Meteora (Invasion)

I don't know I've always felt weird about having elites defending grey structures.


All those inclines/ramps make the map look kind of cluttered even though the layout isn't really from what I can see.

 

I already spoke to you guys about my concerns with 3rd phases difficulty, mainly stemming from the size of the room. I also think 3rd phase attacks should spawn a tiny bit closer to the objective. The right combination of these two things would probably solve the issue. I just don't see the attackers being able to get the core out of there unless they get it right away before the defenders can set up properly.

1st and 2nd phase, on the other hand, both played very well and felt balanced; defenders were given slight advantages, but never more than the attackers could handle. Many times these phases came down to the wire, which made for some intense rounds.

Side note: Meteora? You're really naming the map after a so-so Linkin Park album that had one good song (Numb, obviously)? At least call the map, "Hybrid Theory."

 

We're going to continue testing before making any major changes, play with the same people and see if the core room is this way every test. Personally, I think a strong, second floor focussed assault could break the room, but we'll change it if it proves too much again and again.

Also, the name Meteora was chosen for other reasons. Our other choice was Xanadu but we thought Meteora made more sense because of the geography of the map. I'm also considering Athos.

And to Karma, the idea is that the covenant have recently taken over the city and have just begun to convert it and modify it with their type of technology. This is why objectives have covenant technology fused into them. Overall, we wanted a spartan offense, and we felt gameplay was more important in the end than a slightly more realistic theme.

 

One day, About 9 months ago, A shoe and A duck got together and started talking. They got really into it, and 9 months later, this came out.

All jokes aside, this map and been underway for quite sometime now and I love the result. You guys have put alot of time and effort into this map Judging on how long you've studied other invasion maps. The aesthetics on the map are outstanding and I love the layout. The building that the core resides in seems very familiar, I think i've seen something like it in another map or something that closely resembles it. I can not wait to play this.

P.S the thread is also amazing.

 

Eh I don't think this is the best work you two could come up with, nontheless it looks like it would be fun to play on.

 

Whoa whoa whoa, don't be hating on Meteora.

Anyway, the map looks nice as always, Psycho. The Brace Larges look a little out of place in some areas, but i suppose that could be a perception thing, since we'll rarely see the map from above.

 

With teamwork and some people willing to drive the hog straight into the core area it's not hard to break it out of the room. I don't think the problem is so much with the room itself, but with the lack of cover from the falcon around it. In the few games I played the core seemed easiest to extract from the room when no aircraft were around because the defenders were not all cooped up in the core base.

 

Thanks Zath. The building is a little similar to some other core buildings such as the one on Floodgate, but it is smaller than most and has a much more asymmetric layout.

PS. Duck you did awesome on the thread!

Also to Cluckingho, can you be a little more specific in your comment? If there is any area we fell short we will be glad to hear about it.

 

I believe you need a barrier to isolate T2 from T1. I realize people will say that this is not necessary, and that a kill boundary would suffice. But without it, I don't see this map conforming to the Play List.

Consider how Breakpoint introduced an animated draw bridge as a barrier. It wasn't just that they wanted variety and they decided that they wanted an animated bridge. They needed a barrier, so they added variety. (Otherwise, they could have dumbed down the concept.)

There are a number of reasons why the barrier is necessary, not to mention the least of which is a purpose for Tier 1 Objectives. Right now, why do we take T1 Objectives? Why? What is the purpose? And thus, no story exists...

Without a story, a reason for taking Tier 1, you are reduced to capturing a game piece on a game board. Who wants to play that???

The greatest difficulty with any forge work of this size is to take criticism of having missed a foundational concept from the beginning. I am happy to hear feedback like this and more than willing to rip down to the foundation if necessary. I hope you feel the same here.

 

We always wanted a phase 1 gate, but we are currently in a great war agains framerate on the map, one that we are actually starting to win on the ground. I would love a barrier, but I know it will add to framerate and I don't think it adds that much to gameplay.

You are right that it hurts the story, but we are in a chokehold right now. To make the wall work, we have to make the map smaller, and despite most people's viewpoint I maintain that the map is small already.

If we can make one I would love it, but the question is how? If you have any ideas join us in game and we'll try to collaborate.

