363 réponses à ce sujet

[PS-1958]

kaxas92 wrote...

It was so hard to decide on my favourite map... I went with Glacier in the end. Fast paced-crowded, but really enjoyable.

Glacier.......................the Nuketown of Mass Effect 3.

[HolyAvenger]

Beerfish wrote...

So, the big question is why all of this interest in mp map building at this point in time. I would think it would be very early for any ME4 kind of thing. Perhaps ME3 mp was such a success they are going to fast track an ME4 mp before the sp game comes out? (Much howling would ensue). Or this is feeback for Dragon Age mp.

Give it up Jos!

 

Jos moved to the DAI team some time ago;)

[dasfranken]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

A couple questions that weren't asked in the poll but that I'm personally interested in knowing your opinions on:

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? Suitability for your playstyle? Plenty of ammo/grenades? Defensible locations? Aesthetic? Gameplay variations like hazards?

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less of?

- I rated a map well if it had plenty of ammo and grenades, had multiple types of combat scenarios, and wasn't too exposed. I really liked the redesign of Firebase White, personally. It had lots of way to flank/get flanked, some open areas, some close quarters areas, and could sustain more than one ammo/grenade hog. I rated a map poorly if it encouraged camping (defensible positions are fine if it still has a solid weakness), was unplayable with screen augmenting powers (FB White Hazard), or had bad ammo crates.

I thought hazards added a nice change of pace to the levels. I switch playstyles based on the level and character I'm playing, so I don't have a specific strategy I use all of the time.

- I would like to see more environmental interation like Reactor Hazard. The abilty to open and close gates, maybe use a mounted turret, or just trigger traps. I also would like to see enemy infantry units be able to interact with these things, too, at least to an extent.

I would like to see cover implemented a bit better and the ability to switch shoulder views. I kind of feel cover is underused since 'soft cover' is usually better. Just please don't spam Geth Primes to force us into cover, make the system better. Separating the sprint and take cover buttons would be a welcome needed change.

I think switching up the types/number of enemies you face based on the map could be nice. Bigger maps can feel really slow when the spawns get divided and we have to track things down, whereas Glacier can feel too crowded with Brutes, Atlas, and Primes all bunched up together in a doorway.

The only things I really dislike on maps are exposed maps with minimal cover, poor ammo supply, and the snowstorm.

I really liked the Swarm and Rain hazards, since they hurt both the player and enemy and offered some randomness to the game.

[LuckyBullet95]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

My personal favourite will always be Goddess. I just love the way the spaces in that level work out. My least favourite is Glacier mostly because I like levels with a bit more opportunity for longer range encounters. I'm seeing a lot of Ghost Hazard as a favourite in here, but only few elaborate on why beyond it looking pretty. Does the hazard make a big difference in how much you enjoy that particular level?
I do like how people end up on both sides of the fence on some of the levels, Hydra especially.


A couple questions that weren't asked in the poll but that I'm personally interested in knowing your opinions on:

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? Suitability for your playstyle? Plenty of ammo/grenades? Defensible locations? Aesthetic? Gameplay variations like hazards?

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less of?

Hazards
I love the damage-dealing Hazards, they feel like something that really changes how the map is played and, particularly for the seeker swarm can serve as a death sentence if you are not aware of it. However the two damage-dealing hazard (Reactor not withstanding) both feel like they encourage the use of tankys. The seeker storm will obliterate a Drell or Geth with Hunter Mode. However the Juggernaut, Krogans, Batarians and Turians can usual stand there laughing with impunity if specced for survivability whichis my only issue with it. The visuals of the Hazard do a great job at improving the atmosphere  with special mentions going to Glacier, Ghost and Reactor  but they don't feel like they do much aside from make you get in closer range. Dagger and White Hazard don't really effect how you play aside from discouraging sniping.

Question 1
The layout of the map and how nice the combat flows is a particularly major element in how I rate the maps. Most of my favourite are relative close quarters (Goddess, Jade, Glacier, White) and so have dynamic gameplay which I love. Some of my least favourite maps like London, Rio, Vancouver are either hard to navigate or just the combat just feels off. Another major thing (obviously) is how well theyperform technically. Condor is beautiful map and is great for long range gameplay but it's almost unplayable due to a number of common gamebreaking issues (invisible enemies, system lockup, failure to load in) combined with several other minor problems (the memory leak that prevents you taking cover or climbing ladders aswell as glitchy ammo boxes. Aesthetics aren't that big a deal for mp maps for m,, sure it's great that Condor, Jade, Goddess and Ghost/Glacier Hazard are visually stunning but MP, unlike SP doesnm't really leave too much time to admire the scenery. It's an added bonux to me.

