Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fated

My Original Vision for Recurve

Recommended Posts

Here's some feedback from someone who spent around 50 games in BTB last night and ended up getting champion if it means something at all.

First off, after reading the initial power weapon layout you had, I think one neutral sniper spawning up top was definitely a questionable change instead of two snipers (though I can see how two snipers might have been detrimental to the pace of CTF). The problem with the current setup is that the sniper spawns exactly on the best position to use it in, which is counter-intuitive for map flow and creates and overpowered position on the map. And then the same area ALSO has a shotgun... it snowballs a bit too much.

As for the vehicles, light vehicles are by far the best option for this map. Tank is awkward and has little roaming room. It's also very vulnerable to the multiple turrets on the map and there's a lot of nooks and crannies where people can hide and board or laser you of nowhere. I think the map would benefit from a Banshee instead, and it would bring it more in line with the original Longbow design.

I think the rest is neat though. A lot of skillful jumps, interesting routes, sight lines, etc. I think the best mode for it is CTF by a long shot. The map feels a bit too segmented for Strongholds and the spawns are a bit too generous and let people flip the map too easily. It's not uncommon to have good control and all of a sudden there's 5-6 people spawning in an area you're controlling and you get outnumbered and have to control another zone off respawn. A notable spawn area is behind the splinter turrets near the top tower, but also outside the bases near the back/side of them, if you're pushed up just a little too far.

Overall it's great though. Thanks for your work.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

I was wondering why a lot of the Mason Jumping was removed from Recurve, a lot of the cool stuff you showed off doesn't seem possible anymore with its launch version.

 

Thanks for your work though, maybe we can see your version when Forge comes out!

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Fated I'd be happy to play your version and vision of the map. I had arguably my worst experience in BTB on the new recurve, and its very interesting to see your design versus theirs. It seems you put a lot of thought into making this work, and they just decided to make questionable changes anyway..

Share this post


Link to post

The map is too open and snoebally in its current state. The WIP looks a lot better. Good stuff though, can't wait to see what you create next.

Share this post


Link to post

and although the bases have been mostly preserved, the entirety of the original central structure, routes, flow, movement incentive design, and weapon/objective placement was significantly changed and iterated on after I left. 

 

Well that doesn't sound like something they would do... ... ... ...

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The spawns in CTF need a lot of work.  Theres a lot of bottom middle spawns, particularly when your flag is away.  I've even seen teammates spawn past the halfway line, closer to the enemy base than ours.  The other really common spawn is in the canyon on the high side of your base, in direct line of sight to the sniper spawn.  It's effortless to shoot players off spawn when they spawn there.  In fact, it usually happens without even really trying.

 

Strongholds is my favorite gametype on the map.  It would be CTF, but the spawns are just so horrendous that it completely ruins the gametype for me.  Strongholds spawns make a little bit more sense and allow the game to have some more order.  It has good base placement, but this game's spawn system again makes it very easy to flip the map on the controlling team, often awarding you generous spawns just outside a completely unguarded enemy base.  I'd like to see spawns generally around Strongholds that you control, unless a team has overrun that Stronghold and is forcing you to spawn elsewhere.  In that case, I'd prefer spawns that are not close to any Strongholds, acting as a neutral emergency spawn.

 

Slayer plays ok, with top mid acting as a nice focal point on the map, but again, the spawns are so erratic and unintuitive that the game feels chaotic.  Players spawn behind enemies far too frequently.  I think every symmetrical map in this playlist would benefit from static spawns in Slayer over dynamic spawns (ESPECIALLY Deadlock.  Holy cow did they ever ruin that gametype).

 

This map would play better with two snipers, on 3 minute timers.  I would move laser to sniper spawn and remove the shotgun from the map.  Snipe spawn is too easy to defend with a shotgun, and it's far to easy to get one there.  Pretty much everyone that ever picks up a shotgun just lifts up with it.  The tank on the other hand, is almost impossible to use.  It has very little room to maneuver without getting boarded, especially with the clunky steering controls.  Aggressive play with the tank is not a practical option.  The only way I've seen it used effectively is to pull it back to your own base and defend with it.  Vetoed's idea for using a Banshee instead is excellent.  It would be a far better choice than a Scorpion.

 

Lastly, the rock ledges that let you flank directly into snipe window are very cumbersome to navigate.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The spawns on slayer for this map are horrific.