 

Take everything I said with this understanding, the map played better than most I have seen and does have a number of fundamental Invasion Game Elements in it already. And I did enjoy playing on it.

Some thoughts I can share at the moment are things like Invader initial spawn. I think that the defenders must be able to see the invaders' initial spawns. Some people use kill boundaries to force spawned players to move off spawn and into the game play. What I see in the play list is an exposed spawn location and the defenders with precision rifles (NR/DMR) as an incentive to move off spawn.

For the play list maps, Tier 1 is a duck shoot. There is an urgency to move quickly to stay alive. But I don't sense that on your map at all. It seems that there is the slope of the hill in T1 to protect the Invaders from spawn to about half way to the Forward position.

The map has too many blocks in the field of view from the invader T1 spawn and causes FR. There are just too many blocks. Combine that with the location, and I would suggest you relocate and use terrain ground instead of forged decking. That part of Alaska is not being used in a way I think would support T1 game play, and I am not sure it can from most any angle.

As an example of what I like in the aesthetics, I like the pit hole that one can fall through, primarily because it is majestic in size and clean cut. But there are a number of aesthetics I think need to be rethought. The large structure running down the center of the map overhead is not immediately obvious and looks instead like it was poorly forged work because it looks like it is leaning over and crooked. What is it, anyway?

The T1 Objectives appeared too close to me. The purpose of the distance is to force the defenders into abandoning one to save the other, but I felt that a defender on top between could handle both pretty well. There was no decision on his part to abandon one of the objectives at all, which runs counter to Invasion at its core. I would not consider 1 sprint as a distance to follow. 1 sprint is 18 steps. If you look at the play list maps, the distances are between 20 and 32 steps, well beyond 1 sprint. Again, the exact distance is not the issue, but the lack of ability for a defender to be able to feel like he can protect both from a camping location, and the validity of the proposition for the defender that he can defend one of the objectives if he is willing to abandon the other. That proposition must be real, therefore the distance cannot be too far. That proposition must be intense. It must get the defender to make the WRONG decision to make the game play fun.

Another aspect along this line is situational awareness. The defenders, especially the middle team, must be fully aware of what the other teams are engaged in to know where to throw resources. Take Boneyard for example. They have the lobby and bow as chambers that obscure observation from the other end of the ship, and the only way the middle or alpha teams can know what is happening is if they communicate. I didn't see that on your map either. As I approach toward the center structure between the objectives, I can tell pretty much what is happening at both ends, at both areas that the defenders want to control. At least, that is the sense I got.

It is not clear to me how others felt, but one of the questions I keep asking myself when forging T1 paths is, "would I be encouraged to take this path?" or "what direction would I take at this point?" I don't recall exactly, but it seemed to me that playing on this map I felt on bravo (left side invader) I really didn't have a lot of choices before me, I just went up the hill. I may have made some choices, but they didn't stick out at me in the heat of the game play. I don't feel there were a great deal of choices, and perhaps that is okay. But on my map Sacrifice.3 (see my FS if you wish), the T1 invaders move down a hill to the ground level, and then they encounter a rock. They have a choice, left or right. Both directions need to be inviting. Then they reach another rock, and again they have that same choice, and both need to be inviting. These are my thoughts on the T1 paths, but again I feel a little less confident in describing what I think here because I don't really recall any thoughts of moving about T1 that stuck out as inviting or decision making on my part.

I can understand why people say that the T2 play area seemed narrow. But I would argue that it seemed too long as well. Perhaps a balance by making it more round or square than rectangular?

I will stop here and let you digest all of this before I spend more time writing...

 

First off, thank you for being the first person to leave lengthy intelligent feedback on the map. We have gotten many rough opinions before but it is nice to finally have someone looking for real issues. While I don’t agree with all of your points your post has made me look at the map through different eyes and will help us making important changes/ identifying what works.

I feel there is ample reason for offense to move forward off spawn phase 1 because of the power position in front of each fire team. The hill on the right and structure on the left are very contestable by both offense and defense, so if the invaders don’t work to keep control of these areas there is no chance of winning. I feel this plays the same role as the line of sight (something that is absent from Breakpoint I will point out) by forcing the invaders to move up in order to protect their spawns.

