Seeing as this is the first time ive seen this map really it feels like something that would be in saints row! lol
I'm liking this by the looks. Less cramped than the other one. My only concern is a team setting up around a building and spawnkilling people inside. For that reason, I think this map would play 6v6 or 5v5 better than 8v8. I'm also very curious as to how you made that yellow sign. +1 for uniqueness.
I set spawns all over the map. Each team can pretty much spawn anywhere except in the other team's "base area." There are zero spawn zones on this map so there's no "spawn trapping."
I can't imagine how that sign can exist without framerate, but if you say it doesn't then good job. The buildings do look really nice, but the map is extremely flat, with some very long lines of sight. There are some blockers, but the map is basically 4 interesting buildings with no connections between then, just a big flat figure 8. The main structures of the map really can't be this disconnected, as players will have a hard time moving between them on foot.
Yeah, pretty much this. DMR's are gonna run rampant on this map, and people will just camp in the most powerful structures (parking garage?). I feel like this map is a big step back from your previous unfortunately. The structures themselves look amazing, however. P.S. Shoe, I think he photoshopped all of the stuff onto the sign, so in-game it'll be just an orange wall. Maybe I'm wrong..
It's a city style map, so yeah the streets are flat but this map actually provides many vertical levels, a lot more than you see on most maps. They're not hills, but this map is just as much vertical as it is horizontal. The lines of sight are not long when you're on the ground, but once you start getting higher the Los grows in areas. This is a really big map, I would connect the buildings but hard to due with budget. I just don't see how panic station gets so much great credit when it is more flat than this and longer LoS with less play area... just don't get it. Edit: The map is a city style map with many streets and alley ways. To connect the buildings would take away from the streets and alleyways, making vehicles useless. Plus it would take away from the city feel. However I wanted to add a subway system and connect the buildings via catwalks but building a map of this size in forge ain't easy by no means. I simplified the buildings as much as possible without taking away from their looks to open up more options for LoS blockers and making more routes. I have SpinCycle telling me he likes how much less clutter there is and you guys are saying it's to open? This is a "BTB" map, players are going to be scattered everywhere and there are so many routes to take, you can jump onto higher levels of the parking garage form other buildings.
Great looking structures on this. I appreciate the grand scale you try to build your maps to. This looks like it'll be a blast to play in. I imagine it'll actually feel like you're playing in a small section of city. Location call-outs during games should be pretty easily understood. I think I would like to see some more height variation and cover in the open areas, but I understand that they're suppose to represent streets and it might detract a bit from the city street feel. Then there are the budget restraints you'd run into as well. If budget weren't an issue, perhaps a tunnel or two under the street(s) linking a few of the buildings would help. Regardless, it's a great looking map with some potential for some cool gameplay. I'll run through it today, and let you know what I find.
Yeah, I originally had the idea of adding a subway system underneath and totally wanted to add some more connection between the buildings via catwalks... but due to the map size, there's just not enough budget. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
You have vertical levels in the buildings, but in order to get between areas you have to go down to the streets. It's not that you can just connect these buildings, you need to start with connections in mind so that you don't end up with this setup. Here are the main problems with the buildings being unconnected with an entirely flat base: • Infantry are discouraged from trying to move from building to building, as they are disadvantaged by trying to go out into the streets. Because of this, players will likely camp in the buildings as much as possible, separating infantry and vehicle play spaces. • The extreme lines of sight encourage sniper and long range weapon dominance in the streets, and because other players are in the buildings they are likely to get shot down quickly if they leave their own building. This is where height variation and connections in the buildings comes in handy. Height variation blocks lines of sight very well and helps separate areas of the map. Connected buildings not only allow players to pass from building to building in relative safety, but also often act as large LOS blockers, making the outside areas much more viable for infantry. This promotes infantry vehicle fights and keeps players moving around the map instead of simply fighting between buildings. Since you brought it up, I'll go over why Panic Station works, though for the future it is kind of rude to call out someone else's map in your own thread. First off, most of what you called it out for is wrong. Panic Station is not more flat