[Edit Request] xenixus-temple

Approved Map Edit Requests

[Edit Request] xenixus-temple

Postby Hikarikaze » 10 July 2018, 22:33

[A]
- I have read and understand fully the Required Reading for posting an Approved Map Edit Request: yes
- I have read and understand fully the Approved Map Edit Request rules: yes
- I have confirmed that this map is currently approved: yes http://prntscr.com/k4wtru

[b]
- Map Name: .:~| Temple |~:.
- Map ID: xenixux-temple
- Link to Map Page: http://www.plazmaburst2.com/?s=9&a=&m=x ... &id=864639
- Link to Map Demo: http://www.plazmaburst2.com/?s=2&map=xenixus-temple

[C]
- Do you think this map need a minor edit, or a major overhaul?: Minor overhaul
- In a few words, why is an edit required?: High crossmap spam potential attributed to lack of effective cover
- In detail, what exactly is wrong with the map, and what exactly needs to be edited?: The upper-mid and lower lanes are too open, allowing for crossmap spam from spawnpoints that can reach the other side fairly easily. These are the lanes in question: https://prnt.sc/k4wt7d

The upper-mid lane has cover but it's ineffective. Currently the map design allows for players in their spawn points to simply take a few steps forward and fire across the map with Alien Rifles easily. There's too much luxury of protection and lack of consequences from attacking right from the spawn. This screenshot demonstrates the long range spamming capabilities a player not even outside of their spawn yet has. The red line is where Alien Rifle shots end which is the exit of the spawn. Obviously this renders cover useless and it allows spammers to prevent players from leaving their spawn without risking a death. Logically the solution would be to head to the lower lane, which poses similar problems.

In the absolute lower lane, it's also possible to prevent advances from spawn, as it is possible on the upper-mid lane. The range to hit someone is shorter on this lower lane but it's still decent enough to warrant and encourage crossfire spamming. The lack of cover here doesn't help advancing players at all. The fact that the Alien Rifle objectively has great accuracy with 0 increase in accuracy bloom means that it can be profitable to spam across lanes at the comfort of the spawn points: the map design allows this to happen at very long distances and the weapons don't have a downside which can prove to be a flaw in this strategy, i.e increased accuracy bloom due to prolonged weapon fire. Pair this with the Alien Rifle's decent damage output and it makes crossmap spamming all the more appealing.

A good solution would be to swap out the Alien Rifle with a weapon that is on the same level but also has the flaw of having increased accuracy bloom. ARs like the CS-RC are good candidates to substitute the weapon with. The CS-RC itself has lower accuracy due to a higher amount of bloom as the weapon is fired for a period of time. The accuracy negation will deter players from crossmap spamming automatically, causing them to fire in bursts which has more accuracy at the expense of less DPS or pacing their shots which, again, is slower.

However, if that isn't a viable option then a minor overhaul in the design is definitely needed. My idea for that is pretty simple and straightforward: http://prntscr.com/k4x4ss

I raised the entire middle structure by four blocks (40px). This prevents the upper-mid lane from being entirely level with the spawns. The lower lane has cover and some blocks are taller now. Attacking from spawn in the lower lane prevents crossmap spamming. Even at the spawn entrance, it's not possible to spam and disrupt advances ( http://prntscr.com/k4x59w ). Players will actually have to leave to prevent incoming rushes.

And if there's curiosity as to how it plays out, I have this edited version up for testing: http://www.plazmaburst2.com/?s=9&a=&m=h ... &id=896842

- Any other comments: I want objective/empirical feedback to this proposal in response, not "test results." "Test results" are not valid evidence for supporting or denying the approval of a map or the gameplay elements of a map in general as those are entirely personal testimonies influenced by bias in both experimental procedures and observations. Simply put: don't reply lecturing about what you found in your own playtests without giving objective evidence to back it up.
User avatar
Hikarikaze
Proxy [700]
 
Posts: 757
Joined: 24 January 2014, 02:05
Location: Somewhere, just not here

Re: [Edit Request] xenixus-temple

Postby Xenixus » 13 July 2018, 05:04

I agree with these changes and want to do this edit.
User avatar
Xenixus
Cyber Grub [25]
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 22 January 2018, 10:18
Location: Jim & Bill's House

Re: [Edit Request] xenixus-temple

Postby DoomWrath » 13 July 2018, 05:35

Xenixus wrote:I agree with these changes and want to do this edit.


Okay, make necessary changes and report back here.
User avatar
DoomWrath
Administrator
 
Posts: 499
Joined: 16 July 2013, 20:27
Location: PzKpfw. VI/B

Re: [Edit Request] xenixus-temple

Postby Xenixus » 13 July 2018, 09:57

Map Changelog 7/13/2018

Basically did everything that Hikarikaze said.
User avatar
Xenixus
Cyber Grub [25]
 
Posts: 49
Joined: 22 January 2018, 10:18
Location: Jim & Bill's House


Return to Approved Map Edit Requests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users