Sustaining 'fun'

(Anti) #261

[QUOTE=Kendle;450799]I think the multiple data-core approach is a lazy mechanic to string out an objective and I really don’t like it.

I guess SD’s thought is making the carry phase simple makes it easier for “newbies” to understand, and requiring it to be done more than once ensures it’s not over and done with too quickly. I suggest a single object carried for a longer distance is just as easy to understand, and can take just as much time. The difference is it’s not a spammy chaotic mess like the 2 carry phases on WC.

I’ve never heard anyone complain they don’t understand the hostage escort game-mode in CS, and SD themselves had escort maps in Brink, so why they’ve suddenly decided extended doc-run maps are a bad thing I don’t know. ??[/QUOTE]

I think most of our current multi-item doc runs are a result of us trying to balance the objectives in a space that was already too well defined and progressed for us to be able to change them significantly enough. Unfortunately all maps reach a ‘point of no return’ of sorts at some point :frowning:

We are aware that the doc runs are not as good as they could be though and we’ll try to address that in future maps for sure, plus we’ll look at what else we can still do in existing ones to improve them.

(rand0m) #262

[QUOTE=Kendle;450799]I think the multiple data-core approach is a lazy mechanic to string out an objective and I really don’t like it.

I guess SD’s thought is making the carry phase simple makes it easier for “newbies” to understand, and requiring it to be done more than once ensures it’s not over and done with too quickly. I suggest a single object carried for a longer distance is just as easy to understand, and can take just as much time. The difference is it’s not a spammy chaotic mess like the 2 carry phases on WC.

I’ve never heard anyone complain they don’t understand the hostage escort game-mode in CS, and SD themselves had escort maps in Brink, so why they’ve suddenly decided extended doc-run maps are a bad thing I don’t know. ??[/QUOTE]

Maybe because consoles don’t have this? Usually when us old school gamers don’t like something it’s because of something the console ruined.

But you are correct, 1 long objective run will take just as long as carrying 4. WC is about as close to a doc run as we have except its stupidly short and no fun, you wipe out the defense once you easily win. If sd creates a long doc run map I bet you bring back a lot of old school players as well as still keeping it simple for new players. When I played rtcw I didn’t get the objective and then say to myself “omg circuit overload I can’t figure out what to do!” It’s pretty obvious, and its a lame excuse that it would be “hard to figure out”. I know you have a road map for maps in the future sd I suggest a long doc run along the likes of village or ice. I know you guys had your fingers in rtcw a bit…use your experience not what you “think” console gamers want. I’m so SICK of this BS that things need to cater to them, they DON’T. Why do you think fps games CONTINUALLY FAIL ON THE PC, except CS. Oh because they didn’t cater to the console crowd and kept their game a classic computer fps. Try it. The last patch you worked your way towards it a bit with budging on spawn timers. Now it’s time to create a classic map. I know you have the ability to do so…

(Kendle) #263

So the existing maps are likely to stay as they are? I guess once you’re at the stage of making extended art passes that makes sense, and I do appreciate the way you’re letting us get our hands on maps like Camden and Canary Wharf at an early block-out stage so these things can be addressed before then.

But if it’s too late for LB, WC and now CL, how about doing something with the last objective on CW?

And seeing as you’re already raided ET (to an extent) with the design of LB being very similar to Goldrush how about your next map being a DB version of Radar?

(ImageOmega) #264

I second the desire to see a long doc run style map. I am all for less carry able objectives as well. Also, I would like to test out doing away with the delay in picking up and dropping off carry able objectives. I am ok with having to hit a key to pick it up, but can we make it instant?

Also a much needed addition to improving movement would be allowing sprint speeds while reloading.

(woll3) #265

[QUOTE=MrEd;450777]It is not your computer.

Sometimes the server experiences performance drops too. When that happens the lag gets worse.

As mentioned before, improving performance across the board is one of our major goals at the moment.[/QUOTE]

I see, but i want to add that not everyone has it at the same time, people moved around normally, but i was warping around.

(Kl3ppy) #266

I have this problem too. Usually it starts when more than 10/12 ppl are on the server and after 2 or 3 maps. FPS are the same as before, ping is also the same as before the “lags” begin.

(rand0m) #267

I agree IO allowing reload while sprinting is needed. Firing slowing you down is fine with me but I see no need to penalize a reload.

(Toomic) #268

For anyone experiencing warping can you create a thread in the bugs forum and we’ll look into it :slight_smile:

(prophett) #269

[QUOTE=Kendle;450805]

And seeing as you’re already raided ET (to an extent) with the design of LB being very similar to Goldrush how about your next map being a DB version of Radar?[/QUOTE]

yes!!!

(rand0m) #270

Yeah I’d love a db version of radar 0.o. Open farm field outside of the city of London…

(BrightIs) #271

Variety is the key with the map looking different both in terms of conditions and situation, the size of it, the length and the type of objective.