 

Why does it flip flop spawns so often instead of sticking to static, sided spawns?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Although your design is essentially "Bad Blood 2" and shares zero design similarities to Longbow, I can't help but wonder which would play better.

343 changed the map ENTIRELY because you didn't do what they asked for. Instead of reshaping Longbow to make it function better, you simply remade your H2A map. Now Longbow was never a good map to begin with but had potential nonetheless. Recurve in its current state has a multitude of problems. Jumps, weapons, spawns, layout, vehicle play room, and the list goes on. That is 343's fault, (mostly) but we are all familiar with their skills at making forge maps. If you would have actually tried to improve Longbow we would not be stuck with the trainwreck they gave us.

 

Your design looks like a slightly improved Bad Blood, but is hard to tell through images. I know you'll remake it anyway so that is just a matter of time. Attempting to judge the map off the design, it looks like there would be little to no vehicle-player interaction. It is not something required in BTB, but is almost expected. If you did plan on making vehicles part of it I would recommend switching up the bottom level with natural terrain or something. BB H2A suffered from restrictive and flat ghost gameplay. I am looking forward to your (original vision) of Recurve, despite it having nothing to do with Longbow.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

'shares zero design similarities to Longbow'

 

'Attempting to judge the map off the design, it looks like there would be little to no vehicle-player interaction'

 

halo4longbow04.jpg

 

If you compare my second Maya image to the Longbow concept above, you can notice strong design similarities in structure, pathing, and flow, including: similar base positioning, outer vehicle/infantry paths up to the central structure, short 'caves' up to top mid, segmented courtyards with two vehicle paths, and elevated bridges connecting mid-court to the central structure. The lower edge is inspired by Longbow's low edge as well, just significantly re-positioned with more directional vehicle flow. I just decided to mass out my routes with purple primitive geometry instead of natural terrain, but the scaling is quite similar. My reimagined bases and central structure were designed to be far more vertical/multi-leveled than those on Longbow as well, designing both to include 3 levels with exposed top routes and protected underpasses for both vehicle and infantry movement. My original vision was smaller scaled, faster paced, and more CTF-focused than the original Longbow design, and players could make big plays much faster off spawn as a result of that reimagination.

 

In regards to your concern about little to no vehicle-infantry interaction, my original vision was designed to enable the exact opposite. No part of the map was safe in my original vision; light vehicles can go anywhere infantry can go, creating huge movement incentive and a huge movement/combat skill gap for both vehicles and infantry by maximizing interaction between the two. Vehicles and infantry interacted on every level of every route and structure on my original vision of the design, as every part of the map was also a core part of the vehicle circuit. 

 

Your comparisons to Bad Blood are fair, as that design did inspire parts of my original vision, but I would argue that what I originally created at 343 is actually far closer to Longbow both structurally and functionally than the current state of Recurve. Anyway, thanks for your post and feedback, and I agree with many of your concerns with the current state of the map. Although I deviated pretty far from the original, I truly attempted to improve every component of the original design.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

You're design seemed so distorted and scaled differently to the point of where I wouldn't even refer to it as a loose inspiration.

 

 

In regards to your concern about little to no vehicle-infantry interaction, my original vision was designed to enable the exact opposite. No part of the map was safe in my original vision; light vehicles can go anywhere infantry can go, creating huge movement incentive and a huge movement/combat skill gap for both vehicles and infantry by maximizing interaction between the two. Vehicles and infantry interacted on every level of every route and structure on my original vision of the design, as every part of the map was also a core part of the vehicle circuit. 

 

I assume you are referring to ghosts and mongooses. Allowing these "light" vehicles access to all parts of the map doesn't mean they will function well. They need room to stretch and ultimately thrive in vehicle specific areas. For instance, on Halo 4's Complex, you could drive a ghost into the central window room, if taken the right paths. This was possible but not ideal. When incorporating vehicles onto maps, you need to think about how they will move around and how vulnerable the driver becomes with each position. Allowing light vehicles to scale player traversable structures may create an illusion that nowhere is safe, but in turn generates bad flow, wasted vehicles, or certain death. Just make sure that if you do implement light vehicles that you design specific areas for them before placing them, and not just designing larger walkways and placing down a ghost after the fact.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I assume you are referring to ghosts and mongooses. Allowing these "light" vehicles access to all parts of the map doesn't mean they will function well. They need room to stretch and ultimately thrive in vehicle specific areas

