Wiretap
- Thread starter Void
- Start date
The big problem I have with the map is that players aren't funneled toward a battle at all. We were hovering around 16 players for most of the match tonight, and it felt real scatterbrain. With so many paths and areas of the map for players to run off to, the centralized battle that is pivotal to a solid map just wasn't happening. There weren't moments where we needed a medic helping us out, or times when we got pushed back into our base. It was just chaotic.
That's why you'll see scouts running back and forth, racking up tons of captures: because they didn't have to run through a battle to capture. They just ran around everyone. And in some cases it wasn't even scouts (I could do it as pyro). What it resulted in is frustrating captures by the other team that I felt I had no opportunity to stop, and awkward captures by my team that I had no idea were even happening. By the end of the match there were 15 captures between the two teams, and I remember interacting with maybe 3 or 4 of those intel runs (no really).
This is kind of a serious problem. I'm not going to try and give you a laundry list of "things to fix" to make it better. But if you ask me you should take a look at your layout and reconsider where the encounter spots are, and what kind of battles you're trying to facilitate.
edit: and just fyi, I've played a few of the recent builds of the map. These thoughts aren't exclusive to the playtest tonight, though tonight definitely brought them to a head.
That's why you'll see scouts running back and forth, racking up tons of captures: because they didn't have to run through a battle to capture. They just ran around everyone. And in some cases it wasn't even scouts (I could do it as pyro). What it resulted in is frustrating captures by the other team that I felt I had no opportunity to stop, and awkward captures by my team that I had no idea were even happening. By the end of the match there were 15 captures between the two teams, and I remember interacting with maybe 3 or 4 of those intel runs (no really).
This is kind of a serious problem. I'm not going to try and give you a laundry list of "things to fix" to make it better. But if you ask me you should take a look at your layout and reconsider where the encounter spots are, and what kind of battles you're trying to facilitate.
edit: and just fyi, I've played a few of the recent builds of the map. These thoughts aren't exclusive to the playtest tonight, though tonight definitely brought them to a head.
Last edited:
- Feb 26, 2008
- 1,626
- 1,325
I don't follow that criticism at all
One of the things this map does well is force players to either pass on the bridge or below the bridge at some point in their travels. That means you have at least 1 region where you know you'll see the carrier.
The only thing that would improve this would be as we discussed to pare down the side buildings a bit
One of the things this map does well is force players to either pass on the bridge or below the bridge at some point in their travels. That means you have at least 1 region where you know you'll see the carrier.
The only thing that would improve this would be as we discussed to pare down the side buildings a bit
That's beside the point I'm making. What I'm trying to say is there isn't a centralized battle going on at any given moment. So even though the carrier has to run through mid, he's probably not going to see more than a couple enemies there.
edit: actually come to think of it, the map doesn't really do a go job of forcing players onto or below the bridge. Here's my route as scout:
On one side I'm protected by the tunnel, on the other side by the rocks (partially). And I can take that path both directions.
Last edited:
I havn't played the map, but i have been watching its development. What it sounds like is that in the process of allowing one team to reach the enemy base fast and efficiently, you have made it fast and efficient for intel carriers to escape as well.
The main route should be faster but more dangerous whilst the secondary route has more obvious handicaps such as distance, height disadvantages, but stealth perks, and oppotunities to infultrate deeper into enemy territory.
Your route mechanics are mixed and interweeve. Your primary and secondary routes appear undefined due to the variaty of handicaps you have implemented per route. This ends up splitting teams, rather than splitting classes into their specific roles and complimenting their individual class mechanics.
Generally speaking in 24 player CTF you'll want 3 entrances, primary, secondary and tertairy. The primary will be your main entrance, quick to reach, but readily defencible, yet large enough in size to accomodate player flow.
Your secondary passes up speed for stealth (generally) taking longer to get into the action, and handicapped in height or smaller bottlenecks. 2fort's issue is that both the secondary and primary entrances bottle neck in the same room beyond either entrance (amongst other design flaws), meaning that either paths perks are largely negated since players have still to pass the source of enemy players (spawn rooms).