Question 2
Firstly every map should be a two grenade map unless they are the size of Glacier or Rio.I'd like to see damage-dealing Hazards that deal a proportional amount of damage rather than a flat point amount. (say the seeker storm does 20% of your total health and shields a secon rather than doing say 300 damage per second. This would make it more of auniversal hazard. Obviously something may need to be done for classes like the Juggernaut which is incredibly slow but it does need to be more universal.I want to see a few more levels as small as Glacier but mostly a focus on maps like Jade, Goddess, White and Dagger which can be played at long range and close quarters with relative ease. Harder to navigate maps like Rio, Vancouver and Reactor tend to be so due to how many collision detecting objects can block your path (Vancouver ahhas so many pipes, walls, boxes and tables that it's quite frustrtating to maneuvr around.same goes for Reactor).

Oh yeah and since PS1958 mentioned it....

Cobra Missiles... yes they are great and help withobjectives and help newer players deal with ATLAS but did we really need 36 of them per game? 5 Cobras was OK you still needed to actuallybe careful but now each player can get 9 and we've got people like Bechter and Cricketer making a mockery of MP in 7-8 minute full extractions.Yes speedrunning is... was fun and honestly it kepts most people playing far longer than they otherwise would've but with 36 missiles good players breeze through some games without firing more than 50 bullets and bad players... still die horibly. Maybe cap them or similar items to 3 or 5 next time, either that or  just don't include them. The game is considered so easy by players moreso because of the consumables (6 medi-gel, cobras, OSPs and TCPs) than anything else.

Modifié par LuckyBullet95, 11 avril 2013 - 04:19 .

[Jos Hendriks]

Beerfish wrote...

So, the big question is why all of this interest in mp map building at this point in time. I would think it would be very early for any ME4 kind of thing. Perhaps ME3 mp was such a success they are going to fast track an ME4 mp before the sp game comes out? (Much howling would ensue). Or this is feeback for Dragon Age mp.

Give it up Jos!

Because we're done building things for ME3 MP. The poll is there so we can get a more detailed and concentrated look at what people liked and disliked.
My personal questions are there because I like learning, and the best way to learn is a combination of trying new things and the opinions and insights of others. It is all knowledge worth carrying forward, regardless of where/when/how it gets used eventually. That, and I'm honestly very interested in what you all think of the levels, which is why I'm also looking forward to the poll results. I built the MP levels for everyone playing, after all. 

[Constant Motion]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

My personal favourite will always be Goddess. I just love the way the spaces in that level work out. My least favourite is Glacier mostly because I like levels with a bit more opportunity for longer range encounters. I'm seeing a lot of Ghost Hazard as a favourite in here, but only few elaborate on why beyond it looking pretty. Does the hazard make a big difference in how much you enjoy that particular level?

Yes! Loads!

It's a mutual hazard - effects us and the enemies equally - which is great, and it completely changes the tactics. Regular ghost was already a great map. Open spaces, closed spaces, room to snipe, room to bottleneck, very versatile, but I tend to predominantly stay outside. Ghost hazard, I tend to stay inside - complete reversal, changes my persepctive. Excellent.

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? Suitability for your playstyle? Plenty of ammo/grenades? Defensible locations? Aesthetic? Gameplay variations like hazards?

Plenty of ammo tends to come into it - I sigh when I hit Condor or Glacier with a drell adept. Nice that it adds a point of difference, but it means you know you're going to have a struggle on your hands. I think appearance is a factor, too - nobody wants to spend the next 20 minutes on a depressing map - but gameplay wins. I think it's right that different maps should favour different types of gameplay, and they should all have very different flavours, but they should never make a play style redundant, the way hazard dagger threatens to make sniping redundant.

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less of?

