Trainyard

(INF3RN0) #21

Split maps and then focus on improving them further. A lot more can be done with split maps. Trainyard feels better, however it still becomes repetitive very quickly. I think splitting maps is a great opportunity for adding more side objs, forward spawns, and tj routes!

(rookie1) #22

I didnt try it, but its the same,except it finish at train crash .Its ok with me if the last obj get beef a bit more .
Same with Wc if its finishing at church,will need beefing this too

(rapid_shot) #23

I don’t like the shorter version at all. The end clip is pretty awesome, but I can see it getting old very fast with the much shorter map. This short of a map basically turns it into TDM.

(Kiris) #24

The main problem with the map is that the first objective is still completed very easily. Fixing that would improve the map by a lot.

Also, I believe that maps with 3 sets of objectives are of proper length. Even with 2 balanced objectives this map will be too quick and get old pretty quick.
On the other end of the spectrum we have maps like london bridge that have too many objectives and are almost never completed.

(DarkangelUK) #25

Can someone tell me how quick is quick? 2 mins? 5, 8? How would it be with even teams and is stopwatch seeing both times finish the map in roughly the same time scale?

(INF3RN0) #26

This exposes one of the biggest flaws in map design for me. Because of the fact that the strategy involved in the maps is so limited you had to throw 4-5 objs in it to make it feel interesting. I believe that 2-3 objectives is quite perfect, but there’s not much memorable map experiences in Extraction. Most of it just feels like you go left or right and hope to get some kills rather than it being an important part of the game. In one of the PAX reviews someone was complaining about the sheer dull experience of traversing the maps, where it felt like linear pathways with no creative options for players- they weren’t even gamers from this genre to note.

Moments in ETQW for example where you focused on opening a specific side-obj route first or snuck your team into the defensive forward spawn before even trying to hit the obj was awesome. Even the last obj of volcano where you were fighting over two areas of interest was great. There was always different zones where engagements took place before they reached the objective area itself and you could zip in and out of the map environment, where in Extraction every game is essentially an obj camp and the manner in which you can traverse through the environment is very limited. It’s just something that’s missing and is especially noticeable in the shorter obj maps. It may be easier to grasp, but it get’s boring very quickly… and I’m sure that will come up a lot in CBT.

(Mustang) #27

Trainyard is too fast
Camden is too slow

Something in the middle with 3 objectives is just right

(DarkangelUK) #28

According to Anti, with the small amount of games played on it so far the average completion time is 7 mins… that’s perfect for comp SW play.

(BomBaKlaK) #29

[QUOTE=INF3RN0;470962]This exposes one of the biggest flaws in map design for me. Because of the fact that the strategy involved in the maps is so limited you had to throw 4-5 objs in it to make it feel interesting. I believe that 2-3 objectives is quite perfect, but there’s not much memorable map experiences in Extraction. Most of it just feels like you go left or right and hope to get some kills rather than it being an important part of the game. In one of the PAX reviews someone was complaining about the sheer dull experience of traversing the maps, where it felt like linear pathways with no creative options for players- they weren’t even gamers from this genre to note.

Moments in ETQW for example where you focused on opening a specific side-obj route first or snuck your team into the defensive forward spawn before even trying to hit the obj was awesome. Even the last obj of volcano where you were fighting over two areas of interest was great. There was always different zones where engagements took place before they reached the objective area itself and you could zip in and out of the map environment, where in Extraction every game is essentially an obj camp and the manner in which you can traverse through the environment is very limited. It’s just something that’s missing and is especially noticeable in the shorter obj maps. It may be easier to grasp, but it get’s boring very quickly… and I’m sure that will come up a lot in CBT.[/QUOTE]

i’m absolutly agree with this, nice explanation.
Repetitive as hell !

(Alchemy) #30

I agree with lower obj count; 3 on most maps, and 4 on the biggest ones seems to be the right direction.

And INF3RN0 post about having more routes/paths to get to the different obj would be most ideal.

(montheponies) #31

I think the current maps, in a lot of cases, suffer from the linear approach of the sequential objectives - with very little in the way of meaningful secondary objectives. As mentioned before, make the primary objective(s) available from the start, with a secondary objective worth fighting over - that way the whole map is being played throughout.

(Raviolay) #32

A secondary objective that increases the other teams Spawnwave time would be perfect IMO.

(Rex) #33

Mhm, I’m not sure what to vote as I tested Trainyard only on pub a few days ago for several rounds. For public play it’s definitely too short. For comp I can’t say, because I haven’t tested it yet.

(montheponies) #34

Not the nth degree of empirical evidence - but the PUG game i played with fairly balanced teams were full holds - with the majority of the hold being on the first objective, which is pretty frustrating. The winner then being the one that completed that objective fastest - not good. The one pub game i played, with unbalanced teams, had both objectives done in about 2.5min

I’d go for making the train car the single primary objective, have a secondary objective like blowing the gates to provide a second attack route to the traincar and a capturable forward spawn where the hackable track switch is presently. Defense would always spawn at the rear of the second objective.

(DarkangelUK) #35

I’d live with that, hack/EV objectives are annoying. 4-7min completion for a map though… perfect :stuck_out_tongue:

(RasteRayzeR) #36

You should prepare big maps, then cut them in 3 smaller maps, and make campaigns out of them. Fits the extraction concept and gives a story. Plus, it’s great for competition as we could use the best of 3 within a single campaign.

(attack) #37

how the hell you want split LB? :smiley:

(RasteRayzeR) #38

Never said LB should make it to the final game ^^

You can always cut maps, or make them longer if required

(DB Genome editor) #39

Lots of people have suggested having the EV blow up the entrance to the building from the bridge, that would seem like a logical point to split it. The second half could restart with the assault on the GH building. Could throw in some side objective to flesh it out, but basically first mission is secure EV and escort to bridge to blow up entrance, second mission is retrieve data cores and escort EV to extraction point (no pun intended).

You could also rework the second half to ditch the EV completely and make it a proper doc run like many have been asking for.

(acutepuppy) #40

The EV blows the walls, its job is done. A faster vehicle waiting for you at the other end of town seems way more practical, exciting, and memorable. Not to mention the bridge is exactly where LB stops being fun.

edit: And you guys are right, it is very important to keep data in context. The majority of games may be 7 minutes, but many of the games I play are first round steamrolls and second round 1 objective holds. Balanced games, less common, have often been to the last minute of the timer both ways.