363 réponses à ce sujet

[Spencercl]

Jos Hendriks wrote...
- 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?

First for me is aesthetics which keeps the game fresh when playing multiple missions in a row. After that for selfish reasons the maps that fit my playstyle, but as I said in an earlier post after filling out the survey I don't think any current map is bad, just requires different playstyle which is a good thing. So really as long as each map has a unique feel I am pretty happy. Top aesthetics maps for me Giant Hazard, Ghost Hazard, Condor, Goddess and Jade.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
- 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 would like to see more map specific hazards or challenges, like weather, limited or generous ammo boxes, visiblity, harder/easier maps, all of which are tied to the lore of the world the map is on. As the current hazard maps have a bonus for playing them, have a sliding scale for awards depending on the map.

Multiple levels are also something I really love, Dagger is the best with at least 4 different hights of firing positions throughout the map.

[Blind2Society]

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?

For Ghost hazard being my favorite, it's definitely due to the aesthetics, elseways it would just be vanilla ghost. Though a novelty at first, I'm not a fan of hazards, enemies are hazardous enough. Ghost is a great map for more than just aesthetics however.

It's great because it's big and has enough high cover to allow for places to run when getting overwhelmed so as to catch a breath and set up a tactical approach. The way the map is set up, it allows for areas with long sight lines while not getting shot from a million different angles as well as areas set up for close encounters. It plays to every possible playstyle. It is, in fact, a perfect multiplayer map. Unlike, say, London where it's only really suited to long range and even then your getting blasted from everywhere.

Ghost is a great map for the same reasons my favorite map for the original Modern Warfare is a great map (Backlot). Both maps will undoubtedly stay as my top two shooter maps ever.

[LuckyBullet95]

your-friendly-noggin wrote...

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

Glacier Hazard is great in concept but yeah that rediculous DPS just
rinses non-tanks, forces you to move about (which personally I love)
but yeah PUGs who aren't good at the game... they really struggle.
Really needs a change to Damage-Dealing Hazards.

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.

Glacier quite a linear layout compared to something like Condor, Godess, White or Dagger but it's just so close quartersis difficult to go 4 seconds without finding an enemy which is something I love. Vancouver, too each his own. I find it hard to navigate, think there's an excess of coverr and the ammo boxes are pathetic. But yeah everyone's entitled to their opinion.

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.

True but for some reason I only play either long range or short range. The thing your meant to do with an Assault Rifle or Pistol I just don't do. Hard cover is something I rarely use. The cover issue for me though is more tied to the one button to rule them all, X/Spacebar/A was overused whilst other buttons like Select/Back could've been used to revive and L3 would've been used to Sprint which es isn't ideal but it is... wlel was a common button layout.

[Spencercl]

your-friendly-noggin wrote...

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.

But that is a positive to me, the map is harder than other maps that makes me move and engage guerilla style.  Other that on platinum you can just hold the landing zone reasonably easily as long as your team stays aware of enemies on the upper balcony.  Different tactics for different maps is the spice of combat.

[dysturbed0ne]

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?

Ghost was one of my favorite hazards. Why, because it is evident and penalizing without being overwhelming.

Giant's hazard would have been great with random lightning strikes, with an AoE that striped shields.

I personally don't like Vancouver, mainly because getting to the enemies can be a PITA, that map is just to simple but congested; many obsticles, multiple leveles, plays like a circle with only one (time consuming) way to split the map. Rio plays and feels like a long rectangle, with a bump in the middle. All the other maps I really enjoy playing (glitches aside).

Judging from the success of the MP you all created, I really hope you don't over think the next one too much. I never enjoyed MP or playing with other people online. This game drew even me in and has easily consumed more of my time than any other game.

So to answer your second question; more of the same with some variation.

[Zjarcal]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

- 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?

- Aesthetics play a big role, it's why I like the hazard version of Reactor MUCH more than the original, the slightly different color scheme makes a huge difference for me. It's also why despite liking Giant's layout quite a bit, it's not a favorite map for me (don't find it pleasant to look at all, which I guess makes sense given its supposed to be a barren wasteland

- Good ammo crates definitely matter too, though I can cope with that (Dagger is still my favorite map despite the crates). Although the ammo crates on Hazard Dagger are a HUGE turnoff (especially on Platinum).