I'd love to see more variety. Moving platforms, breakable cover, I think responsive level design is great. Also, fortifiable positions. It's good to move around, and stay mobile, but I love the idea of finding a room, setting up a biotic sphere, a supply pylon, a turret, and bunkering down. I don't know how possible it is to implement those turrets from single player, the ones that shoot fifty at a time, but stuff like that can make a map feel very different.

[Edorian27]

Just took part in it. Voted London as favorite map, I also like dagger.

[stysiaq]

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of
all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less
of?

1. Aesthetics:

- I think the skyline is very important. What happens "outside the map". In this regard Condor, Goddess, Ghost and Giant are my favorites. White is very dull, on the other hand. Turian jets flying by >>>> White's whatever-never-cared-to-look flying by. Ghost has some futuristic slums IIRC. Neat. Just as Giant AA cannons and a Krogan parking lot.

- Atmosphere is a huge factor; It all will depend on the next game's setting, but this time I wasn't exactly feeling that I'm fighting a war on maps like Hydra or Dagger. I was fighting a war on Condor, London, Goddess, Hazard Giant and Jade (fiery rubble, destroyed Palaven in the distance).

2. Gameplay

- We need maps with variety. First of all, they should be bigger to allow cqc battles in buildings and big vistas for snipers. They shouldn't be overloaded with grenades, but they shouldn't be low on them either (I'm looking at you, regular Reactor). I should be able to play a random map with any character and not curse the world after seeing the outcome.

- The objectives - whatever they will look like - shouldn't result in any curse words, like escorts on Rio. You should also take a closer look at them, so we won't get the "Running with pizza" 2.0 or "Hack it out" 2.0. (Assuming that the next MP will be anything like this horde mode)

- Melee near the edge of the map should result in a "This is Sparta" scene reenactment. BioWare, please, make it so. Ragdolled Geth Hunter falling down the Benning city is a sight to remember.

- Interactive map elements. Interactive map elements. Interactive map elements. Interactive map elements. Mighty need.

3. Interactive Map Elements

- The interactive (Reactor Meltdown Oven modulo Bugged Doors Which Enemies DGAF about) gave me loads of fun. Now imagine some little things we saw in ME2 & 3 SP campaigns that would fit right in and create new strategies:

- buttons that close/open doors and windows (and enemies need to blow them open)
- buttons that turn on/off waist-high cover (like in Purgatory, if I remember it correctly)
- flushable toilets (ok, maybe not this one)
- and a lot more!

Since next ME game will run on Frostbite 2, I guess it's a possibility to include destroyable cover, buildings, objects in general. It would be great if we got them, and had the possiblility to toss piles of rubble at enemies using powers like Pull or Throw. You know, Mass Effect fields.

[baldmop]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

My personal favourite will always be Goddess. I just love the way the spaces in that level work out. My least favourite is Glacier mostly because I like levels with a bit more opportunity for longer range encounters. I'm seeing a lot of Ghost Hazard as a favourite in here, but only few elaborate on why beyond it looking pretty. Does the hazard make a big difference in how much you enjoy that particular level? To answer this one besides ghost looking pretty for me it is a true tactical map you have to think about where you want to be and when because of the hazard .

I do like how people end up on both sides of the fence on some of the levels, Hydra especially.


A couple questions that weren't asked in the poll but that I'm personally interested in knowing your opinions on:

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? [color=rgb(0, 0, 128)">Line of sight ]or lack of  and ease of mobility .[/color]

Suitability for your playstyle? [color="#000080"]Glacier is my favorite as a melee character it suits that playstyle. Dagger and Hydra provide the sniper in me experience because of long range  encounters .[/color]

Plenty of ammo/grenades?  [color="#000080"]Condor is the map that comes to mind if I have the gear to supplement poor ammo drops it is a a small problem for me .[/color]

Defensible locations? [color="#000080"]Didn't go into thought  took for granted .[/color]

Aesthetic? Sets the mood for the map dagger hazard was one of my favorites because of the mood the hazard brought . I do like the fact each map had it's own attitude through design as well as light and sound .

Gameplay variations like hazards? Hazards were a great addition . One thing I would like to have seen was a close quarters map that allowed you to clear a room go down hallways  a love it or hate it map  .

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? S[color="#000080"]ome of the stuff that was in sp .( sheild generators)[/color]

  What do you want to see less of? I can't think of anything .

Modifié par baldmop, 11 avril 2013 - 04:37 .