 

Light vehicles refers to ghosts and warthogs, and this debate is ultimately a matter of traditional vehicle-specific area design versus squad design philosophy. Vehicle-specific areas are fundamentally flawed because they greatly empower vehicle pilots while severely disempowering infantry, creating a severe counter-play imbalance when forcing vehicle-infantry interaction in those areas. Vehicles are power weapons in concept, and crafting areas specifically designed to further empower power weapons without proper balancing in place creates overpowered scenarios (such as spawning a sniper rifle in the best position to use it). Traditional vehicle-specific area design is counter-intuitive for map flow due to the creation of overpowered areas, and ultimately makes players feel as if they are forced to sprint just to simply traverse & survive the space. I am fundamentally opposed to enlarging dimensions for sprint, and maps (including all vehicle routes within) should always be scaled so that sprinting is never necessary. 

 

Squad design philosophy optimizes all routes for vehicle-infantry interaction, balancing empowerment and providing sufficient counter-play opportunities for both. It completely removes the presence of overpowered vehicle areas, and when compared to traditional vehicle-specific area design, significantly raises the movement and combat skill gap for vehicle pilots. In squad design, pilots must gain significant map knowledge to reach a high level of effectiveness against evenly empowered infantry opponents. Vehicle flow is tighter and more directional, encouraging pilots to thoroughly plan their course of attack before engaging. It fosters a higher level of competitive play and superior movement incentive design.

 

My original vision for Recurve used squad design philosophy as a core design pillar.

Share this post


Link to post

Vehicle-specific areas are fundamentally flawed because they greatly empower vehicle pilots while severely disempowering infantry

 

This statement itself is fundamentally flawed. Allowing players to pilot a vehicle in an undesirable environment for the vehicle specific mechanics is either one of two things. The first of which being inadequate map design, and the second being poor vehicle choice, if any. Designing vehicle specific areas are what makes vehicles themselves "power weapons." Allowing the vehicles to be used to their full potential. Placing vehicles on a map without proper play space essentially nerfs them to the point of them not being enjoyable or practical.

 

Using your logic would be the same as placing a sniper rifle on "Chiron TL-34." It is the worst possible environment for a long range weapon, but using the same logic, placing it on a map with long sight lines only makes the weapon overpowered. That is an absolutely silly way of looking at map design and suggest you rethink your strategy.

 

I don't expect you to take anything out of what I'm saying as you are clearly decided in your ways. Best of luck on Bad Blood 2.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This is simply a matter of misinterpretation, Given. The entirety of my original vision was designed for desirable ghost and warthog gameplay, but simply was not designed to further empower them to the point of imbalance. Open vehicle areas lead to control points and overpowered scenarios, whereas routes that are optimized for both vehicles and infantry allow for ideal movement incentive design, counter-play balance, and verticality. I prefer movement, verticality, and the balance of empowerment, which are all core arena design pillars that were present in Halo: CE and many arena shooters before it.

 

-Awesome feedback post-

 

Thanks a ton for your feedback, Vetoed. I place huge value on detailed feedback from higher level players who have a good understanding of multiplayer, gameplay, and map design. I will be rebuilding something closer to my original vision when forge releases next month, and I'd love to include both you and your BTB squad in the continued design & testing process of the map if you're interested. Let me know.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

So.

 

This statement itself is fundamentally flawed. Allowing players to pilot a vehicle in an undesirable environment for the vehicle specific mechanics is either one of two things. The first of which being inadequate map design, and the second being poor vehicle choice, if any. Designing vehicle specific areas are what makes vehicles themselves "power weapons." Allowing the vehicles to be used to their full potential. Placing vehicles on a map without proper play space essentially nerfs them to the point of them not being enjoyable or practical.

 

Using your logic would be the same as placing a sniper rifle on "Chiron TL-34." It is the worst possible environment for a long range weapon, but using the same logic, placing it on a map with long sight lines only makes the weapon overpowered. That is an absolutely silly way of looking at map design and suggest you rethink your strategy.

 

I don't expect you to take anything out of what I'm saying as you are clearly decided in your ways. Best of luck on Bad Blood 2.

 

I agree with this.