- Suitability to my playstyle is nice, but not vital, I am ok with adapting from time to time. London for example certainly required me to up my game quite a bit, and I enjoyed that. However maps that encourage camping do turn me off a bit (Rio or Hazard Ghost).

- The gameplay varation from the hazards was kind of minimal tbh (except for Ghost and Glacier, which end up being more of an annoyance most of the time), so I don't factor them in too much.

- I would like to see MUCH larger maps, which we all know wasn't a possibility with the current console hardware, but it should be possible for the future.

- One small thing I'd like to see are multiple LZs per map. It's rather insignificant, but it's one of the reasons Dagger is my favorite map.

- As for something I want less, less troll position of device objectives plz... I'm looking at you device in the middle of Hydra.

[Catastrophy]

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)
Consider my face when I bring a Sniper Rifle and end up on Glacier. Most of the like/dislike has to do with my way of playing the game, which is tightly knit to the game mechanics. With the current system I like medium to close ranged combat and that should tell which maps I favour. Landing on Condor with a Batarian and a shotgun? Not my favourite.
The best maps offer a good variation in firelanes and LoS obstructions, therefore Vancouver e.g. is a good place to go with any class. It also has a nice variation in elevation.
I also factor in the lighting, I prefer brighter maps, though I like the hazard variants of Giant and Reactor very much.
Ghost is an ugly place but the hazard variant makes this map my favourite because of the challenge and because it's simply beautiful. And the Geth sing in the rain.

2)
I remember playing Doom for the first time. Moving in three dimensions was a huge step forward. Multi-levelled maps would be nice, but probably a challenge for the AI coders.

Since Mass Effect is a space opera I'd like to see boarding operations. ME1 had these generic levels with crates providing some diversity of pathing through the same rooms over and over.

But consider this:
The current maps are well-known by most players, but everytime a new map was introduced, the difficulty spiked up. What if it was possible to generate map types that always look different, have different paths and spawn locations?
I like the current maps - they are mostly good artwork - but random maps would bring more challenge to the game and provide diversity. I think boarding missions would be a good way to do it, so you don't have to think about every flower-pot to be placed at random, as starships aren't usually pretty sceneries (just add a nebula as background).

[Litefire]

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?

Like i said in my survey my fav map which i never see enough of is reactor hazard, second ghost rain, tuchunka day/night and goddess in that order.

I like to have parts of the map where cqc is necessary, and then i also like places for long range combat(sniping/tech or biotic mortoring) Having enough ammo so that 4 granade class can run together since i pug goes along way to making a map better, but it's not necessary as nearly every 'nade class isnt cripled if they are out of 'nades.  

For the next version lets have more types of combat rather then just horde + with the 3 objectives.  Lets have horde defense (what we have now);  horde offensive. Maps are capture based have to move to locations or objectives and capture them wave by wave to reach the end then hold the goal/evac point against the reinforcements.  I dont really want pvp because it always devolves into steath cheesing if you have a stealth class available.  

It would be interseting to have larger group then 4 or maybe 2 -3 teams of 4 racing to an objective through waves and hordes.

[Grundle47]

- 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?

There are a few things to consider when rating the maps. Some maps lose points because it's not feasible to "use" the whole map. London is interesting, but there's huge chunks of it that I never see players (successfully) use because they're simply too open to be safe. Variety of playstyles allowed by a map was a big plus for some of them. White really does allow for long, short, and mid-ranged fighting styles, whereas something like Vancouver mostly leans towards a long to mid-ranged style. However, maps like Glacier and Vancouver still fill a need as specialized kinds of maps so, when done well, it didn't really detract from them.
Sadly, what hurt a lot of maps the most was poor placement of devices/hacks/etc. and extractions. A device in the middle of the map on London with no cover around typically tips the scale past "challenging" into "frustrating". Extraction points are a little less awful, but it can be very frustrating to play on Hydra, be very careful and then go down with 3 seconds left because the extraction point is poorly placed and wide open on all sides. Those little things can really detract from how a player feels about a specific map over time.
...and yes Condor is awful.

