Trainyard

(FireWater) #41

I think trainyard is fairly balanced imho.

(shaftz0r) #42

[QUOTE=montheponies;470702]It would be better if the there was a requirement to say blow the doors and the train carriage, either of which can be done in any order. The hackable objective would just become a forward spawn for the offense. The spawn for the defense would have to move, I’d say placing it to the rear of the open trainyard (to the back of the raised MG).

The benefit is that defense could choose which objective to cover (similar to R1 and R2 on Base) and/or whether to contest the forward spawn flag/hackable. The offense could clearly have the opportunity to go for the harder of the two plants first, or just take the forward spawn etc.[/QUOTE]

ive been surprised that this hasnt been implemented on many maps, but i think a lack of spawn points has a bit to do with it.

^ that would be neat, as long as you didnt have to mash a use key to pick it up or return it

(TS420) #43

Went from too long to too short. Maybe 1 more objective. I also think the sniper guy should hack faster than the engi. Right now it is mostly about the engi. The other classes need a little more action maybe. Etqw did a great job of giving each side no matter what class you chose a lot of different things to do to counter the other team besides fragging. I think it misses some in teamwork and side objectives to further a team and give the classes more to do.

(Zarlor) #44

I just played Trainyard which looks like it was setup for PAX for the first time today. I have to say I really liked the new icon highlights of the objectives (maybe not the 3D ghost of the train), but the circle indicators are great for arming and diffusing the bombs. I also thought the voiceovers where a great addition and made what to do much more clear. Those are steps in the right direction for sure!

(Hundopercent) #45

I played Trainyard and it’s nice. It can take awhile or it can be done very quick. That is sort of what we’re looking for. I would say it is too short in this case though. A long time ago I posted that the end of Camden should be escorting the cores to the Helicopter and I still believe that. The worst part of Camden, is the first and last phase.

Tweak the first phase, remove the last phase, end it with an epic data core run to the chopper.

That should be your flagship map unless you some how manage to make London Bridge not feel like you’re watching a 3 hour movie in slow motion.

(Paul) #46

Love it - like Sean already pointed out at the first page these things come to mind:

  • Larger versions are great for public play, public servers with lots of people playing.
  • Smaller/shorter versions like this are excellent in competitive play as they allow you to play best of 3 maps in a reasonable amount of time :slight_smile:
  • It’s less boring to quickly play several parts by switching sides in the mean time, then to play a very long ride directly (Whiechapel for example).
(rookie1) #47

can this bring a bit more interaction if the roof trap could be close by default and need to be open ?

(rookie1) #48

First time I played it today…end animation and sound is just awesome!!
It could stay short like that its ok with me

(Violator) #49

Currently this is a bit of an attack steamroll but loving the intro and exit cinematics - the poor roadkill mercs :).

(Seanza) #50

The defending team do indeed get punished if they mess up, that’s the way it shoudl be :smiley:

(Ashog) #51

Voted “havent played it” before the poll closed.

Now I think I don’t like it. It feels like a castrated Camden to me.

(fragon89) #52

i think its best comp map atm in the game.

  • have many routes
    -not long
  • need comms to handle the attackers :stuck_out_tongue:
(shaftz0r) #53

without the ability to spawn back after the first phase goes, this map is broken. of the multiple times ive played it, the second plant almost always happens immediately because attackers just push forward

(Glottis-3D) #54

1st stage.
I think we need to change the layout of the map. and go to more traditional ‘perpendicular’ way.

now we have a straight line: def spwn -> obj -> att spwn.
def spawn, att spawn and obj should make a triangle. so there will be possibilities to ambush from both teams.

(Ashog) #55

nice thread necrorevive

(Glottis-3D) #56

sometimes i just dont know what else to do :smiley:

(Bangtastic) #57

[QUOTE=krokodealer;494660]1st stage.
I think we need to change the layout of the map. and go to more traditional ‘perpendicular’ way.

now we have a straight line: def spwn -> obj -> att spwn.
def spawn, att spawn and obj should make a triangle. so there will be possibilities to ambush from both teams.[/QUOTE]

What about a third objective? I have the feeling it is now the shortest map, maybe cause I played the most
A third objective also makes sense due to 3 classes and its synergy, or implement a second objective where the team has to destroy security controls which locks the wagon, located somewhere else than on the wagon itself.
In case if you dont plan to enhance the map in terms of new map parts.
Some maps could favour certain classes, to motivate players to pick different ones and not only the regular ones with most firepower. Map description could say
Preferred classes, ultimately to encourage covert and engineer class
Ok not the best suggestion :wink:

Btw there should be a new poll about maps, or delete the ooutdated ones

(Glottis-3D) #58

[QUOTE=Tast1c;494702]What about a third objective? I have the feeling it is now the shortest map, maybe cause I played the most
A third objective also makes sense due to 3 classes and its synergy, or implement a second objective where the team has to destroy security controls which locks the wagon, located somewhere else than on the wagon itself.
In case if you dont plan to enhance the map in terms of new map parts.
Some maps could favour certain classes, to motivate players to pick different ones and not only the regular ones with most firepower. Map description could say
Preferred classes, ultimately to encourage covert and engineer class
Ok not the best suggestion :wink:

Btw there should be a new poll about maps, or delete the ooutdated ones[/QUOTE]

i would love to test 1 more object in trainyard - be that carriable or destructable on from old CAMden. (both of them were nice)

2nd object is not balanced well, but it is ok-ish (if compared to 1st).

1st object is what i dislike the most. it is almost as broken as 1st LB. i think it needs some spawn changes and heavy building movement and good additional routes.

(trickykungfu) #59

I always liked Trainyard in a competitive match. It is really nice balanced.

They only problem i had was the short way from obj1 to obj2. Sometimes even with those low def. spanwtimes u had no chance to defend the obj2…

(Glottis-3D) #60

[QUOTE=trickykungfu;494713]I always liked Trainyard in a competitive match. It is really nice balanced.

They only problem i had was the short way from obj1 to obj2. Sometimes even with those low def. spanwtimes u had no chance to defend the obj2…[/QUOTE]
well, TY is not the worst map, at all.

within this mappool i rate:

waterloo > train > Canary