As with W:ET you had a capture and run map with radar, escort with goldrush and fuel dump, blow up on battery, oasis and fixing on railgun, with different time lengths and setting, from desert, to snow and temperate.

I think you have already hinted at it but I think you need to have maps in other cities of other countries as well, so gives opportunity for more variety of architecture and setting etc. such as LA, Cairo, Mumbai, Sydney, Tokyo, Dubai, or cities that aren’t in the usual FPS franchises.

As for remaking the radar map, there is a lot of marsh land and open ground along and around the thames estuary which could be used to site the map.

I am hoping for many non escort ev maps to be added, some capture and run ones.

(rand0m) #272

[QUOTE=BrightIs;450831]Variety is the key with the map looking different both in terms of conditions and situation, the size of it, the length and the type of objective.

As with W:ET you had a capture and run map with radar, escort with goldrush and fuel dump, blow up on battery, oasis and fixing on railgun, with different time lengths and setting, from desert, to snow and temperate.

I think you have already hinted at it but I think you need to have maps in other cities of other countries as well, so gives opportunity for more variety of architecture and setting etc. such as LA, Cairo, Mumbai, Sydney, Tokyo, Dubai, or cities that aren’t in the usual FPS franchises.

As for remaking the radar map, there is a lot of marsh land and open ground along and around the thames estuary which could be used to site the map.

I am hoping for many non escort ev maps to be added, some capture and run ones.[/QUOTE]

Very good post he’s right.

(TacTicToe) #273

Rand0m/Shifty, what are your comp specs?

(Hundopercent) #274

[QUOTE=Anti;450802]I think most of our current multi-item doc runs are a result of us trying to balance the objectives in a space that was already too well defined and progressed for us to be able to change them significantly enough. Unfortunately all maps reach a ‘point of no return’ of sorts at some point :frowning:

We are aware that the doc runs are not as good as they could be though and we’ll try to address that in future maps for sure, plus we’ll look at what else we can still do in existing ones to improve them.[/QUOTE]

Thats upsetting. You should be making textureless maps and letting everyone play on them to get a feel of the map balance and replayability before doing fog passes (im assuming less visibility is art to you guys.)

You basically said we have to deliver a kentucky fried bucket of failure to our customers because we did so much fog and not enough map design. Hope those floating papers, birds, and mice were worth it. -_-

What upsets me even more is that you knew WC needed a serious over haul in the layout and instead of fixing that you just moved debris around in the end, added a staircase, and added Oompa Loompa doors to the side of the chapel.

Can you guys please just churn out some textureless maps and let us start running through them and letting you know how we feel now before you fog the **** out of it?

(Nail) #275

ya know, there’s this asshat part of me that wants to say, Strich, go get UDK and show us what a real map should be, but I don’t think you have the intellect.
I’m thinking this game isn’t for you, probably no game is for you. Your constant whining annoys me, sorry, you may have very valid points but your attitude makes me want to shoot you. I’d appreciate you toning the language down, my apologies to SD et all

(rand0m) #276

[QUOTE=Nail;450871]ya know, there’s this asshat part of me that wants to say, Strich, go get UDK and show us what a real map should be, but I don’t think you have the intellect.
I’m thinking this game isn’t for you, probably no game is for you. Your constant whining annoys me, sorry, you may have very valid points but your attitude makes me want to shoot you. I’d appreciate you toning the language down, my apologies to SD et all[/QUOTE]

No offense…he may be a little condescending but he’s right. Repeatedly we have told them over and over and over again the problem with the map but adjustments and the ability to test those adjustments isn’t even given a shot. The fog on the maps is a bit ridiculous. No one wants to play a washed out environment over and over again it gets old really quick and the fact that you need name plates and icons over ENEMIES like a friggin’ MMO is just plain stupid. This is a FPS, not a world of Warcraft battleground where I need to see a healthbar to see my enemy in the distance. Models should be clear cut and have the ability to be seen without it. I edited my cfg to turn all that stupid iff crap off as much as possible and yet I still am forced to look at
Enemy class icons over there heads. Stupid. The only thing I want to see is the enemy, that’s it. If 90% of you disagree with this then I’m sorry but strych is right this game is failing from the gates with the over saturation and lack of model identification. I see they released a new ms19 that shows the characters they made. But that video has ZERO saturation at all, then once those models are in game then what? The saturation will still be there and it’ll still be a problem. It’s pretty pathetic that skins need to be able to be seen by adding lights. Remove the saturation. Why does tdm get the clear day time maps and obj/sw get the dark dreary saturated maps? Makes no sense. Fix the saturation, fix Alot of your problems. Plain and simple.

(Nail) #277

we’re playing a placeholder game on maturing maps, quit demanding and start suggesting more, please

(Mustang) #278

I turned off all enemy IFF and it’s sooooo much better.

Been playing like this for a couple of week now and I’m loving it.

(rand0m) #279

We are suggesting.

(prophett) #280

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/36367-mp_royaldocks (8{