The tertairy is used (only) by classes with jump perks (scout, solly and demo (obviously)). Allowing players to flank and reach key points within the base (this usually occurs via the battlements).
Ignoring RED's base (Because i only modified BLU), move your base like this. This will have certain ramifications that should resolve existing issues:
You define your primary route as the bridge, meaning players are more likely to encounter each other here. Rather than splitting teams into several groups, diluting them across your map, you split classes, enhancing their mechanics.
The seconary route is less advantagious to take, and so becomes more of a tactical choice depending on class and player positions etc.
Interestingly the secondary now leads to your maps tertairy route. This is not necasserily a bad layout design.
OR: if you do not want to change your layout that much, the obvious (if not cheap) solution would be to erect a fence or wall there. But it doesn't really do more than slow captures down through controlling player movement more linearly, than it would resolve the larger issue at hand (player dilution). Hence, the more in depth recommendation i have made.
The main route should be faster but more dangerous whilst the secondary route has more obvious handicaps such as distance, height disadvantages, but stealth perks, and oppotunities to infultrate deeper into enemy territory.
Your route mechanics are mixed and interweeve. Your primary and secondary routes appear undefined due to the variaty of handicaps you have implemented per route. This ends up splitting teams, rather than splitting classes into their specific roles and complimenting their individual class mechanics.
Generally speaking in 24 player CTF you'll want 3 entrances, primary, secondary and tertairy. The primary will be your main entrance, quick to reach, but readily defencible, yet large enough in size to accomodate player flow.
Your secondary passes up speed for stealth (generally) taking longer to get into the action, and handicapped in height or smaller bottlenecks. 2fort's issue is that both the secondary and primary entrances bottle neck in the same room beyond either entrance (amongst other design flaws), meaning that either paths perks are largely negated since players have still to pass the source of enemy players (spawn rooms).
The tertairy is used (only) by classes with jump perks (scout, solly and demo (obviously)). Allowing players to flank and reach key points within the base (this usually occurs via the battlements).
Ignoring RED's base (Because i only modified BLU), move your base like this. This will have certain ramifications that should resolve existing issues:
You define your primary route as the bridge, meaning players are more likely to encounter each other here. Rather than splitting teams into several groups, diluting them across your map, you split classes, enhancing their mechanics.
The seconary route is less advantagious to take, and so becomes more of a tactical choice depending on class and player positions etc.
Interestingly the secondary now leads to your maps tertairy route. This is not necasserily a bad layout design.
OR: if you do not want to change your layout that much, the obvious (if not cheap) solution would be to erect a fence or wall there. But it doesn't really do more than slow captures down through controlling player movement more linearly, than it would resolve the larger issue at hand (player dilution). Hence, the more in depth recommendation i have made.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2007
- 1,128
- 746
This kind of feedback is great in the first few releases when few people have played the map, and it's gotten only rudimentary testing (if any at all).
But when a map has had real, practical playtime to the extent that this map and others have had, this much theorycrafting without any actual play experience loses a significant amount of credibility.
I based those recommendations off of what everyone else has provided experienced feedback on, in the absence of my own personal experience on this map i have refrained from providing direct feedback. However: The theory was in the prediction of the out come of those recomendations, Not how i anticipate the map currently plays out as (as you have come to rashly insinuate and subsequently place discredibility on my previous post). Spud provided a circumstance that was problematic, i provided a possible resolution. Being under the impression, from voiced concerns of experienced players, on the existing troubles occuring on the map, and believing that Void required further insight on this matter as none had been provided thus far in regards to potential solutions, i provided said feedback. Based off of those existing truths; not otherwise fabricated status quo's.
With that said I'm not entirely sure where you get off accusing my post to be irrelavent and a waste of time.
Additionally, as far as i was aware the map is still in alpha testing. I'm not entirely sure how suggesting (minor) layout changes such as displacing existing work X units from its present location, is an unrealistic suggestion. I was under the impression that layout changes occured during the alpha testing stage. But please correct me if my map testing etiquette is wrong; i realise alpha, beta and RC are only guides to a maps development, but if one is not to modify the layout during early stages of testing, when is he? I'm really in the mood to hear a cleverly executed retort that has a very real, legitimate point, that also makes me look silly, despite how it's contextually inapplicable.
