Remember the good old days .....

(iwound) #1

when Camden was long and we had loads fighting over demolishing the buffer then charge down for the chopper section then to the missile launcher.
or when waterloo had loads of passages and a upstairs hack objective that had amazing fights.
or London Bridge with its epic fight and trying to get the ev to the last bit.
or whitechapel when it had an actual chapel that was also fun to fight over.
or when we had other test maps to play on.

Remember? wtf happened.

anyone else have memories of the good old days having large fights when people used to play.

(tokamak) #2

The Camden blockout carrier objective was incredibly fun.

(stealth6) #3

The long maps were boring. I didn’t like the addition of the Waterloo hack objective either.

(BomBaKlaK) #4


I feel like the maps are to short now …

(INF3RN0) #5

Things got removed, but not improved. Even if we reverted back to the ‘good old days’ not much would change except for map times being longer.

(chippy) #6

Take current Railyard, bring back the carry objective and make it end after all “jugs” have been delivered. The problem with the old Camden in my oppinion was that it was way to long and the last objective was pretty “meh”. It should have ended with the helicopter.

(Anti) #7

[QUOTE=iwound;506229]and a upstairs hack objective that had amazing fights.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, when was this? :slight_smile:

I recall a single narrow area, with only a few entrances and a hack objective that required holding down a button for 60 seconds. A space where all 16 players were funneled and where spam was the main form of combat.

Don’t get me wrong, we still have a lot of work to do to get the game to the right place, and we agree with some of your thoughts as you’ll see over the next few patches, but some of the things you are longing after from earlier builds were just not good enough and it’s definitely for the best that those specific ones are gone.

Even the strogg agree :stroggbanana::stroggbanana::stroggbanana:

(tokamak) #8

And that’s not going to change either because for some reason we’re insisting on stopwatch.

(Kendle) #9

Those weren’t the “good old days”. DB has never had any good old days. :slight_smile:

(Kl3ppy) #10

[QUOTE=Anti;506256]Sorry, when was this? :slight_smile:

I recall a single narrow area, with only a few entrances and a hack objective that required holding down a button for 60 seconds. A space where all 16 players were funneled and where spam was the main form of combat.
[/QUOTE]

On what is your statement based? I mean, many people say that the hack objective was nice and want it back. It was fun, and fun is what DB lacks most. As some stated last year or even 1 1/2 years ago, Echo can show heatmaps etc but cant measure fun. But it looks that you change the maps based on echo feedback and all the fun gets removed. Ever wondered why the retention rate is so bad? Ever wondered why the game is played for like 2-3 weeks after an update and then drops to one full server at prime time? It’s not because the game is in beta, it’s not because the spread is random, it’s not because of classless objectives, it is because the maps are boring and the game itself is not fun. Maybe improve echo to measure fun. And when echo can measure fun you can rely on echo, but it will never measure fun so listen to the community what is fun and what isnt. Do what you want with mercs and other stuff, but keep in mind that the most important things are the maps and (sorry for the word) the maps are utter ****. As some already said, the best map was Camden, it would be an awesome map when the map end after delivering the data cores. Bring back the map and see the feedback.
Is it really better to stand in a capture zone for 60 secs? There was a lot of excitement involved with the hack objectives because you needed to control the hack area. Now you just can run there and stay in the circle. It is a meatgrinder.
imo the best build was march-mai 2013, since those builds the game went from good to not going to play this game.

/rant over :smiley:

(chippy) #11

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the hack objective was that good however, that particular objective was one of the most intense ones which I believe is the reason a lot of people want it back. Or rather, an objective at least as intense as that was. Well, most of the time.

(Anti) #12

Feedback from players at the time, both whilst playing on the server and from the survey run near the time (a lot of folk prefer to give feedback in private rather than on the forums where they sometimes get belittled for having an opinion which doesn’t match that of some of the more vocal posters).

Echo didn’t have anything to do with it, although the kill heat map did look hilariously silly for that area :slight_smile:

I can understand what chippy is saying about it, it was certainly ‘intense’, but it was also the epitome of the meat grind people didn’t like, a space with no room for autonomy of action and little tactical scope. Yes you had to work hard together to get it done but not in a particularly interesting way, it was simply about bringing numbers and lots of AoE in one push.

We can do better, we aim to, and you can help us do it. I’d much rather we focus on doing just that than look back to something like that particular objective.

(PixelTwitch) #13

[QUOTE=Anti;506263]it was certainly ‘intense’, but it was also the epitome of the meat grind people didn’t like, a space with no room for autonomy of action and little tactical scope. Yes you had to work hard together to get it done but not in a particularly interesting way, it was simply about bringing numbers and lots of AoE in one push.
[/QUOTE]

This is why I still believe a dynamic player triggered respawn time is a necessity.
This would have solved many of the issues within certain maps and allowed you to keep spawns in a somewhat similar place without having to totally gimp the pallet that you use for map design and waste many many man hours.

While I understand the “We wanna keep it simple” argument…
Simplicity does not always come out on top…
Elegant complexity however for the majority of cases does… We came up with systems that while complex in their design could have been elegantly displayed and controlled by the players. With a system like this you would have had the option to lengthen and tweak the difficulty of an objective simply by the time it takes to do the objective rather then the 101 things that need to be taken into account now. To put in bluntly… up till now there has not been a single objective in my mind where I feel you have got this working well… However, in all fairness the closest you have come to getting it right is on a recently changed map (first objective of underground) while I am not saying the map is great, I am saying that at least the first objective (even if it is a capture point) does work in its context and does have a few options built around it… Seriously though… How long is it going to take to get that right for the 40 other objectives in the game? will you ever get them right?

