From first looks the map looks a little bit flat. From the video it didn't look like there was much overlap. Size wise it might be to big for 4v4 but that might just be the result of the flatness and long lines of sight.
Looks too big for 2v2. Most of the arena maps are the size of the 256x256 floor piece, for reference.
I don't know how you ended up going down in player count. Size wise the map looks as big as Longshore, so you could fit 16 players on that just fine when you introduce more vertical segmentation. If you wanted it to play 2s, I think you would have to descale the playspace by at least 50% (and lose the vehicles obviously). The first room you run through is half the size of some 2v2 maps for example. Perhaps the reason you think it's too small is entirely because you want vehicles on it. It might be better served as an infantry + Ghost map like Longshore.
Thanks for the feedback everyone! I'm usually making BTB maps so it's very helpful. I'll definitely look into adding more vertical segmentation. I like the idea of just using a Ghost too, I've been trying to decide between the Gungoose and Ghost as the map's vehicle and I think the Ghost might work out better.
Every time people talk about size I want to slit my wrists.... The ONLY thing that matters is if players are actively engaged with eachother throughout the match and if the game on average ends because the kill limit, not time limit, is reached. You could have a map the size of blood gulch work for 4v4 if you wanted. Its about how you use segmentation, overlap, player pathing(flow) ,power weapon placement, spawn placement and negative space. --- Double Post Merged, Mar 3, 2016 --- Ummm how would flatness and long los make it too BIG for 4v4? Those things generally speed up the pace of matches, not slow them down.....
Engagement distances are very important, especially in this game with Pistol starts. A map with a lot of square footage could still play smaller gametypes depending on the way players are funneled; however, if the majority of the fights are happening across long lines of sight and wide open expanses - especially if they are flat - then I may be inclined to think that the map is too open for the intended player count. "Big" just becomes a misnomer at that point, suggesting that the map be shrunk to maintain the geometry if the openness is preferred. Pathing and Segmentation are indeed essential to directing players within the playspace and it is from there that engagement distances arise. I find that fights across the entire map - corner to corner - tend to not make for interesting gameplay when they exist in excess. That may overlap with "long sightlines" the same way a rectangle may be a square, but there's a healthy balance that ought to be struck. If @M0aHerder wanted the map to play 4s, I think it'd be better served with less horizontal space and more vertical space and/or segmentation. That would increase the player count and the playspace without increasing the "scale" so to speak.
Heres the thing Goat. People like a variety of gameplay, and long open sightlines+ long distance engagements DO appeal to many players. If that isn't you, great, you won't like the map. But don't use it as an objective basis to determine the map is 'to big". With the hitscan in this game and mad crazy magnetism, long range battles are extremely fun and interesting to me as a player and many other players. I'm a huge proponent of gameplay variety and its important to have maps that fill all those rolls. A good example would be orbital and standoff from halo 3. Both maps provide very unique gameplay that was either HATED or LOVED.That's just how the cookie crumbles, appleaing to everyone and trying to generalize every map leads to stale repetitve map design and gameplay.
I just ran around the map and think it is a great start as is. It doesn't need to be more vertical. Maybe if it was that would make you as a player enjoy it more, but as it it seems just fine and a 4v4 match would easily reach the kill limit before the time limit. Its about 2 regrets as far as its priemeter goes. Let's look back at old halo maps, how many midships could you fit on relic? How bout burial mounds? What about standoff? The answer is obviously much more than just 2.
I'm not implying that every map should be a small hallway map, nor am I saying that big maps don't work with small player counts, and vice versa. But realize that there are thresholds where scale becomes an issue and we need to be able to recognize that, even if its on a case by case basis. Whether it is hated or loved isn't really what I'm interested in. It's whether it works or not. Half of the maps in Halo 3 only worked because they were in Halo 3.
Defenitly and I agree with that, but I ran around this map and it isn't an issue. It about the size of 2 regrets. Its scaled fine for a 4v4.
Well next time I'll run around it first too because this map is way tinier than it looks in the video. In fact I might have 180'd. Still think it needs more vertical segmentation though. Or perhaps more height variation. It looks like @M0aHerder is channeling Powerhouse, which had a lot of vertical segmentation to play 4s.
Yea, I feel you. Its really up to him as a desginer and I'd like to see where he goes with it. I myself wouldn't mind a lil more verticality or height variation, but I don't think it needs it
I suppose thats more of a preference. After all, I'm the guy who scrapped a map because I didn't want any horizontal engagements.
I don't see powerhouse, I see that one firefight map that had the building, & those little awnings just like his then it went downhill into a creek with a bridge on the left & a waterfall. Y'all remember that? That's what I see.
I know the conversation progressed, but I think realizing the difference between pistol starts and BR starts is huge. I'm generally not a fan of maps with long sightlines for the same reason that I generally dislike Swatnums - hip-shooting oustide of RRR is difficult to the point of impacting gameplay. The fact that you can't end engagements with a single shot exacerbates the problem. Maps like Orbital worked in Halo 3 because the BR worked better at longer ranges, even from the hip. I think if you want to maintain those longer engagement ranges, it's a good idea to have more readily accessible mid-range weapons. Halo 5's sandbox lets you keep the variety, too, which is a plus. Also, Goat, I think your observation that "Big" becomes a misnomer is a good one.
I think you guys are underestimating just how easy it is to strafe shoot the pistol in this game. The magnetism is huge. The hitscan, even more retarded. There is zero bullet stray on top of this, meaning bullets fly at a zero degree angle out of the weapon and will hit dead center at where your aiming even cross alpine canvas. The fact you say the BR from halo 3 was easier to range fire is laughable. Give me a halo 5 pistol on standoff and I would sit on top of the base and **** on everyone.