I would like to take the time to confirm that this is not meant as a sly personal response, but i do resent the implication that my feedback is redundant; when you not only seem to misinterpret the reasoning of/behind my post, but then proceed to undermine my credibility with reasoning that i fail to see as applicable. If Void does not want to take my feedback he does not have to, and given the amount of time i put into my feedback posts i try to make sure it's worth both mine and the recipients time and effort to implement. Most people are happy with the advice i give and are sufficiently satisfied that they continue to come back to me for more. That's not to say i'm always right, far from it. But i'm a little hurt that you consider me that naive when i like to think i have proven myself time and time again to be a reliable source of advice.
The map has had real practical testing and the map has proven to suffer from real practical dilema's. I have provided a potential solution to those dilema's. You tell me not to bother because i reason it with other peoples experience when in the absence of my own. If we all did this none of us would ever listen to anyone's feedback, nor give anyone else feedback.
Last edited:
absurdistof
aa
- Aug 10, 2009
- 1,240
- 399
Hate to say it, but I kind of agree with Spud on this one. I feel like the routes bleed together almost like a water color to the point where someone can run in and out really easily. The hardest part about capping the flag is getting in the base (and that there are no engies there).
Alpha X
- Expanded Vent side room, added small ammo
- Added cover to high battlements
- Added cover to lower battlements
- In-Development Detailing
- Further Optimization
- Further Clipping
- Added Soundscapes
- Broke Sightlines
Guts and glory, lads!
- Expanded Vent side room, added small ammo
- Added cover to high battlements
- Added cover to lower battlements
- In-Development Detailing
- Further Optimization
- Further Clipping
- Added Soundscapes
- Broke Sightlines
Guts and glory, lads!
Ok, so now that i've actually got around to playing the map i noticed that your base is just a series of doors attatched to catwalks surrounding rooms. Unless you were actually staticly defending a room you're playing a cat and mouse game with people through these doorways.
This means that a lot of battles end up interrupted. I was having 20 second battles that consisted of strafing through doorways only to eventually get flanked by a scout or heavy medic combo (which again, says a lot about the layout of the bases, scouts weaving in and out of room doorways and heavies jumping corners mowing down small rooms of defenders). It would be nice if you could get battles to actually resolve themselves rather than being drawn out and interrupted by who ever happens to run into another enemy/friend first.
Another thing i noticed was that it was an 8 minute grind to access the enemy base, then when a team finally manages to dislodge the defenders they end up spawn camping and (on this occasion) got in 3 caps before being cleared out.
I dunno if it'd even be worth mentioning this now but it'd be nice to see you open up some of the rooms and reduce the amount of doorways. Just make it less easy for people to run away, make them commit to a fight.
You might consider closing that door or getting rid of the walls and opening it up.
I kept bumping my head on this light fixture, or maybe the door is just that low. It was annoying trying to jump corners as heavy and soldier.
This means that a lot of battles end up interrupted. I was having 20 second battles that consisted of strafing through doorways only to eventually get flanked by a scout or heavy medic combo (which again, says a lot about the layout of the bases, scouts weaving in and out of room doorways and heavies jumping corners mowing down small rooms of defenders). It would be nice if you could get battles to actually resolve themselves rather than being drawn out and interrupted by who ever happens to run into another enemy/friend first.
Another thing i noticed was that it was an 8 minute grind to access the enemy base, then when a team finally manages to dislodge the defenders they end up spawn camping and (on this occasion) got in 3 caps before being cleared out.
I dunno if it'd even be worth mentioning this now but it'd be nice to see you open up some of the rooms and reduce the amount of doorways. Just make it less easy for people to run away, make them commit to a fight.
You might consider closing that door or getting rid of the walls and opening it up.
I kept bumping my head on this light fixture, or maybe the door is just that low. It was annoying trying to jump corners as heavy and soldier.
Last edited:
Authorized Personal Only is HUGE.
Geek Squad = Fail