This game on paper is legit…
The current game we are playing is not though. It still seems confused by its own identity and while balance, features and diversity IS increasing slowly. I personally feel like the fun factor is on a steady decrease in the last few patches alone.

(chenapan) #14

just that than look back to something like that particular objective.

Well Anti, i am sorry, but you are the one who focus on this particular obj… the original message was way more than that… and if everybody agree to say that WE (the community) were indeed complaining about some boredom after 2 games at the time of the long camden map… WE never asked to shorten map nor dumb down objectives though… ( I cant speak for everybody, but my solution was to vary even more objectives, add side routes and make the maps wider ) it was your answer to the problem we pointed out… and now we all see that this solution give us a worst experience…

as i am on this subject, i remember also at that time a map wich was exclusively for exectution mode… it was a big facility with routes all over… it wasnt even route… it was just a area with a lot of approach to space… and i asked at that time… hey why dont you use this map, or this kind of map with some objectives in it ? i mean what it is interesting in objective based games are not the actual objective… rather it is HOW we will manage to get to it. like before every body rush out the spawn, there is some sort of "strategy :
-"hum this time lets try to send 2 ppl this way and everybody else take the lonnng way to sneak ou the enemey or flank them or wathever… "

serisouly now the strategy is … duuh i respawn i go to the only route i have in front of me, i wil invariabley found the same enemy at the 2or 3 same spot… and if i push enough time and be with enough teammate at the same time… it will do the trick… it is soooo absolutely brainless -_-

long camden was the best map because there was “air”, “space” to actually take decisions, not a lot … but more than any other maps you’v done
we neeed space to create our way to the objectives
seriously we feel so much directed in the actual maps

ahahah ok, i see i am starting to run in circle here :slight_smile: sorry if i sound harsh anyway… that is not my intention… all i want is fuuun :smiley:

so maybe it is too much to call it “the good old days” rather we should say … the days were there was some good material to improve on… with hope :slight_smile:

(Raviolay) #15

Yes however, there was a you needed to control balcony to cover your attack and in one build you had three entrances to the objective to cover. Also in a 5v5 situation it was not spammy at all, the last 3rd just needed another way for the defenders to exit the spawn to neuter spawn trapping.

Again 5v5 and classes covered the faults in the map design, also I am a firm believer that the last section should be harder (more deaths in heat map) than the earlier sections.

(Anti) #16

As exedore’s blog post recently mentioned, we don’t want to see any more single route maps either, we want maps that provide tactical options and you’ll start to see good progress on that front staggered over what should be the next few patches if tests go well.

I get what you’re saying about the Execution maps (believe your example is the map Sandlot), but a map with too many routes would actually be bad for Stopwatch. What we need is a front line just ‘wide’ enough to stretch and tax the defence, to cause them to think how to line up to best hold the attackers back, whilst having enough routes that the attackers have enough choice to try many different combinations of pushes.

With too many routes the defence can be spread too thin and never have the chance to plug enough of the gaps. The map design in Counter-strike is normally a pretty good example of this being done well, albeit at a different scale.

I think this is why the canals section of Camden is quite popular, it has a good number of distinct routes that give choice and tax the defenders.

(tokamak) #17

Now you’re just being a tease!

(montheponies) #18

lol, i wasn’t going to be as brutal, but the OP is really using rose tinted glasses if the maps from last year are classed as ‘good’.

(chenapan) #19

hey Anti thank for the quick reply :wink:
Yes i see. that is interesting. the permanent death in counter strike is making the design easier though (and somewhat boring aha ) but i see your point
and indeed a too much open map may be a problem… but it also depends of the type of objectives… for example
if the defense can make a small objective that can stop the attack to perform his… or more simply… i dont know why i remember this particular map but in ET the map with the church and the attacker needing to perform a sacrifice to summon the devil ( ahah just the pitch is hilarious) the map was quite open. with a lot of ways to acces objectives. but you had to do differents objectives in order before making the next one. and each objective was in a part wich was easily defended… point is there was almost never in ET situation or there was just ONE front line … because there wasnt just one possible objective at a time
and maybe that is the issue here, i dont know :slight_smile:

to describe more the map and the multiple objective at a time
1 destroy the wall of the hidden room //capture the flag // destroy the main gate ( 2 locations //3routes)
2 capture de Comand post // detroy main gate 2 // destroy side gate ( 3 locations // 4 routes)
3 bring the book to the curch // repair the bell // protect the cp (3 locations // 4 or 5 routes)
4 suicice yoursel in the flame of satan before the clock end !!! ( 1 epic location !! ( 4 or 5 routes to get there )

now lets see how white chapel is doing

1 repair the EV ( 1 point / 2 route)
2 escort the EV ( 1 way for the ev // 2 routes )
3 bring the data to the point // construct the “small useless bridge” wich is at the same location (2 routes )

okk i hear you . this is not ET … and i know. it was just to point out that open and multiple route does not necessary means defense lose all the time and the game is not fun :slight_smile:

anyway, my “lot of feedback” was more about “we neeed space to create our way to the objectives” not necesseraly a LOT of space but as we have none now, i rather emphasis it :wink: but again i agree, not too much space !

we want maps that provide tactical options and you’ll start to see good progress on that front staggered over what should be the next few patches if tests go well.

So eager to test this out !!!

Ps : i am quite a forum noob, how do you add the author of the quote you make ?

(twincannon) #20

I miss the old maps with the exception of the new carry area for whitechapel, which I think is an improvement (but I do miss the chapel/construction area objs).

as far as long maps go, I don’t see the problem, right now I feel like I’m looking at a loading screen or a lobby half the time I’m playing the game… if the objectives take the same amount of time (and they do…), why not just have more of them, so I can keep playing without getting interrupted all the time having to wait. More areas to fight in + more time spent actually playing the game = win…