Tribes:Ascend Forums

FAQ • Login • Register

Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]
Author	Message
BsamohT Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:44 am Posts: 34	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] The boundary seems to be off center, the distance from each base to the boundary wall varies slightly as you can see in the pic. This gives DS a big advantage concerning routes because the boundary being back farther gives them a great back route.
Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:17 am

mousedisc Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am Posts: 531	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] in t1 the flag adjacent hill (right side for BE and left side for DS) was above the flag stand and base just a bit. This gave incentive for spammers to spam from close by since it serves the double purpose of dueling the LD if you have health. As a HO/spammer I would rather do it from the adjacent hill. Right now since the hills are below the base, I have to go up to the SH structure. It makes me feel lame to have to do so since it just is easy cliff spamming. There is an epic amount of stuff you guys missed in the port from the original. Most (if not all) would benefit the map greatly and enhance old and new player experience on the map alike. I will create a video this week (hopefully by wed) to highlight. I have to agree on a lot of the gripes about the current state of the map, but I know it is salvageable (SH spikes not withstanding) _________________ ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS Last edited by mousedisc on Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:25 pm

TheCybrid Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:15 pm Posts: 5	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] For the most part, I'm liking this map, even making it nighttime. Only a couple of things I don't like: 1. The vehicle pad - this map is too small for vehicles, and this may detract from gameplay. Should be removed. 2. The main building at the center of the map is too high. Even as PTH with Ultra Cap I and II, this is tough to get to the ledge unless you start from standing right under it. 3. The 2 inventory stations on top of the base tend to get in the way. My suggestion would be to move one across from the interior entrance and scrap the second. _________________ I used to be a scout, then I took a spinfusor to the knee...
Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:23 pm

Vondrak Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:50 pm Posts: 154	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] 1. I agree with most people that the vehicle pad should go. It's nice to have some maps where you don't have to worry about tank spam/shrikes, and it also stays a little truer to the original. 2. The rooftop invents should go as well. They make it too easy to stack deployables, and everyone spawns in full loadouts anyway. Stonehenge always sort of naturally placed a high priority on deployable invents, as it was a pain to go into the base, and gens were often down. Anyone can call in an invent after a few minutes into the game, so give us a reason to actually do so. 3. Hills higher, valleys deeper. I know there's a tough balance with this, because you don't want people to be able to go 600, but deep valleys don't necessarily transfer into high horizontal speeds, and as it is, the map seems a bit flat. Steep hills are fun to fight on, and while they can be a pain to get up, you don't necessarily have to be able to simply walk yourself out of any situation. Also these big deep valleys, especially behind the flag stands, made for some pretty epic chases all the way around the map, and worked as a hazard for anyone fighting around the base. You knock someone into the pit, you don't have to worry about them for a while. 4. Back-to-fronts need a big, but smart nerf. I don't agree with forcefields or some other piecemeal fix. Just deepen the pit behind the stands, and move the boundary closer. Don't make it impossible, but slower and more difficult to pull off, as it was in the original. It should be an option more based on surprise than speed. Five-second caps are no fun for anyone. 5. More Nyan. 6. The central structure is a pretty good height as it is. It should be hard to get up on, as it's a super easy spam point, and is easy to defend. I think it could stand to be a bit wider to help prevent base-base sniping more, and also a bit longer, because a lot of space at either end of it is unused at the moment. This would also allow for more interesting dogfights on it, instead of just on the flat top part. And as some other people have said, I'm not completely sold on the style. It could stand to be stonier, and I'm not a big fan of the top spires. And finally, just a word on balance: I realize that creating mirrored or congruent maps is the easiest way to ensure balance, but it's also the most boring. We now have four maps that are congruent (each side is the same if you flip it around - Arx, X-fire, Raindance, Temple), and three maps that are mirrored (each side is the same, but backwards - Drydock, Sunstar, Tartarus. So basically, on all these maps, it doesn't make any difference which side you choose, all routes are the same. The only other map that leaves is Katabatic, which is arguably the most interesting one. The landscape is completely different for each side, yet fairly balanced for both. There were some issues that were addressed early in the beta, such as making the BE secondary base entrance more directly accessible for the DS offense, but this is a good example of how to even things out. Granted, some people will always have their preference for one side or the other, but it's fun to be able to make that choice, and to learn both sides of a map. Some will say Kata is better for DS, because you can grab at 400, but others prefer BE for the more viable back-to-front routes--but overall they're balanced. In any case there are many many different route options for both sides, and that keeps the game interesting and allows people to be creative. As long as one side doesn't have a clear and exploitable advantage over the other, the two sides of a map can be both unique and balanced. So anyway, I realize SH isn't 100% mirrored as it is, but my point is please try to add in some more of the variety that made the original so interesting to play, and try to keep this in mind for future maps as well. Sorry it's so long.
Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:17 am

Lesteriuse Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:39 pm Posts: 1745 Location: Zagreb, Croatia	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] Honestly, the valleys are already borderlining with too deep. The current physics make it really hard to go down a valley without inflicting damage to yourself when you hit the other slope. It's really retarded. _________________ A thread on performance bottlenecks in the engine and what needs to be optimised My blueplate/mid-air nitron montage
Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:03 am

