps in smaller bits is what makes it feel like a grind simply because it offers players less way to approach situations. The game tells the players where and how to fight. That’s much less interesting than having the players dictate the flow and pace of the match.

But hey, this was obvious from the early phases of the game. It’s why Camden was so much more popular than the others.


(INF3RN0) #7

The spacing might not be all too bad, but the layout is definitely off. Even if you have 3 paths to the obj, they basically feel like 1 big path that got cut into 3 sections. The sheer proximity between routes and areas are big part of the reason it always feels like a chaotic meat grind,


(Kl3ppy) #8

Camden is/was a real nice map. I hope we will see it again. Maybe cut off the last objective (destroy the AA) to get a shorter overall time.


(Zarlor) #9

I miss Camden as well. I miss delivering the datacores and the final bomb plant. I miss the final APC push on London Bridge, etc. I don’t think the longer maps were a problem. I feel like the firefights are pretty fun lately and I keep coming back to play. I think the random horizontal spread drift is annoying though. It’s the short maps that are a disappointment for me. Can’t we have the short and long version of each map if you really want like Camden/Trainyard? Maybe not different names for every one of them, but something like that? I’d play the long version every time I think.


(INF3RN0) #10

Also, can we please get more closed-off obj areas? Canary wharf made a slight attempt at it, but I’d like a feeling of much more separation between objs and key areas on the maps. Most maps feel like one big linear tunnel with paper thin walls for paths and a few one-timer chokes and then BAM there’s the obj sitting exposed in the open with easy access from D spawn.


(AsKo_) #11

redo beach or ice in a modern version, i think they could fit the gameplay


(attack) #12

without chooseable spawnm simply not possible!


(Protekt1) #13

I hope at least one dev from SD read my wall of text :tongue:


(Glottis-3D) #14

very +1 for this thread.

I ll go a little bit into Waterloo. The last update did several changes, that chopped the map (it was a small map before, mb even the smallest, compared to LB, WC, Camden).
First OBJ

  • they added some blocks between spawn and 1st OBJ.
    -Then, they deleted one of the combat zones (tunnel escalator) - because they moved it to the office. so both routes are now end in the office. since the old tunnel is gone - the closest route to the obj thought the office doesnt have any safe zones - leads to meat grind.
    this all feels claustrophobic. but not as claustrophobic as balcony at Second OBJ

Second Obj, i’ve aldry said it before. The balcony is now so clinically small and linear. There were several points of defence - but now there is practically only one - the escalator route. (yes, i know about back stairs, but it is not in any way a battle point - because it is too small to actually make a push, and there is no way to get attacking players there unnoticed). When the balcony was wide it provided the greatest freagin’ fights in the whole game!!


(Protekt1) #15

Waterloo probably does need more changes, on the other hand I think part of it has to do with the way we play it being too reminiscent to old builds. I think defenders need to play more aggressively on the pump side now and at least in the matches I have been in they haven’t done that much yet.


(attack) #16

i havent test it competivly yet but i like at the first stage the new position of the pumb and the new tunnel.
the pump does now make sens and is a side obkective.the closer way give it also more tactial need to it.
might be that it could be a disadvantage now to cap the flag because you cant chosse the spawn and the tunnel route is safe and quick.i have rly to play it in a draft to be sure about it.


(Glottis-3D) #17

exactly…


(attack) #18

well ,the tunnel before was too long…


(Humate) #19

On WC you have several strong defensive positions all spread out for the defenders to take that they can almost always grab.

The issue I have with the maps, is kind of the opposite of this. Its not so much being able to grab the positions, its always dealing with and playing from the same positions.


(Protekt1) #20

More positions always will help. That is basically what I am arguing for, so I don’t think you are the opposite of my argument at all. Just read the whole thing. My post has little to do with who grabs positions it has to do with positions being worth fighting over other than the main objective.