- 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 think the maps are sized right, and laid out well for the most part. At this point you could turn your focus to the ascetics a little more. Some of the maps, like Giant and Vancouver are a lot of fun to play, but after a little while are pretty boring to look at. You don't have to go nuts, but maps like Goddess, and Jade really stand out and have a unique feel when you drop into them. I'd say more of that.
Less...well, I'd say start being VERY careful about where you put missions in the maps. In general I don't have much to complain about when it comes to the maps, but a wipe caused by a device in the middle of no cover in the center of the map can ruin your night.
Also, most of the maps and definitely the mission system were built without Collectors in mind. This either needs some serious balancing or the Collectors need to be listed as a separate difficulty. They're a faction specifically designed to flush out campers, but the missions, and maps can force you into camping situations where Collectors can make it feel unfinishable to an average player. Just keep that faction in the front of your mind with any more maps you make.

[Ramsutin]

Can't open the link, it is stuck in an endless loop of load.

[bogsters23]

favorite maps - glacier, goddess, jade, hazard reactor, hazard white
least - condor, rio, vancouver

[Shampoohorn]

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?

Ghost Hazard:  Aesthetics.  A hazard that affected players and enemies alike, unlike the Whiteout and Sandstorm.  The fact that the hazard was dynamic and 'environmental', unlike the Glacier hazard which was dynamic but localized.  The Rain also did fairly low damage, so it required situational awareness but wouldn't ruin your day; the Glacier hazard in comparison could completely mess up a weaker kit in a laggy game.

- Rating:  I gave the worst ratings to buggy maps like Rio (where a variation of the vanguard glitch still persists) and Condor.  Condor matches frequently end up being 2-3 player grinds because new players get stuck at the spawn point -- plus it has buggy cover.

- The Future:  I'd like to see more dynamic maps.  Smashable cover, lighting changes (i.e. sunrise), more variable hazards and environmental conditions.

Thanks for everything (except the box of shame. )

[your-friendly-noggin]

LuckyBullet95 wrote...

Glacier quite a linear layout compared to something like Condor, Godess, White or Dagger but it's just so close quartersis difficult to go 4 seconds without finding an enemy which is something I love. Vancouver, too each his own. I find it hard to navigate, think there's an excess of coverr and the ammo boxes are pathetic. But yeah everyone's entitled to their opinion.

True, glacier has a really fast pace, which trips up defensive or inexperienced players, however drop me with any of the human vanguards into that place and it's great. I guess my dislike for it is because I play U/U/G (sometimes P) almost exclusively for varietys sake, whereas goddess and white are excellent for any class.

True but for some reason I only play either long range or short range. The thing your meant to do with an Assault Rifle or Pistol I just don't do. Hard cover is something I rarely use. The cover issue for me though is more tied to the one button to rule them all, X/Spacebar/A was overused whilst other buttons like Select/Back could've been used to revive and L3 would've been used to Sprint which es isn't ideal but it is... wlel was a common button layout.

Ew didn't think of that, yeah the one button is a massive pain, I can totally see the frustration on vancouver for that, especially around the ammo boxes if someone goes down restocking at one you can end up in cover, apart from the nice floor one near the extraction area which you can just sprint over without much issue.. A good solution for consoles would be clicking the left thumbstick for sprint and leaving cover as A.

Spencercl wrote...

But that is a positive to me, the map is harder than other maps that makes me move and engage guerilla style.  Other that on platinum you can just hold the landing zone reasonably easily as long as your team stays aware of enemies on the upper balcony.  Different tactics for different maps is the spice of combat.

Haha you filthy sadist you! 
Joking aside, guerilla movement is great, it's why overall the addition of the bomber and dragoon was so good because it encouraged a mobile team, same with ghost hazard. With a decent team yeah condor is reasonable, but with PUGs or friends you are introducing to the game it can be frustrating and many of the times death will feel cheap even if you were keeping an eye out. A map that does this well is dagger, there are tons of crossfire opportunities for the enemy but it always feels fair, like it was your fault. 

