| Author: |
Topic: Beta 11/02/2009 in review. |
Moose_Head!
Moderator
Posts: 235
Registered:
2008-04-15
| Last edited by: Moose_Head! on Apr 12, 2009 11:00:08 am |
|
 Posted: Apr 12, 2009 10:09:41 am |
|
*************11/04/2009*****************************
Date must be a forum bug, it couldn't possibly have been me.
*************11/04/2009*****************************
Discussion threads about balance and such can lose their momentum, so after each beta we should start a new topic solely to discuss what observations you have from that beta.
*I need to try it in CTF as that is where it was most troublesome, but I'm not adverse to the nerfed Runner.
*Smartgunner is just too powerful, especially on intimate maps, while it was nice to have the speed back, I felt I had too great an advantage. Also, some work should be done to make Synths heavily susceptible to EMP damage.
*Mines, mines, mines! Wider blast radius is required for EMP so that mine clearing is a task the Demolitions unit can perform.
*Sentries, sentries, sentries! There were too many featured for non-Domination gameplay, I felt I did wll to get passed some and deserved a chance at scoring, only to get caught by another set, realistically this is too much work, I wouldn't play with such a small window available.
*Assault needs smaller maps, at present the journey time is just too boring for a mode that expects the attacker will more often than not be killed. Those who like the 'hold' style Survivor games may recall that is feels like an effort to go from up top to the base in Quarantine, even as a Runner. |
| Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat. |
|
|
Alien Grand Master
Regular Client
Posts: 481
Registered:
2008-11-28
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2009 1:56:32 pm |
|
don't you mean 4/11/2009
or on the muslum claldener is the 5th day of somun or somthing on year 8oo somthing.
sentrys are fine i mean we already toned them down enough the only way is to make them less accurate or take one away. i agree with the emps but they should have little damage but alot more range a whole lot maybe at about 600. and all the other stuff that wasn't added in from my really long post back at the other thread. |
3284264264224742724
6464264264256245242
4544252452445244525
4254254254252454252
45252454252242
too many numbers.! |
|
|
Moose_Head!
Moderator
Posts: 235
Registered:
2008-04-15
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2009 3:56:00 pm |
|
Whoever thought it was logical to put the denominations as mm/dd/yyyy lol!
How have sentries been toned down? Because they no longer give everyone except Runners instant death headshots? Hey, what we want is only a point of view, I campaigned hard to get that changed, but if it's not popular ask Herr to reinstate it.
But you are right, for the most part they were fine, it's just that in some maps the setup becomes too much of a chore, especially if all the previous sentries are still going at respawn time.
It's not that the sentries are all bad, but there are still too many points at which they are doing too much.
Personally, I think me dropping a net sentry around the corner from the enemy base and then going back as a Soldier and blowing the shit out of anyone who tries to dodge it is crap. And they couldn't get to me because if they tried they'd end up on the ground in a net. God knows how long I would have been at it if the round hadn't finished. Anyone who has played AvP2 Vanilla online knows that for so many players, this would be a "F*ck this, I'm out" moment. And that's how we need to look at things. I think our short stay visitor did a lot to help the message I've been trying to get across.
It's supposed to be a constructive criticism but I rarely if ever hear anyone saying, this-is-too-much. If it's going well for them it's all lulz-lulz-lulz.
Well I felt sorry for the attacking side last night, all I can say is that they had more patience than I did, and I'm not just talking about the above. All in all it was too hard, and that without them even getting to the mass of sentries that lay in wait.
I can't be the only one that saw this, surely? |
| Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat. |
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2009 5:22:27 pm |
|
Abusing sentries can lead into people leaving. For example, that Peter Pumpkinhead fellow, he left when he noticed the netgun sentries are not player controlled but rather autonomous.
I have to admit, this is an issue, and not that much related to just being killed/netted at spawning; having safe heavens (Rommie like) is not a valid sollution.
Windebieste had an idea, on a previous thread: a volume-like construct. Sentries would be active in this volume only. Any thoughts on this idea? |
|
|
Gps
Regular Client
Posts: 317
Registered:
2008-08-04
|
| Posted: Apr 12, 2009 5:33:49 pm |
|
I think Rommies spawn protection is great, but too much.
Probably, because of lag, om some maps people could walk half way protected by the spawn protection.
Just a thought:
Could it maybe be coded, so sentries wont attack somebody who spawns for a sex or two ?