I think we can eliminate Tier 1 framerate without relocating the map. We looked at the location from several perspectives and all other ways of using Alaska or Montana did not work well for the map. Moving it onto the ground entirely is one thing we will not do, as it would essentially destroy the feel we were trying to create and make it a completely different map. I’m sorry, but that is the one thing we are adamant about not changing. It would be like removing the water from Floodgate.

I agree that some of the aesthetics look unwieldy. The energy cable (that’s what it is ☺ ) looked better when the middle building acted as a supporting structure, but it was more to create a line of sight blocker for aerial vehicles. I think Duck’s core cap side came out looking nice, but I am open to possibly making changes to aesthetics. They are the easy part after all.

For the territories being too close I have a few comments. First, a player on the base of the cable is extremely open with nowhere really to go, and all three DMR’s can easily get a shot on them. A good invading team should be able to knock out anyone going over the top, especially if middle team plays support. I will agree that over-committing is a little harder on Meteora, though it is still very possible. I feel defense can very easily make the wrong decision, as if they leave on objective it is easy for the invaders to set up against their return in the territory. Still, this is something I need to watch in game to see what happens consistently, so I thank you for making me aware of it.

Your next sentence seems to convolute itself. You say that, “The defenders, especially the middle team, must be fully aware of what the other teams are engaged in to know where to throw resources. ” Later, you say that, “I can tell pretty much what is happening at both ends, at both areas that the defenders want to control. ” By this logic, it seems the map does what you say it should. Maybe I have misread, so can you clarify more?

I agree that phase 1 is simple. I’ve heard it from a few players and I understand it. I think a more complex phase 1 would be better, but all in all I think the phase plays pretty well, and there are choices to be made, though many lead to the same outcome, such as taking control of a neutral ground. Though it is simple, it has been fun for most players, so I am okay with it.

I’ve never had a complaint that phase 2 was too narrow, but I have gotten the opinion that it is too long from Able as well. There are a few issues with shortening the map (such as middle team spawn placement) but shortening it is an option I will seriously consider now that two experienced forgers have suggested it. We could even get budget to make a simple phase 1-2 gate and/ or expand the core room (an issue I’m sure you will touch on soon.)

Finally, I would like you to elaborate more on the gameplay issues not having a phase 1-2 wall creates. You mentioned you had other reasons, and I would like to hear them. Once again, thank you for some real feedback MrGreen, it has been appreciated and I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the next phases.

 

I think the contested hills in phase one are good, but I don't think they should be required to push forward to protect their spawns. That mindset is good for people who are coordinated and know the map, but in other cases it makes spawn camping easier as I think I demonstrated well in a test a while ago.

I think there are a number of things you can gate in for later phases to eliminate phase one framerate issues. That and something to block lines of sight to the later phases would probably be enough.

I don't see how any of the aesthetics are bad. I especially liked the core capture point so I think it would be best not to change that. At least for me the map has a consistent feel despite the transition from Alaska to metal structures.

Even as people are starting to know the map well now the first tier tends to be a bit difficult for attackers. There are many ways to change this besides splitting the objectives. Personally I think the best option would be to add some ways for the attackers to sneak up a good portion of the way and hide in decent cover to spawn teammates. There's a good chance this is also what makes it seem to lack complexity.

I agree about the length of the second phase. Although it could be improved, it doesn't seem to have too significant a negative effect. Some man-cannons would probably be enough if you don't feel like shortening the actual map.

As I said earlier, I don't think the third phase base needs expansion as much as the defenders need somewhere else relatively protected from the falcon so they don't all end up hiding around the core. Sometimes a smart revenant or ghost driver will hide from the falcon in there in which case it is almost impossible to capture the core.

 

About the total situational awareness, if a player cannot see what the other teams of his race are doing or up against, then the only way for him to know is if they tell him. On Boneyard, this is essential, since the bow and lobby are partly or nearly fully obscured from the objective. On your map, it seems optional, since I can look around and get an idea of what is happening on my left and right sides. I feel it would add a lot if the defense was forced to communicate so that they knew what was happening. But I could be wrong, I only played on it twice so far, and I would love to play on it again to get a better sense of this point.