Still I can totally see what they were aiming with for condor, several levels of engagements to retreat or cycle through in a vertical ramp of holdout spots. With some tweaking it could have been one of the most loved maps, it's a bit of a shame to see what it is right now.

Also what do you think about condor/collectors/platinum? 

[Beerfish]

Oh, one more thing. Rethink the spawn mechanic on all maps. The players should not be able to control spawns so easily they way they do. I know this is more of a game play rather than map issue but it's important in my opinion.

[vladgd]

Favorite map, Reactor. I love the look of this map, and the layout is just perfect. I rarely have a bad game on reactor.

Runner up, Ghost Hazard. I am surprised from this thread others enjoy it as much as I do. Aesthetically it is probably the best looking map in the entire game. As for the challenge, like glacier hazard, its actually a challenge that changes the way you play the map, very fun.

Least favorite map, Vancouver. Might be just me, but I can't for the life of me get comfortable playing on this map. I wish I could get specific as to why, but I just never have decent games on it. Heck I even prefer london over this map.

[Auras_Mendalla]

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?

Personally, I like lots of variation between interiors/exteriors, sniping potential and up-close encounters. I also prefer the more colorful maps, although Hazard White is my absolute favorite because snow.

Modifié par Auras_Mendalla, 11 avril 2013 - 05:45 .

[Heggy]

The atmosphere of the hazard levels stands out as something which should be considered on all maps. With the exception of reactor hazard, which didn't feel that different, the others gained a lot from the interesting lighting and weather and really brought them to life.

In the future I would like to see maps with a more apparent purpose. Some felt like they were built as arenas for fighting, rather than fighting in places that used to be alive with civilisation and work. The base maps in particular stuck out like a sore thumb in the main campaign as without purpose.

*Edit: With some retrospect, I think this may be due in fact to the lack of physics and breakable objects. There were lots of counters and big crates, but no chairs or movable objects. No cardboard boxes, no litter, no rubbish bins, no lamps, no food (except vancouver), no cloth. No evidence that people used to be there, and anything that is there and is stuck hard and fast to the environment which tends to make stuff feel inert. There were some details in London that certainly added to things, like the old red telephone box in the rublle and benches on the footpaths, so that got things right more than a lot of other maps. 

When one did take the time to look around, the surrounding environments certainly looked and felt great, such as taking place at a hydroelectric dam or radar station or on a rig in the sea, but the places where the fighting took place didn't feel like they had purpose, or existed for reasons other than a place to go when fighting things.

Modifié par Heggy, 11 avril 2013 - 05:51 .

[silverserfer28]

favourite map ghost (acid) , Vancouver , worst for me was the turrian world too small in my opinion anyway/ do we get prizes now LOL

[Jamesui]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

- 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?

Aesthetics are big. One of the reasons I love Hazards Ghost and Giant so much. It helps when the art sets a mood or maks a level feel like an appropriate battlefield, or when baements are beautiful in their own right - the waterfalls on Rio or Hydra, for example. I also enjoy the maps presenting a variety of playstyle optons, which tends to mean some wide spaces or long firing lanes interspersed with rooms or chokepoints for the CQCers. Again, ghost and giant are good examples. I must also admit that, given the preponderence of grenadiers in the top-tier kits, playing the maps with only one nade per box can really be a drag sometimes.

- 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?

Vertical space. I like Dagger a lot because it's possible to inhabit the same x and y on a different z. Marauders can shoot at us rom rafters. I'd like to return the favor every once in a while. If at all possible in th future, I might have liked a dark map or more vision-impaired maps i.f.f. the enemies' aim and detection were about as impaired as the players' under such circumstances.

[Mindlog]

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?

Goddess is also one of my favorites. Beautiful, resource rich and a variety of compartmentalized combat environments. Some areas offer long open distances and others are really tight along with plenty of height changes. I also like Glacier because it's very frantic and the tight spaces help biotics.

Ghost Hazard is very pretty. That can't be overlooked. However, I really do enjoy the additional challenge from the Hazard. It can make migrating from zone to zone even more chaotic.

Hydra I don't like as much. It's too easy for the entire map to be players on one side vs enemies on the other. London has this problem as well. While other maps can also have this issue Hydra and London seem to suffer the most.

