Welcome to the feedback thread for my map Ashlands. It's a 4-8 player inverse symmetric map that takes place in a volcanic cavern. As you may have noticed, Ashlands is an update of a design that I posted a few months ago. The previous takes on this map were lacking consistent art direction and an understanding of how gameplay performed. This put me off of the project for some time. When I decided to revisit the map, I wanted to apply what I had learned since to see if I could push the map forwards. In the Alpha testing, I plan to look for issues related to scaling, segmentation, spawning, macro vs micro pathing, line of sight blocking, geometric readability and player orientation in specific locations. Extraneous stuff such as smoothness, visual weight and other aspects of design polish are not priorities at this point. I'm only interested in the design's potential and whether or not it will work as is. If I think it's worth it, i'll rebuild it from the ground up to optimize the piece usage, tweak scaling as necessary, and smooth out the obvious inconsistencies. Revisiting the map has made me realize how much my Forging has improved in the last few months, therefore I would prefer to retool it from the inside out. Although I do not think the layout is particularly well designed at this stage, it's original if nothing else and I appreciate the continued interest in the map from the community in spite of my reluctance to complete it. You are welcome to test the map in its current state. My gamertag is A 3 Legged Goat and the file is Ashlands (Alpha). The following individuals had a hand in its design. Thanks guys, and thanks to everyone who tests the map. @Sethiroth @SH1FTY @aPK @SaltyKoala @Demption @xzamplez As always, any feedback is welcome. It's worth mentioning though that I have not implemented exploit barriers yet. Don't be that guy.
FEEDBACK ORGANIZER Scaling - Do battles take place at fair ranges? Pathing - Do players travel the map in reasonable timeframes? Segmentation - Are players properly distributed within the playable space? Spawn Balance - Do players have fair spawns? Objective Placement - Does the objective location support the gametype well? Macro/Micro Pathing - Is player movement predictable and punishable? Lines of Sight - Are sightlines well rounded to encourage movement? Geometric Readability - Can players discern the paths from the map boundaries? Target Acquisition - Can players see each other in every area of the map? Player Orientation - Can players identify where on the map they have spawned? Map Boundaries - Can players exploit geometry to get outside of the map? Smoothness - Do players bump against walls or floors when moving around the map? Visual Weight - Does the map make good use of negative space to train the player's eye to areas of interest? Lighting - Is the map's lighting the right intensity to set dress the map? FX - Do the effects distract the player?
This is one of the most useful posts I've seen in here. This questionnaire should be implemented into every testing lobby and reviewed by every forger- to ask of their own maps and to make themselves better testers. We rely so heavily on oneanother to make our maps great. If everyone had something like this in mind when they were testing and giving feedback we would all see the benefits when our own maps come up in the lobbies. This is awesome.
Alright here are some of the changes I already made after a few test: Pathing - I made the ramp from bottom base to Binary a soft route instead of a hard route. I've been trying to disconnect the routes of this whole bottom area for a while to improve the flow so we'll see how this goes. Spawn Balance - Added some additional spawns around the map Lines of Sight and Visual Weight - Added some additional rocks to the top of the spirals Player Orientation - Added a few extra landmarks Smoothness - Fixed the high jump in the bases Map Boundaries - Added some invisible blockers in a few areas I think that's all I got from feedback. I'm still worried that the map is only operating at partial capacity though. Like, there is some game breaking flaw on it and I'm missing it, and it's not occurring in any of the recent playtests. Also, after seeing all the cool asyms tonight I wish this was an asym. The slayer game was nice because of the dynamic spawns, but so far I don't care for flag at all. The map was not designed as a flag map, so CTF being its premier gametype is a turnoff to me. I'd rather push the theme on a well designed asym.
At the top of the Spiral, to the left of the trees, in the cave opening, you can jump to a hole in the wall/ceiling to the right and get out of the map. Sorry if that was hard to explain.
Have you done anything to make that death pit that me and Multi kept falling in to a little more obvious?
The death pit is gone. There was no way to implement it because of how shallow the ceiling was in that area. It's still a soft route but you no longer die in that area. It's blocked with an invisible barrier now. You can still get to it if you try, but at this point it's considered an obvious exploit.
Here is the general feedback from the forged lobby on april 15th: ASSAULT: The slope doesnt seem to accomodate the bomb game types, edges are difficult to clamber, good swiss cheese, fluid game play FLAG: Works great for flag, spawning needs more locations, game bounds issues need safe volume The good swiss cheese comment is to say that there are plenty of paths given to allow for good mobility but not so many that players are having benny hill moments trying to chase each other. Really love the map, would like to see it more
Thanks. Yea the map has a lot of issues but I don't really like Flag on it, so I'm going to be making it asymmetric to play Oddbal and Strongholds.
i am considering unscrapping this map. whether i keep the inverse version or not, i'd like to work with the design again in the near future. if anyone is interested in helping me address the core issues then throw me some feedback. i have 600 more rocks to play with @MultiLockOn