[your-friendly-noggin]

Reading through the thread I'm happy to see hazard glacier getting some decent hate, it's a map that pretty much forces one kind of play, which is great for speedrunners who can manipulate spawns but it is the worst kind of PUG hell

LuckyBullet95 wrote...

Question 1
The layout of the map and how nice the combat flows is a particularly major element in how I rate the maps. Most of my favourite are relative close quarters (Goddess, Jade, Glacier, White) and so have dynamic gameplay which I love. Some of my least favourite maps like London, Rio, Vancouver are either hard to navigate or just the combat just feels off. Another major thing (obviously) is how well theyperform technically. Condor is beautiful map and is great for long range gameplay but it's almost unplayable due to a number of common gamebreaking issues (invisible enemies, system lockup, failure to load in) combined with several other minor problems (the memory leak that prevents you taking cover or climbing ladders aswell as glitchy ammo boxes. Aesthetics aren't that big a deal for mp maps for m,, sure it's great that Condor, Jade, Goddess and Ghost/Glacier Hazard are visually stunning but MP, unlike SP doesnm't really leave too much time to admire the scenery. It's an added bonux to me.

It's funny I completely agree with why you like and dislike these maps, but lack of dynamic gameplay is exactly why I dislike both Glaciers while the various 'bases' with varied multiple routes for CQC and long range is exactly why I love vancouver.

LuckyBullet95 wrote...
Question 2
Firstly every map should be a two grenade map unless they are the size of Glacier or Rio.I'd like to see damage-dealing Hazards that deal a proportional amount of damage rather than a flat point amount. (say the seeker storm does 20% of your total health and shields a secon rather than doing say 300 damage per second. This would make it more of auniversal hazard. Obviously something may need to be done for classes like the Juggernaut which is incredibly slow but it does need to be more universal.I want to see a few more levels as small as Glacier but mostly a focus on maps like Jade, Goddess, White and Dagger which can be played at long range and close quarters with relative ease. Harder to navigate maps like Rio, Vancouver and Reactor tend to be so due to how many collision detecting objects can block your path (Vancouver ahhas so many pipes, walls, boxes and tables that it's quite frustrtating to maneuvr around.same goes for Reactor).

Again completely agree with the seeker hazard(glass cannons torn to shreds everytime) and grenade supply. However surely ease of navigation is what makes Vancouver so good, you can run a full circle around that map without vaulting or climbing anything, or you can hop safely from cover to cover. Also it's soft cover heaven without being close quarters or longe range all the time.

[DcIhNaGv3z]

Compared to some of the settings in single player, the mp maps were all kind of bland visually. None of the levels really inspired my science fiction imagination. Most of them had an industrial / office like quality.

One thing that makes a map's layout good or bad is the quantity of areas where you can manage and maintain lines of sight on the enemy. Players need areas where they can engage the enemy on a consistent basis, while also having lots of opportunities to cut-off line of sight.

[l Molag Bal l]

When i rate a level its based just on the factor that i can use most classes and characters on it. Hard to use say a phoenix on london. Something i would like to see more of is interaction with the level. Like hazard reactor. Have things on the map to delay/ kill the enemy for example the arial bombarment we never get.

[Vilediner]

Favourite - Jade or Giant (hazard)

Despise - Reactor.

[Spencercl]

I do wish there was a general comment section on the survey. What I realized as I answered the poll was there are no really bad maps. The ones I don't like, just challenge me in a different way so it forces me to adapt my play style, which I can admit I don't like to do.

Many people hate Condor due to the poor ammo boxes that we think of as glitched. What if there was lore released with that map stating that due to limited resources ammo is scarce on Menae? That would be a twist that makes the map interesting instead of frustrating. It would have been (or is) our first hazard map.

Goddess is very open so you have to be more mobile. Glacier is small and confined so leave your sniper rifles at home. London is...well London, be ready to have to fight like hell to survive in a pivotal battle ground at the apex of the war. I personally hate Rio due to the long skinny shape that makes pizza and escorts agonizing, but does it make it bad?

Maps that are truly glitchy are undeniably bad, but Bioware will not be designing maps specifically to be glitchy. So that should be a non-issue for this survey.

If all maps were small or had positions that were easy to defend then the game would have gotten old and I certainly would not be approaching my 900th hour of play.