When rating a level, everything applies. Goddess and Jade are two of my favorites because they are beautiful and grenade rich. Reactor is fun because it can be really tough, but killing teammates with the Hazard is rewarding. Firebase White 2 is a MAJOR improvement over Firebase White 1. Opening up the back fixed a flow problem. Condor is fantastic because it's incredibly challenging, has an unrivaled vertical element and it's rare to see pubs camp the same place twice.

What do I want to see more of? Goddess and Glacier a great start for all the reasons mentioned earlier. I want more maps with soft cover for biotics. A few maps can be grenade rich for grenade users. A variety of combat spaces to suit each class. I also want to see more Condor! Very dangerous maps with open sighlines and hard to reach ammo boxes. I like challenge even if Condor is a fairly easy map for snipers to excell on.

What do I want to see less of? London and Hydra are a start. I don't want it to be too easy to lock enemies into spawning on ends of the map. If that's impossible then give them more cover or take away some cover from overlooking positions. Something to limit the turkey shooting aspect. Similarly, do everything possible to avoid easy farming setups. Rio Box, Glacier Panic Room, old White Console and Giant LZ. I don't have a problem with players taking the easy route to credits. However, it does become a problem when certain boring map combinations dominate public play.

[Dark Tlaloc]

For me personally, aesthetics are big, as are the inclusion of many defensible positions. While many of the kits in the game don’t require the use of hard cover (or, any cover at all, for some), the core of the gameplay is still cover-based, and I appreciate level design which encourages strategy and patience, as opposed to run-and-gun carelessness.

[Kirrahe Airlines CEO]

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?

To answer that first question, pretty much everything you said and also if there's people abusing glitches. For that second question, I personally want to see more hazards. The way I see it, the more hazards there are, the more challenging it is. Another thing I would like to see is the grenade boxes a bit more balanced. Condor is a shining example of this. Having only one grenade per ammo box is hard enough to resupply for one person but when more than 1 player in the lobby is a grenade dependant class that doesn't have the grenade regen like the Talon, it's very problematic.

[Tybo]

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?

I like maps that have cover pretty well spread out.  This allows for better opportunities for flanking and movement, and allows for many more ways to approach the map.  I don't like maps with giant, indefensible open areas (dagger center, hydra), as this kind of forces the gameplay into:  make the enemy spawn in the open area while shooting them down.  I prefer more dynamic combat.

I also really like maps to have multiple pathways.  For example, I hate the center of Rio, but like the back area, and the new Firebase White.  This makes combat more unpredictable, as the enemy has many ways to approach, but opens up many avenues of attack for the player.  It once again makes combat more dynamic, and keeps things interesting as you play a map over and over.

[Cyonan]

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?

For me it was a mix of aethetic with suitability for my very strange playstyle. I like to float between long range sniping gallery and up close combat a lot, which just flows easier for some maps. Of the maps I rated lower they are:

Condor - I actually kind of like it, but noted that the bugginess of it hurt the score. Also can be frustrating to play a CQC character without a gap closer.
Glacier - Not much long range here and the small size shifts too much towards spawn nuking, which I'm not a huge fan of.

Also worth noting is that I rated White Hazard a bit lower and left a note that it was because the hazard renders you blind if you use any ability with an overlay effect while outside, making it so you can only see a white blur.

For the ones I rated higher:

Vancouver - Favourite map overall. It's got some nice high ground for sniping and lots of objects to weave in and out for CQC combat.
Ghost Hazard - Another one with a solid mix of sniping and CQC areas, and I absolutely love how the hazard works.

As for what I would want to see more of, Vancouver shows most of it. It's got both long and short ranges areas and for those fighting down in the trenches there's plenty of cover so you aren't almost always leaving your flank exposed like on Hydra or Condor's more wide open areas.

What I'd like to see less of is the smaller maps that kind of naturally encourage nuking spawns before they can fight back.

Also bugs, but I think that goes without saying that we'd all like that =P

Modifié par Cyonan, 11 avril 2013 - 06:17 .

[llandwynwyn]

I'm probably the only person that voted Condor as a favorite map.