I talked about the barrier adding to the story by giving the objective a purpose in life. Another value of having a barrier is the explicit, in your face, wall that you cannot get past. It adds tremendously to immersing a player into a situation, a place, a theme, a struggle, an obstacle. All of this, because the barrier is there before them. Essentially, the barrier makes the concept come alive and real. A Kill Boundary cannot achieve this level of immersion no matter what you try. This is an aspect of level design that I fully think is missing in forged Invasion maps, where people use the excuse that they simply do not have the budget for all the bells and whistles. So they wind up with a map that is simply lacking. In the end, I am getting the sense that 343i is down with this limitation, but I am not. My standard is to make a game play, not a map; to give the players a feeling of doing something other than capturing a game piece and moving on. I want them to feel like they are actually in a campaign. I want them to feel that the campaign is real, not just simulated or implied. This may seem vague as an answer, but I tend not to try to discuss this point because it is difficult to articulate, but for me it is even more important than giving the objective purpose. It is what level design is all about for me.

One more thought. I wasn't saying your map doesn't provide incentive to move off spawn or that it needed it. What I was saying was that all three maps in the play list use exposed spawns as incentive. I think there is a reason they ALL do this and though I cannot say what it might be, I think it is a paradigm that I would follow, along with making the entire T1 approach an all out duck shoot. Sorry for not making this clear.

---

Edited by merge:

---

Look, I don't want to get into an argument about what is or is not fundamental Game Elements for Invasion. To me, the existence of three different barriers across the only three maps in the play list is prima facie evidence that it is fundamental. It was just too much work to be considered optional by Bungie.

A barrier is a foundational aspect of a map in that it must be included in the foundation of the map, not retrofitted later as an after thought. The barrier is not just a barrier, but part of the design of the map that presents the theme, the story, the feel of where one is. Anyone can throw in an electronic fence. But does it feel like it was thrown in or does it feel like it really belonged there? IMHO, Sacrifice had this problem as well.

Just like having a purpose for the objectives seems optional, the barrier seems optional. But then you can say that the story in general seems optional. But then you have Invasion Objective, where all you have are three tiers of objective play. you are eliminating essential features of what makes Invasion.

But do as you wish...

 

So this is the map you mentioned to me a bit ago, I havent been around much lately but this looks pretty solid would have to take a peek at it in forge to really see how everything flows however. I dont enjoy Invasion in matchmaking as much as I would like to, perhaps its just the feeling I get when Ive cleared a whole room of enemies only to realize not a single team mate is even trying to go for the core(dissapointment). I can say I enjoy the hint of forerunner styling the map seems to have, thats always attractive when someone takes the time to design nice structures that make sense and feel similiar to playing a campaign mission.

I must say since I've gotten back into Reach and played more forge maps, mostly through Big Team Battle, that I've gotten used to the grey and if the maps designed well and plays well and of course gives off a proper illusion its not so bad. I would enjoy helping out with the testing Duck, Shoe, if you have the room of course GamerTag: SilentRaine.

I'm also working on a BTB project that I feel I may give a Invasion styled version to, once the overall design is done I'd love it if I could ask for some advice on how you set up your spawning and decided on your vehicles for Invasion. I think its nice that you went with Spartans attacking as well. Human weapons can be quite dangerous in skilled hands and it gives it a better experience in my opinion to give the Elites more of the advantage in a reasonable manner the push and pull effect is what really makes invasion fun.

 

I am really glad we had this discussion, because it has helped me find the words to articulate what I was feeling all along. As I was thinking through the things I was trying to say, I realize now that Breakpoint was actually designed from the ground up around the barrier, and that we need to consider doing the same thing when we forge Invasion. Think for a moment about the total layout of Breakpoint. It was literally designed around the backbone and gorge with the tunnels and bridge. In other words, the designers made the barrier a NATURAL feature of the map, and even a central aspect of their focus.

UPDATE: Yes you can say that the tunnel and bridge are not the barrier, but what I was referring to mostly was the backbone and the gorge. They are the natural barrier. They make the means to cross (the bridge and the tunnel) a natural feature to the map, not something that was thrown in later.


This barrier (or chain of barriers) was so much part of the canvas, that its very existence naturally builds cohesion between Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Also, a quick revisit to my earlier post and what I was saying about initial spawns. Your map may give incentive to move off spawn, but it isn't the same urgency I see in the play list maps where the spawns are in the open of a duck shoot. That was what I was trying to say.