Xeres14 Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:32 pm Posts: 117	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] 1. Please get rid of the V-Pad. 2. It feels like I'm playing on a golf ball with all the little dimples in the map. Please add some hills. 3. I don't get the dried up moat behind the flag. Around where you spawn. 4. Remove the lights which just seem to light up the dimples. If the map is too dark without them then make it a dusk map as opposed to night time. 5. Widen the central tower.
Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:49 pm

mousedisc Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am Posts: 531	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] It doesn't have to be deep as much as more reasonably hilly. Look at Katabatic, it does hills well on the outskirts of the DS side base right side. Part of SHs fun was the big bowls where anything could happen going in mach ten towards the bottom. _________________ ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS
Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:35 pm

InsertName Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:52 am Posts: 235	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] 1. Map is too small 2. Back route is almost inviable because of where the rear hill is placed and oob is too close in. 3. Vpad really? 4. Natural Jugger spam points are also in some cases spawn points. 5. Don't really like the night time theme, detracts from the stonehenge that I remember 6. This is a map thats going to get shunned because of its design, which looks like it is designed the way it is because of bad decisions with the underlying game itself (jetpack speedcaps, etc). It is going to be difficult to do something with this map to make it fit for purpose. Would much rather the game was fixed properly and then stonehenge was attempted than see the map get slaughtered by people for reasons not necessarily the fault of the people/person making the map. 7. It's clearly going to be a snipers wet dream. 8. At least there are no purple night elf land flowers this time. 9. Inv on roof is important for hof, but it would be better if it wasnt there and hofs were allowed to call in stations to the roof.
Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:37 am

disci Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:48 pm Posts: 1025 Location: Winland	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] I don't really care much about the game atm since I don't see it improving much from what it is now. But since people are conserned about how easy b2f's are on this map, then why not increase the height of the base so b2f's would be possible but require a dj from stand to get over the ledge of the base? Another solution would be lowering the height of the stand, but it's all about which one would fit the best.
Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:05 am

mousedisc Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am Posts: 531	Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF] An older map, but it is a good illustration of gameplay closer to the original SH experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrL2xTBGPXU This is an old match so it doesn't have the very wide side to side routes, and the side-back routes on both sides, but its good for illustration the common paths hirez missed. _________________ ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS
Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:35 pm

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

Author

Message

BsamohT

Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:44 am
Posts: 34

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

The boundary seems to be off center, the distance from each base to the boundary wall varies slightly as you can see in the pic. This gives DS a big advantage concerning routes because the boundary being back farther gives them a great back route.

Mon Jun 25, 2012 11:17 am

mousedisc

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am
Posts: 531

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

in t1 the flag adjacent hill (right side for BE and left side for DS) was above the flag stand and base just a bit. This gave incentive for spammers to spam from close by since it serves the double purpose of dueling the LD if you have health.

As a HO/spammer I would rather do it from the adjacent hill. Right now since the hills are below the base, I have to go up to the SH structure. It makes me feel lame to have to do so since it just is easy cliff spamming.

There is an epic amount of stuff you guys missed in the port from the original. Most (if not all) would benefit the map greatly and enhance old and new player experience on the map alike. I will create a video this week (hopefully by wed) to highlight.

I have to agree on a lot of the gripes about the current state of the map, but I know it is salvageable (SH spikes not withstanding)

_________________
ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O
RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS

Last edited by mousedisc on Tue Jun 26, 2012 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:25 pm

TheCybrid

Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:15 pm
Posts: 5

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

For the most part, I'm liking this map, even making it nighttime. Only a couple of things I don't like:
1. The vehicle pad - this map is too small for vehicles, and this may detract from gameplay. Should be removed.
2. The main building at the center of the map is too high. Even as PTH with Ultra Cap I and II, this is tough to get to the ledge unless you start from standing right under it.
3. The 2 inventory stations on top of the base tend to get in the way. My suggestion would be to move one across from the interior entrance and scrap the second.

_________________
I used to be a scout, then I took a spinfusor to the knee...

Mon Jun 25, 2012 5:23 pm

Vondrak

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 9:50 pm
Posts: 154

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

1. I agree with most people that the vehicle pad should go. It's nice to have some maps where you don't have to worry about tank spam/shrikes, and it also stays a little truer to the original.

2. The rooftop invents should go as well. They make it too easy to stack deployables, and everyone spawns in full loadouts anyway. Stonehenge always sort of naturally placed a high priority on deployable invents, as it was a pain to go into the base, and gens were often down. Anyone can call in an invent after a few minutes into the game, so give us a reason to actually do so.

3. Hills higher, valleys deeper. I know there's a tough balance with this, because you don't want people to be able to go 600, but deep valleys don't necessarily transfer into high horizontal speeds, and as it is, the map seems a bit flat. Steep hills are fun to fight on, and while they can be a pain to get up, you don't necessarily have to be able to simply walk yourself out of any situation. Also these big deep valleys, especially behind the flag stands, made for some pretty epic chases all the way around the map, and worked as a hazard for anyone fighting around the base. You knock someone into the pit, you don't have to worry about them for a while.