 

Light vehicles refers to ghosts and warthogs, and this debate is ultimately a matter of traditional vehicle-specific area design versus squad design philosophy. Vehicle-specific areas are fundamentally flawed because they greatly empower vehicle pilots while severely disempowering infantry, creating a severe counter-play imbalance when forcing vehicle-infantry interaction in those areas. Vehicles are power weapons in concept, and crafting areas specifically designed to further empower power weapons creates overpowered scenarios (such as spawning a sniper rifle in the best position to use it). Traditional vehicle-specific area design is counter-intuitive for map flow due to the creation of overpowered areas, and ultimately makes players feel as if they are forced to sprint just to simply traverse & survive the space. I am fundamentally opposed to enlarging dimensions for sprint, and maps (including all vehicle routes within) should always be scaled so that sprinting is never necessary. 

 

Squad design philosophy optimizes all routes for vehicle-infantry interaction, balancing empowerment and providing sufficient counter-play opportunities for both. It completely removes the presence of overpowered vehicle areas, and when compared to traditional vehicle-specific area design, significantly raises the movement and combat skill gap for vehicle pilots. In squad design, pilots must gain significant map knowledge to reach a high level of effectiveness against evenly empowered infantry opponents. Vehicle flow is tighter and more directional, encouraging pilots to thoroughly plan their course of attack before engaging. It fosters a higher level of competitive play and superior movement incentive design.

 

My original vision for Recurve used squad design philosophy as a core design pillar.

 

But I also agree with this.

 

I was pretty onboard with what Fated was saying with vehicle map design, I think most people in the forging community think of it that way.  And for a while I thought you were misinterpreting Fated's posts, Given.  But I do think the way you justify vehicle specific areas is actually interesting, and I've never thought about empowering them in that sense.  I suppose that's no different than placing snipers in a hard to use position while still having some longer sight lines somewhere on a map.  I suppose it's really just a balancing act of the two philosophies.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

I was pretty onboard with what Fated was saying with vehicle map design, I think most people in the forging community think of it that way.  And for a while I thought you were misinterpreting Fated's posts, Given.  But I do think the way you justify vehicle specific areas is actually interesting, and I've never thought about empowering them in that sense.  I suppose that's no different than placing snipers in a hard to use position while still having some longer sight lines somewhere on a map.  I suppose it's really just a balancing act of the two philosophies.

 

This is a great point, Multi. Perhaps I was misinterpreting Given's posts as well, because when looking at my original vision for the map, the courtyards serve as more free flowing, terrain-based transitional areas for vehicles between the more directional routes of the vehicle circuit. Vehicles are more menacing in the courtyards for sure, but infantry have options to escape those encounters, and the increased vehicle power is balanced by the higher positioning of the surrounding arms. I definitely agree that some areas on the map should support that kind of vehicle gameplay. So yes, a balancing act of the two philosophies. However, it's still important to emphasize that free flowing areas can reach a point of overpowered vehicle gameplay, and identifying that threshold is really important when you design them.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks a ton for your feedback, Vetoed. I place huge value on detailed feedback from higher level players who have a good understanding of multiplayer, gameplay, and map design. I will be rebuilding something closer to my original vision when forge releases next month, and I'd love to include both you and your BTB squad in the continued design & testing process of the map if you're interested. Let me know.

Of course. I'm fairly invested in stuff that BTB.net does, so I'm sure that one way or another, I'll end up giving it a test run. Once this happens, I'll be glad to give some more feedback. Very interested to see what the original (yet rebuilt and improved) plays like. On paper, I can tell it'll bring some much needed changes to the current Recurve.

 

Keep up the good work. People like you are a huge contribution to the community, not just through great content but also through a refreshing attitude.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Vetoed Awesome, and thanks--I'll be sure to stay in touch.

 

Updated OP with a few more images of my original vision from both Halo Channel content and my Maya build. Screenshots show the original bottom mid design, courtyard-to-courtyard LoS, and the 2nd + 3rd levels of the central structure:

 

Qk26DJ1.jpg

 

OJPkf41.png

 

nPy5fRt.png

 

NjYp6yv.png

 

The original central structure had a 3-story lift as well, and players could drop back down the shoot and use the thruster mechanic to exit on different levels. Was a super nerdy way to out-maneuver opponents and move both vertically & creatively through the center of the map.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Vetoed Awesome, and thanks--I'll be sure to stay in touch.