I am not sure what windie means, but it might work.
But looking at roof top, the spawnpoints will be in the volume I guess ? |
|
|
Alien Grand Master
Regular Client
Posts: 481
Registered:
2008-11-28
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2009 7:21:06 am |
|
Gps ment for a second or two.
Well, thing is I don't think a second will do it. And even that has the following loophole:
- somebody grabs one of your turrets.
- it deploys in in your base.
- you'll have to destroy that turret. Your own turret.
I am thinking at some sort of volume, that will simply force enemy turrets to become inactive.
It could be that the mod (or us?) is becomming a bit ... hardcore. I mean we managed to have one player (that Peter fellow) leaving the match. So regarding this, I am submitting here an idea Moose had:
control the number of sentries, like you're controling (in vanilla AvP2) the number of exos.
Initially I was against this, but (as Moose said) Peter got the message through: sentries can seriously scare new players.
What are your thought on this? |
|
|
Gps
Regular Client
Posts: 317
Registered:
2008-08-04
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2009 10:07:33 am |
|
Lol, what a typo.
But I agree, not an good idea.
The volume might do it.
I am against a max sentry setting too, but we need to accept it, if we want this mod to be success full.
Sigh, reminds me of the days were people left when I joined.
I even once saw a sever who basically said, no strong players allowed. sigh |
|
|
Moose_Head!
Moderator
Posts: 235
Registered:
2008-04-15
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2009 10:53:00 am |
|
Having a dynamic sentry setting is not about not scaring people off because they don't like the sentries, I think one sentry would do that, they do take some getting used to.
No, I don't want people scared away by poor gameplay. I also want to experince some variety in Fortress, small teams of 2 vs 2 do not work well with lots of sentries.
It's all well and good saying, "Oh but it's much better when there are more people playing."
Perhaps we can hang that sign over the door as a server message so that people know.
I also quite like the idea of playing without sentries from time to time, if there were a couple of servers it's quite likely that I'd go for one that said Fortress - No Sentries. I don't know why people are saying otherwise, because when we played Domination a couple of weeks back, who made use of them aside from Herr??? No One!
People were going for a DM style of gameplay.
I am pushing for Sentries to be a part of the Fortress experience, a fun weapon the Engineer unit can deploy, not the focus about which the whole mod revolves.
Just my opinion though.
 |
| Sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat. |
|
|
Alien Grand Master
Regular Client
Posts: 481
Registered:
2008-11-28
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2009 11:37:24 am |
|
maybe if a sentry is deployed in your base it automaticly yours
and i agree with sentrys being limited by a server some servers can have unlimited others can have 0 or 2 or 4 or 6 or 8 or 10 or or you get the point. Tho the one sentry i ahte the msot is the net sentry because once you get out you canj't move for about a second and thats when it gets you.
still got to remind to you to add the changes i made to predator and marine weapons. |
3284264264224742724
6464264264256245242
4544252452445244525
4254254254252454252
45252454252242
too many numbers.! |
|
|
Windebieste
Moderator
Posts: 190
Registered:
2008-04-16
|
| Posted: Apr 13, 2009 10:20:00 pm |
|
By using a Volume, much like any area defining volume set up in DEdit, I mean a Brush bound to a Volume Object. In the case of restricting Sentrygun deployment, such a Volume would be very versatile in controlling where these items can be placed because a Volume can be any dimension (shape or size) and as such can be used to control wide areas and/or narrow corridors. Also, the proposed Volume can be used to control locations where a Sentrygun just shouldn't be deployed, say under water.
I think that the Sentrygun Volume's major properties should contain these functions:
DeployTurretTeam1 = TRUE/FALSE
DeployTurretTeam2 = TRUE/FALSE
Obviously each Property is a toggle. For example, Team 1 would not be able to deploy Sentryguns inside Volumes that are flagged as DeployTurretTeam1 = FALSE. Typically, such Volumes would be placed inside the Team 2 base and inversely, to support the deployment of Team 2 Sentryguns, the appropriate configurattion would be set to DeployTurretTeam2 = TRUE.
For absolute non deployable areas where neither Team can deploy a Sentrygun, say, under (or in) water for example, both properties would be set to FALSE; and of course, other neutral areas where either team can toss 'em around merrily both properties would be set to TRUE.
I don't know if the coding will support this proposal, but this would be the best way to control Sentrygun deployment for each team. I would at least be worth experimenting with this method on at least 1 map.