4. Back-to-fronts need a big, but smart nerf. I don't agree with forcefields or some other piecemeal fix. Just deepen the pit behind the stands, and move the boundary closer. Don't make it impossible, but slower and more difficult to pull off, as it was in the original. It should be an option more based on surprise than speed. Five-second caps are no fun for anyone.

5. More Nyan.

6. The central structure is a pretty good height as it is. It should be hard to get up on, as it's a super easy spam point, and is easy to defend. I think it could stand to be a bit wider to help prevent base-base sniping more, and also a bit longer, because a lot of space at either end of it is unused at the moment. This would also allow for more interesting dogfights on it, instead of just on the flat top part. And as some other people have said, I'm not completely sold on the style. It could stand to be stonier, and I'm not a big fan of the top spires.

And finally, just a word on balance: I realize that creating mirrored or congruent maps is the easiest way to ensure balance, but it's also the most boring. We now have four maps that are congruent (each side is the same if you flip it around - Arx, X-fire, Raindance, Temple), and three maps that are mirrored (each side is the same, but backwards - Drydock, Sunstar, Tartarus. So basically, on all these maps, it doesn't make any difference which side you choose, all routes are the same. The only other map that leaves is Katabatic, which is arguably the most interesting one. The landscape is completely different for each side, yet fairly balanced for both. There were some issues that were addressed early in the beta, such as making the BE secondary base entrance more directly accessible for the DS offense, but this is a good example of how to even things out. Granted, some people will always have their preference for one side or the other, but it's fun to be able to make that choice, and to learn both sides of a map. Some will say Kata is better for DS, because you can grab at 400, but others prefer BE for the more viable back-to-front routes--but overall they're balanced. In any case there are many many different route options for both sides, and that keeps the game interesting and allows people to be creative. As long as one side doesn't have a clear and exploitable advantage over the other, the two sides of a map can be both unique and balanced.

So anyway, I realize SH isn't 100% mirrored as it is, but my point is please try to add in some more of the variety that made the original so interesting to play, and try to keep this in mind for future maps as well.

Sorry it's so long.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:17 am

Lesteriuse

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:39 pm
Posts: 1745
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

Honestly, the valleys are already borderlining with too deep. The current physics make it really hard to go down a valley without inflicting damage to yourself when you hit the other slope. It's really retarded.

_________________

A thread on performance bottlenecks in the engine and what needs to be optimised
My blueplate/mid-air nitron montage

Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:03 am

Xeres14

Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 1:32 pm
Posts: 117

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

1. Please get rid of the V-Pad.
2. It feels like I'm playing on a golf ball with all the little dimples in the map. Please add some hills.
3. I don't get the dried up moat behind the flag. Around where you spawn.
4. Remove the lights which just seem to light up the dimples. If the map is too dark without them then make it a dusk map as opposed to night time.
5. Widen the central tower.

Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:49 pm

mousedisc

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am
Posts: 531

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

It doesn't have to be deep as much as more reasonably hilly. Look at Katabatic, it does hills well on the outskirts of the DS side base right side. Part of SHs fun was the big bowls where anything could happen going in mach ten towards the bottom.

_________________
ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O
RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS

Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:35 pm

InsertName

Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:52 am
Posts: 235

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

1. Map is too small
2. Back route is almost inviable because of where the rear hill is placed and oob is too close in.
3. Vpad really?
4. Natural Jugger spam points are also in some cases spawn points.
5. Don't really like the night time theme, detracts from the stonehenge that I remember
6. This is a map thats going to get shunned because of its design, which looks like it is designed the way it is because of bad decisions with the underlying game itself (jetpack speedcaps, etc). It is going to be difficult to do something with this map to make it fit for purpose. Would much rather the game was fixed properly and then stonehenge was attempted than see the map get slaughtered by people for reasons not necessarily the fault of the people/person making the map.
7. It's clearly going to be a snipers wet dream.
8. At least there are no purple night elf land flowers this time.
9. Inv on roof is important for hof, but it would be better if it wasnt there and hofs were allowed to call in stations to the roof.

Wed Jun 27, 2012 3:37 am

disci

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:48 pm
Posts: 1025
Location: Winland

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

I don't really care much about the game atm since I don't see it improving much from what it is now. But since people are conserned about how easy b2f's are on this map, then why not increase the height of the base so b2f's would be possible but require a dj from stand to get over the ledge of the base? Another solution would be lowering the height of the stand, but it's all about which one would fit the best.

Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:05 am

mousedisc

Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:38 am
Posts: 531

Re: Map Feedback - Stonehenge [CTF]

An older map, but it is a good illustration of gameplay closer to the original SH experience: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrL2xTBGPXU

This is an old match so it doesn't have the very wide side to side routes, and the side-back routes on both sides, but its good for illustration the common paths hirez missed.

_________________
ADD CONFIGURABLE CROSSHAIRS: + * . O
RELEASE MAPPING TOOLS

Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:35 pm