 

Updated OP with a few more images of my original vision from both Halo Channel content and my Maya build. Screenshots show the original bottom mid design, courtyard-to-courtyard LoS, and the 2nd + 3rd levels of the central structure:

 

Qk26DJ1.jpg

 

OJPkf41.png

 

nPy5fRt.png

 

NjYp6yv.png

 

The original central structure had a 3-story lift as well, and players could drop back down the shoot and use the thruster mechanic to exit on different levels. Was a super nerdy way to out-maneuver opponents and move both vertically & creatively through the center of the map.

THIS IS THE MAP I WANT TO PLAY

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

THIS IS THE MAP I WANT TO PLAY

 

Me too.

 

Thanks again for your feedback, everyone. This thread has generated some really insightful discussion about some of the higher level concepts in multiplayer, gameplay, and map design. Structure design, movement incentive, verticality, empowerment, heroism, big-play design, travel time balancing, weapon/objective placement, and spawning are all difficult concepts to grasp and successfully implement. Level/game design is a never ending learning process, and it is very important that we remain respectfully critical of game developers so that they can continue learning with us.

 

For those curious about my thoughts on the new version/vision of the map, I am highly critical, and Psychoduck from the ForgeHub Youtube Channel did an amazing job of expressing our shared concerns in a respectful, honest analysis of the map:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-LV5saF-UI

Share this post


Link to post

Me too.

 

Thanks again for your feedback, everyone. This thread has generated some really insightful discussion about some of the higher level concepts in multiplayer, gameplay, and map design. Structure design, movement incentive, verticality, empowerment, heroism, big-play design, travel time balancing, weapon/objective placement, and spawning are all difficult concepts to grasp and successfully implement. Level/game design is a never ending learning process, and it is very important that we remain respectfully critical of game developers so that they can continue learning with us.

 

For those curious about my thoughts on the new version/vision of the map, I am highly critical, and Psychoduck from the ForgeHub Youtube Channel did an amazing job of expressing our shared concerns in a respectful, honest analysis of the map:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-LV5saF-UI

Really appreciate your guys honesty and artistic integrity. You aren't holding back any punches and saying whats on your mind. Please make this map in Forge, man. The original lane focus for vehicles is a really cool idea and alleviates a lot of issues with CTF BTB. I look forward to your newer maps!
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Fated, a few questions...

 

With regard to spawning and how people complain that the enemy spawns closer to the enemy base than their own, is the spawning similar to H4, or is it vastly different? Do you lay spawn points that can be team assigned and thus no one from the other team can spawn on that point? This would have been a solid way to force spawning on the correct side of the map and I used this in H4 because their zones were not able to enforce team side spawning. Just curious what you had to work with.

 

Also, if you can say, how much of the spawning did they teach you guys and will they be presenting even some level of details on the spawning when Forge comes out?

 

 

 

You're design seemed so distorted and scaled differently to the point of where I wouldn't even refer to it as a loose inspiration.

 

 

I assume you are referring to ghosts and mongooses. Allowing these "light" vehicles access to all parts of the map doesn't mean they will function well. They need room to stretch and ultimately thrive in vehicle specific areas. For instance, on Halo 4's Complex, you could drive a ghost into the central window room, if taken the right paths. This was possible but not ideal. When incorporating vehicles onto maps, you need to think about how they will move around and how vulnerable the driver becomes with each position. Allowing light vehicles to scale player traversable structures may create an illusion that nowhere is safe, but in turn generates bad flow, wasted vehicles, or certain death. Just make sure that if you do implement light vehicles that you design specific areas for them before placing them, and not just designing larger walkways and placing down a ghost after the fact.

I agree. Just the illusion of danger can impact flow in negative ways.

 

 

 

 

This statement itself is fundamentally flawed. Allowing players to pilot a vehicle in an undesirable environment for the vehicle specific mechanics is either one of two things. The first of which being inadequate map design, and the second being poor vehicle choice, if any. Designing vehicle specific areas are what makes vehicles themselves "power weapons." Allowing the vehicles to be used to their full potential. Placing vehicles on a map without proper play space essentially nerfs them to the point of them not being enjoyable or practical.

 

Using your logic would be the same as placing a sniper rifle on "Chiron TL-34." It is the worst possible environment for a long range weapon, but using the same logic, placing it on a map with long sight lines only makes the weapon overpowered. That is an absolutely silly way of looking at map design and suggest you rethink your strategy.