than this, as there are height variations all over the map and 2 very distinct levels that are interconnected and accessible to vehicles as well as infantry. This maps main roads are also much longer than Panic Stations. The size of the map is irrelevant to this conversation. Just because one map has more floorspace and one has less does not make either one better or worse. As to why Panic Station gets credit, it plays extremely well for 6 v 6 games. Vehicles have a large variety of routes they can take that can help them flank teams and have interesting battles. All areas of the map are interconnected well, so any area you are in connects to multiple other areas, allowing players to move through the map in a variety of ways and outsmart the competition. Lines of sight are varied, so while a few of them are long they are easy to get out of and do not allow anyone to dominate the map. Games never become a stalemate because players have a lot of options for how they want to move around the map. The problems with Monstrosity I see then are that players cannot move around the map without being forced through areas where they are totally exposed to vehicles and long range shots from both far away and above. If I am on the map, I can stay in my building and shoot players in the streets, or I can be the guy in the streets getting shot at trying to move to another building. A good map to look at as a developer example of all this is Headlong from Halo 2. There are several separate buildings, but they are linked through things like tunnels, back hallways, large cover pieces, and height variations that block important lines of sight. This is proof off the bat that a city map doesn't have to be flat, as well as that skyscrapers and buildings will work so long as there is ample cover, connections, and other ways for infantry to move through the map without being totally exposed.
Quoted in gray. My remarks in orange. ..and thanks for taking the time to write this up and I'm going to share my thoughts as well because I'm just using this for professional development. Again thanks... so here we go though. You have vertical levels in the buildings, but in order to get between areas you have to go down to the streets. It's not that you can just connect these buildings, you need to start with connections in mind so that you don't end up with this setup. Here are the main problems with the buildings being unconnected with an entirely flat base: There are many trick jumps to get to areas as well as there are 3 teleporters on the map to get from the ground to on top of the roof of city hall, on top of the crane, and up in the high rise. I do agree with you that the buildings need to be connected, preferably off the ground via tunneled catwalks but I just don't have the budget unless I take away from what I already have. This is a urban style map though and that is why city maps are fun because you have to take the fight to streets and fight from building to building, giving you that "urban" feel. • Infantry are discouraged from trying to move from building to building, as they are disadvantaged by trying to go out into the streets. Because of this, players will likely camp in the buildings as much as possible, separating infantry and vehicle play spaces. The distances between buildings is not as great of a distance as your making it sound and there is plenty of cover on the streets to only make it half way and still take cover from any and all incoming fire. Players will camp in buildings for some duration, helping "hold the line" and allowing their team mates push forward without worrying about taking fire. Again, that's the urban style gameplay. However there are many routes to take and with 16 players on the map, that's just to much to cover to keep guys from crossing the streets. There may be a few picked off here and there, but there will also be alot of unseen movement on the map and most of it on the streets. And yeah, infantry will use the buildings (cover) to their advantage while the vehicles "patrol" the streets. • The extreme lines of sight encourage sniper and long range weapon dominance in the streets, and because other players are in the buildings they are likely to get shot down quickly if they leave their own building. Would you please point out these "extreme" LoS that you are referring to. BTB maps have long LoS, please explain how the LoS are so greater on my BTB map than in official BTB maps. You can comfortably move half way across the map with plenty cover and not being able to be taken out. It's once you start moving into "their half" is when you have to start pushing past their LoS, but that's the way it should be. However, you can take many routes like stated before, you can even hug the side routes all the way from one base to the other behind all the buildings to stay out of LoS. This is where height variation and connections in the buildings comes in handy. Height variation blocks lines of sight very well and helps separate areas of the map. Connected buildings not only allow players to pass from building to building in relative safety, but also often act as large LOS blockers, making the outside areas much more viable for infantry. This promotes infantry vehicle fights and keeps players moving around the map instead of simply fighting between buildings. If you start adding to many covered routes from building to