I am also thinking that when the Player is attempting to deploy a Sentrygun and the action is failed, some form of graphical HUD feedback should be provided, say a barred red circle with a Sentrygun image inside it would do nicely. That way an Engineer will know straight away that the action cannot be performed in this location and not think that the mod is b0rked just because a sentrygun fails to be dropped.
-Windebieste. |
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2009 4:10:41 am |
|
Yep, that would be the ideal solution. We'll move towards that one. |
|
|
Gps
Regular Client
Posts: 317
Registered:
2008-08-04
| Last edited by: Gps on Apr 14, 2009 5:31:37 pm |
|
| Posted: Apr 14, 2009 5:31:10 pm |
|
Now I fully understand it, I like this volume idea even more. |
|
|
Alien Grand Master
Regular Client
Posts: 481
Registered:
2008-11-28
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 12:31:13 am |
|
a queen character that lays eggs 1 or 2 |
3284264264224742724
6464264264256245242
4544252452445244525
4254254254252454252
45252454252242
too many numbers.! |
|
|
Windebieste
Moderator
Posts: 190
Registered:
2008-04-16
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 2:02:14 am |
|
I noticed a few things map related issues in the latest game play video that may be worthy of minor changes:
1). Crusader: There is a spawn point inside the Blue base that needs to be rotated so that Players aren't facing the wall.
2). Blue Collar: Players can stand upon the pipes and metal grating in the alleyway between the Blue base warehouse and the construction site. Players standing up there do not take damage from below. I think we can change this so that Players perched up there can be shot from below through the metal grate. We can set the bottom Brush of the mesh to Solid = FALSE.
3). Tranmsmission Intercept: I actually hide inside the Space Jockey during the 'ASSAULT' session. A TWM Blocker needs to be added, or an existing TWM needs to be flagged as appropriate.
Otherwise, hey, these videos are cool - and helpful.
These are really minor changes and are probably easier for you to make them, HA, rather than fix them myself and post the file.
-Windebieste. |
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 7:01:22 am |
|
I borked up the flags for both Transmission Intercept and Gunnison County Forest. I got them fixed now.
The next step in my book is to create some simple triggers, to handle the issues of 'stuck' domination points and CTF flags. |
|
|
Windebieste
Moderator
Posts: 190
Registered:
2008-04-16
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 7:49:36 am |
|
I forgot about the 'Gunnison' map having issues with the hack panel nowhere in sight. Did you see all the guys hanging around the back of the crashed Pred ship trying to push start it? Well, that's what it looked like. I think we needed a tow truck.
So, yes, that hacking panel issue needs fixing, too.
I also noticed that the animated Predator sprites above the locked doors in 'Heretic' behave, uh.., strangely. I am thinking of re-texturing that map entirely (and possibly 'Crusader' as well) at some point in the future and will investigate fixing those sprites when I do so.
What time frame do you anticipate the mod to be officially released? I would like to make those re-textures before that date.
-Windebieste. |
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 12:34:23 pm |
|
Can't really say. The list of features exploded. And I don't mean just the four items mentioned in the news post, I am talking also about:
- respawn only at given moments in time
- fix positioning of evac game start points, so that the existing maps AND fortress maps can be played
- hints; when you respawn, you get a message pointing out what neat stuff your class can do.
- the ability to pass over the flag to another player
- an autoupdate utility
- a custom launcher, that would allow adding custom maps |
|
|
Windebieste
Moderator
Posts: 190
Registered:
2008-04-16
|
| Posted: Apr 15, 2009 9:44:23 pm |
|
Woah... you sure are taking this into semi professional territory, then, count me in. I figured you already had a full plate but I would like to suggest another feature.
One feature I would like to see implemented on Assault maps. When the attacking team reach a specific point in the map(s), respawning takes place at that location, say, once the team has accessed the stairs in the construction site in 'Blue Collar', Blue team will then spawn in the basement of that location (or in the warehouse with the containers). Similar configurations should be done for other 2 maps as well. Basically, similar to how territory is covered in 'UT' Asssault games as the attacking team advances.
Lemme know if you need any help with the maps. |
|
|
Herr_Alien
Administrator
Posts: 841
Registered:
2008-03-18
|
| Posted: Apr 16, 2009 5:00:41 am |
|
Check points! Yeah, we should do that, it will shorten the time to travel in assault scenarios. |
|
|
-->