 

I don't expect you to take anything out of what I'm saying as you are clearly decided in your ways. Best of luck on Bad Blood 2.

 

I tend to agree with this, but @@Fated, I was curious. Do you see putting a sniper on a map with long sight lines as over empowering a sniper? Or more precisely, is the answer to that question based more on the "abundance" of long sight lines?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

'Spawning questions'

 

'Just the illusion of danger can impact flow in negative ways'

 

'Do you see putting a sniper on a map with long sight lines as over empowering a sniper? Or more precisely, is the answer to that question based more on the "abundance" of long sight lines?'

 

Re: Spawning, We had a super accelerated build time during our trip to 343 Industries. I was completely focused on massing out the design and expressing the vision to the team at 343, and any spawns I put down we're hastily thrown on the map so it was somewhat playable in our play tests. I hastily setup a basic static spawning system through both respawn zones and team-specific spawns, but the spawn system that is on the current version of Recurve was developed by 343 after I left. I usually spend weeks to months refining spawning systems through zone weighting based on observations from play tests, but I unfortunately just didn't have the opportunity to focus on spawns during my visit. The scripting system is super powerful in Halo 5's forge, and presents some new options for spawn system design that will be revealed later on. I will say that based on my observations of this game's spawning system, it is seemingly not based on player line of sight. There are some ridiculous spawn killing clips being passed around right now where the person sniping never looks away from the targeted spawn area.

 

Re: Danger, the illusion of danger only impacts flow in negative ways if the map provides insufficient counter-play. When maps are designed with proper movement incentive, verticality, and empowerment balance, the potential danger of an encounter with an enemy vehicle keeps players moving. And not just moving, but moving vertically. This is where verticality/overlap gets really exciting, because the differences between infantry and vehicle movement mechanics allows you to design different, but balanced counter-play opportunities for both. Vehicles have speed and fire power, but players have an entire suite of vertical movement mechanics that let them transcend levels in ways that vehicles cannot. My original vision for Recurve had a route circuit that empowered vehicles to move fast and infantry to move vertically. Much of this conceptual design discussion is intuitive when I build and difficult to explain in written form, so it's easy to misinterpret my meaning (which is what happened with @@Given To Fly in previous posts). Much easier to demonstrate visually.

 

Re: Snipers, it's a delicate balancing act of empowerment, movement incentive, and danger. With my original weapon placement, the snipers spawned in positions with limited/situational power. Effectiveness was limited to lines of sight across the lower edge and the home courtyards, and the positions only saw situational danger. This spawn placement created movement incentive into the central structure, which had far more dominating lines of sight into the enemy base/coutryard. While the original central structure further empowered the sniper rifle, it was also the most highly contested position on the entire map. There was massive movement incentive and flow design into every level of the central structure, which made it an extremely dangerous position to use the sniper in. This balancing act prevented overpowered scenarios.

 

It all comes down to risk versus reward. To rephrase a point I made earlier, further empowering power weapons without proper balancing in place creates overpowered scenarios. The same applies to vehicles and vehicle-specific areas, and for those who may have misinterpreted, I'm referencing the open, rolling hills of Blood Gulch and Standoff when I use the term "traditional vehicle-specific area design". There is a distinction between areas and routes. It's all about balance. Moves and counter-moves.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Fated, a few questions...

 

With regard to spawning and how people complain that the enemy spawns closer to the enemy base than their own, is the spawning similar to H4, or is it vastly different? Do you lay spawn points that can be team assigned and thus no one from the other team can spawn on that point? This would have been a solid way to force spawning on the correct side of the map and I used this in H4 because their zones were not able to enforce team side spawning. Just curious what you had to work with.

 

Also, if you can say, how much of the spawning did they teach you guys and will they be presenting even some level of details on the spawning when Forge comes out?

 

Spawning is very similar to Reach and H4, in that it is enemy radius influence focused. While the weightings of different influences have changed, the over arcing mechanics have stayed the same.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Spawning is very similar to Reach and H4, in that it is enemy radius influence focused. While the weightings of different influences have changed, the over arcing mechanics have stayed the same.

 

IDK...

 

 

Are people able to line up shots with spawn points and kill the player as they spawn?  That was a safeguard that was present in Reach/H4. I think I remember seeing this in H5 video.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.