building there can be no control on this map, at all. There's already to many routes as is, spread out over a very great area, adding more cover is going to be way to conjested for BTB. Since you brought it up, I'll go over why Panic Station works, though for the future it is kind of rude to call out someone else's map in your own thread. I never said it was a bad map, but I was just using it as a reference, just like referring to a official map, how is that rude? I love Psychoduck's maps. First off, most of what you called it out for is wrong. Panic Station is not more flat than this, as there are height variations all over the map and 2 very distinct levels that are interconnected and accessible to vehicles as well as infantry. This maps main roads are also much longer than Panic Stations. The size of the map is irrelevant to this conversation. Just because one map has more floorspace and one has less does not make either one better or worse. Only 2 levels.... exactly. Yes his roads are a littttttle shorter than mine, but hardly any LoS barrier on them and zero cover. Hogs dominate this map do to such long LoS and infantry have next to no cover, no where close to mine. You simply have to "push" past all the infantry to get into their base, not much sneaking allowed. Only reason I brought it up is because everything you brought up is worse on this map. The map is very flat, only 2 levels with a few ramps. I want to keep my roads flat because I don't want the vehicles to be OP on my map to allow infantry to take cover and defend themselves against vehicles. As to why Panic Station gets credit, it plays extremely well for 6 v 6 games. Vehicles have a large variety of routes they can take that can help them flank teams and have interesting battles. All areas of the map are interconnected well, so any area you are in connects to multiple other areas, allowing players to move through the map in a variety of ways and outsmart the competition. Lines of sight are varied, so while a few of them are long they are easy to get out of and do not allow anyone to dominate the map. Games never become a stalemate because players have a lot of options for how they want to move around the map. The vehicles have to much freedom of movement in my opinion. The LoS are actually longer than mine, and you can easily be caught in the open. Halo is all about evading firefights, not a cat & mouse game like CoD. So you should have plenty of ways to take cover and escape a DMR or w/e. The problems with Monstrosity I see then are that players cannot move around the map without being forced through areas where they are totally exposed to vehicles and long range shots from both far away and above. If I am on the map, I can stay in my building and shoot players in the streets, or I can be the guy in the streets getting shot at trying to move to another building. You only have to cross a "10x10" area at most 2-3 times to avoid vehicles from one base to the other. Where as panic station you are constantly exposed to vehicles with no escape except fighting your way out. You act like it's a 1v1 situation about everything. The only buildings to take cover and hold down like this is the parking garage and city hall. If the enemy team is holding down either building, you could completely avoid that buildings LoS by using the other or going behind it. There is also only a "10x10" space between buildings at most so when you have 16 players on the map, taking different routes all over the map while other players are shooting at you... see what I'm saying. I think you really need to see this map up close and get a feel for perspective, scale, and LoS before being so sure of something that makes no sense to me when you're going off some very small screenshots (all of them displaying no extreme LoS). A good map to look at as a developer example of all this is Headlong from Halo 2. There are several separate buildings, but they are linked through things like tunnels, back hallways, large cover pieces, and height variations that block important lines of sight. This is proof off the bat that a city map doesn't have to be flat, as well as that skyscrapers and buildings will work so long as there is ample cover, connections, and other ways for infantry to move through the map without being totally exposed.[/QUOTE] I got many compliments on my last map Phalanx on how close it looks and plays to headlong. This map just goes beyond that, adding twice as many routes and alot more height.
Woah there, hold your horses. Less clutter doesn't mean anything but less clutter. This map is pretty damn open, don't get me wrong. Also, I agree with Shoe on pretty much everything, including his point that calling out someone's map in another thread is plain rude.
I have to admit I laughed when I saw the strippers haha but anyway, some of the buildings insides look pretty interesting. I'd say I like city hall the most of anything. It seems like it could be a classic styled base. Im still skeptical of the large flat areas though...
Here was my original plan to add to the map but no budget to allow it unless I dumb down the map. Still don't know if I could. Here's an overview of player movement as well as the map for your reference. Lines showing movement, circles displaying possibles halts to take cover. Here's one with green lines displaying "camped shooting" between buildings. Here's a blank.