So bring on in the next ME game a varied set of maps that require different strategies and play style to be successful. Throw in some special hazards/restrictions that are story based to make them even richer.

[Cohen le Barbare]

Jos Hendriks wrote...
A couple questions that weren't asked in the poll but that I'm personally interested in knowing your opinions on:

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? Suitability for your playstyle? Plenty of ammo/grenades? Defensible locations? Aesthetic? Gameplay variations like hazards?

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less of?

1. I chose White v2.0 as I feel it gives more options to flank the enemies, it has several defendable positions and you can also run & gun if you chose to do so. I'm not very fond of hazard versions because casters and snipers are somewhat gimped on these maps. Atmosphere/lightening plays a role, but if I have to chose between 2 maps, I'd take the ugly one that gives me more gameplay options.

2. We need more verticality in the game. I can live with the fact that we can't jump. Yet on the other hand, it's a SF game and the enemies have jet packs to go up/down, and we can't do the same. White, Ghost, Giant and several others were really well suited for more vertical/open gameplay. I'm not talking complete movement freedom as in Tribes/Just Cause 2, but having to option to go up at certain spots on the map, like going up in one of these open prefabs on Ghost, or go through the ceiling (on the corridor on the right of the LZ) on Jade would have been awesome.

3. I'd like a return to the overheat system for weapons and an automatic generation of grenades through the character development (what you did for the talon merc is the way to go IMHO) It would make gameplay more fluid and it would make more sense. I mean, why doesn't the enemy destroy the ammo boxes and be done with us? I'd like a different system for heavy weaponry, ie, I don't want missiles. I do use/abuse them, but it should be reworked. Something like a special ability (airstrike for soldiers, massive tech/biotic damage for casters for example) that you could call once a wave would work.

4. Destructible environments could be fun, yet I'm not sure how that would work with a wave-based mutliplayer.

Modifié par Cohen le Barbare, 11 avril 2013 - 04:55 .

[your-friendly-noggin]

Spencercl wrote...

Many people hate Condor due to the poor ammo boxes that we think of as glitched. What if there was lore released with that map stating that due to limited resources ammo is scarce on Menae? That would be a twist that makes the map interesting instead of frustrating. It would have been (or is) our first hazard map.

Ammo boxes were just the cherry on the top of the Menae moon-mud pie of condor. Enemies almost always have a perfect line of sight on you, objectives were always a pain, but pusher enemies(dragoon, bomber and seekers) made it so much worse as hard cover is pretty useless here and soft cover is in terrible spots to stop.

[Zero132132]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

A couple questions that weren't asked in the poll but that I'm personally interested in knowing your opinions on:

- What are the primary elements that factor into your rating of levels? Suitability for your playstyle? Plenty of ammo/grenades? Defensible locations? Aesthetic? Gameplay variations like hazards?

- What if anything would you want to see more of in the future out of all the levels and elements in the levels? What do you want to see less of?

The speed of combat is a big thing. I like to be able to put pressure on the enemy, and I like the enemy to be able to put pressure on players. That's why smaller maps like Glacier are awesome. It's best to have room for both long range and close range engagement, though, so stuff like Goddess is probably better (although Glacier has too many fond memories to be discounted).

In the future, I want to see fewer positions that can be safely held for the entire match, but more positions on each map that can be held for a bit and periodically abandoned by defensive players.

What shouldn't happen ever is for there to be hacks and devices that are in the middle of nowhere, about as defensible as a cactus in an otherwise barren, flat desert. You've created a bunch of these, because you're evil. They're frustrating, and there really isn't any tactic or strategy to it besides the obvious (kill everything in sight, maybe occasionally abandon and kite enemies away), so they don't create more dynamic play, just more frustrating play. Not saying they should be rofleasy, just set them up in ways that allow players to succeed with more than the general combination of luck, DPS, and kiting.

Also, in the future, put less random, useless ladders to nowhere. I mean, if you're not too busy. Still wish I knew who originally designed White so I could ask about that...

[Jos Hendriks]

Zero132132 wrote...
Also, in the future, put less random, useless ladders to nowhere. I mean, if you're not too busy. Still wish I knew who originally designed White so I could ask about that...

Is it useless though? Or does it lead to a small crevice in the dark where there's exterior environmental controls? Or a vent? We will never know.