The original plan is certainly better. I think one of the best ways to restructure this off the bat is to shift over the buildings to break up the long vertical line of sight in the last picture. Anything that shortens LOS and makes it easier for infantry to move around the map is a good addition. The subways are alright, but what are really good are things like the arches, which allow infantry to move between areas more easily by shortening the overall run distance and restricting the vehicle path to make vehicles a little more wary of the area. Promoting infantry movement while also promoting infantry/ vehicle contact is a good way to go. Here is an example from an old map of mine on how to and how not to break up line of sight with streets. Good: Height variation allows buildings and raised areas to provide a lot of cover from up top. The central Horizontal road got broken up like that after a few tests, as people could snipe straight down it, and even the limited cover didn't really help. Bad: The Vertical long street is an example of something that does not work. I realized this too late to make changes, but even with the cover on the sides of the streets and places to duck into players can be killed before they have enough time to react, especially with bullet slowdown added in Halo 4. Running between cover pieces and having to wait to cross the street is not only unenjoyable, but often it does not work, as someone who is good with grenades can usually get one right around the corner to finish you off. Snipers only need 1 hit to take you down, and at that range sniping is actually incredibly easy because of bullet magnetism (or whatever the term is where the bullet actually changes course to a degree to hit you.) While cover helps a little, extreme LOS are still an issue, so I would suggest trying to re-arrange some of those buildings. One other thing, if you don't necessarily agree with feedback given, you don't always have to reply to it. The standard way to respond to any feedback, no matter how good or bad, is to take it with a grain of salt and simply pay attention to it in testing. If it proves to be a problem and it continues to be something pointed out, change it. If not, don't. Either way, it's better to respond with a "Thank you for your thoughts" and to show people if you agreed or not based on changes to the map. It's a bit frustrating to get a reply after a long, thought out feedback trying to defend the map against anything that could be wrong with it. You are by no means obligated to take the advice, but please at least keep it in the back of your mind during testing and don't try to dismiss it off the bat, even if you don't agree with it. You never know when someone could be right and you could end up benefiting greatly from their advice. Moral of the story is, it's really frustrating to see posts attempting to refute your feedback, because when you are only trying to help and someone does that it feels like you are just being dismissed. The feedback could be right or it could be wrong, but please at least take some time to really consider it in game before you decide your opinion on it.
Again, I will say, "Thank you for typing all of this up and taking the time." I didn't say nothing needs to be changed. I know the map is not perfect, that's why I submitted it at this stage to get feedback before I work on it anymore. Pretty much I finished the geometry to make it playable so I figured it was time to submit it as a preview and get feedback so I don't waste time on anything else and focus more on what needs attention. Your the only one on here who seems to actually give me good feedback. Others simply state there's to much wide open space, where actually there is not a whole lot of wide open space but there are a few long LoS like you mentioned. I'm sorry to SpinCycle but you always seem to provide non-useful negative feedback. You never even mentioned about "way to open" of areas until FlyingShoe, and even then you never were specific and nor was your feedback helpful. I'm not trying to stir you up, but simply stating stuff like that is next to useless to even waste your time to comment like that b/c it leaves the author with a "?" wondering why... You just simply say one thing, give no effective reasoning for it, and expect someone to fix it with wanting to know why. Please don't take anything I say offensive, I don't attend it to be that way. Anyways, back on subject! Flyingshoe, I agreed with you on one thing from the beginning, and that was more covered routes for Infantry but I ran low on budget so I just crapped out what I finished up here with what I could. I don't believe the LoS is the issue here or flat streets... which started this whooolllleee discussion. The problem here is that there needs to be a better flow of cover here for the infantry which I'm sure we both came to agree upon. I have been thinking a lot about how to fix this, even before I posted here. Like I said before, my original plans were smashed due to budget. I will fix the LoS down the main roads though by one of two ways: 1.) simply raising the horizontal road (one that runs from left to right) so it creates a overpass in the center and simply making a "Z" path of cover in the underpass. Plus it will add more levels. 2.) If #1 cannot fit into the budget, then I can add some arch way structures "rounding" the center intersection. But this is the "easy" way out of this situation. Either way, there's still just as much "open space" as before, but LoS are broken up. As for helping the infantry, I'm thinking about adding those catwalks or adding more structure to help them stay off the roads and out of LoS... it will get tricky though because I have to delete before I add. I'm thankful for your help shoe! Don't want you to take it any other way. There will be a Ver 2 of this in the near future.