Reto.Desji

Reto-Moto internal visual level design language

Recommended Posts

Krlutin    1,171

Keeping the community in the loop on map design is a great move to bring back the trust for Reto, much appreciated!

 

Keep it coming Desji :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Very very good and intersting. I can not see it through right now but definitelywill do next day so we could talk same language. Cool stuff, keep it comming!!

 

P.S. Ignore those haters: "Well we appreciate you share the very inside information but we need more/why so long, etc." It's the approach of kids. We really, really appreciate your opennes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey desji, 

 

now that i know your language, theres a few issues with implementing spawnzones,

 

as you can see on the A forward airfield and look at the Defender spawns, theres an issue, 

 

flanking A3 is really important since the entrances are horizontal to A1 to work like this you must be able to do that, now there is a problem with A3 aswell as with A2, 

 

a3 entrances can be easily camped by tanks and by infantry the A3 defender spawn, you can camp 1 of the entrances to the building from this and from the bridge you can HE the small shack the well and the plaza infront of the building, that leaves 1 entrance which 1 defender can hold,

 

there are many examples of this where spawnzones make the game,

 

on mountain town C line is to close to Bline, now this is not an issue but the spawnzones make it an issue, the spawnzone for C3 defenders is closer to B3 then B3 spawnzone attackers is to B3 and due to the forest nexto C3 defender spawn its really hard to move up from b3 to 02, also Cline is biased in defenders in more ways the wall that leads from c3 to c2 is blockage for attackers

 

i guess after releasing the new maps you will revisit the spawnzones, if you do go by the spawnPLACES for tanks apcs and jeeps pls, there are many times where i have to go the left or far to the right because there is stuff infront of me which i will get stuck on if i want to drive straight forward, (b1 factory D1 town)

 

 

now these are just examples which you should watch for when adding the spawnzones to the new maps ( the skirmish and encounter dont really apply but i heared a new Town is being produced so )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Okay, @Reto.Desji, I have several questions for you regardless this design:

 

1. Considering your statements we must say that long, mid and close range combat could not be overlaped/overlayed one ontop of each other, do we? 

I mean if you want to provide almost the same amount of space for each class to play you might want to increase for example the CQB zones, cause they are small.

For example, we could add a cqb area alongside one of the lines that are lead from one point to another - I'd suggest bushes. BUT does this denies the long-range battle in this particular area, or not? You know, in the end you always can make gaps in those bushes so cqb pushers could not feel themselves safe enough. Another variant is - trenches.

The other thing: the middle range combat (forest) is a pretty open area to have a long-range combat have an influence there. The close quarter battle on the other hand is rather restricted for both mid and long range battle unless a cqb player jumps on a fresh air or the roof (where he'd have an access). 

How should we consider this whole interference?

 

2. Why does the concept that you've shown almost have only one and a half A2->A1 line? I do understand that you thought of this in terms and from the side of attackers. But I can clearly see how this can lead to a bad disposition towards atackers when the game traps them at the access point.

What I want to say is that the accesspoint-to-capturepoint segment should be approached just as any other capturepoint-to-capturepoint segment and have at least three routes (one general and two flanking) considered.

I could say more. Since the access point does not have another point behind it - it can be not only flanked, but in fact surrounded, and I'd like this paths to be considered too in game design.

 

3. Speaking of paths: I did realize that you in the end turned them to roads but does that mean that you wanted players actually follow that paths? 

 

What I mean is that any middle-experienced player rarely follow the roads or paths that painted on the map because it's clearly what the developers whanted a player to do. 

 

If those red lines are actually simply roads that mean that they are not the paths that players will actually move.

You see in game terms the player generally:

 

a. Choses his shortest way to the capturepoint (which is mostly the straight line).

 

b. Then consideres a chances and nessecerity of flanking the object.

 

c. If a. and b. are cosidered ineffective the player thinks about getting further behind the objective up to the very deployzone if it's necessery.

 

Morover, there is a fair amount of players that plays almost only with flanking or going behind the lines because it's very fruitfull in all aspects.

 

What I want to say is those red paths are not at all the paths the players will follow. In fact those paths will be followed mostly by the vehicles for the sake of getting to the point faster. And even though there will be many vehicles that will go round.

 

So in the end I'd like to ask what exatly does those paths meant to depict?

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacky95    2,354
1 hour ago, Akinaba said:

I'd suggest bushes.

stop right there

.....................

as you said after the misfortuned bushes sentence, trenches. That's a very good way to provide safe position and route for the infantry.

 

But i would add something else too, Reto uses small-medium terrain deformations like once in a blue moon, which is a mistake i think.....so using trenches with small terrain deformations and a few...and i say it again FEW bushes would provide the perfect amount of cover for infantry.......pls Reto no more AIDS bush spam

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

@Jacky95 you can always adjust tge density of those bushes do you not?

 

In fact i do not consider bushes as a failed design desigion simply beacuse in the real life the so-called in our land "greeney" or the dense vegetation may and is playing an important role tacticalwise.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacky95    2,354
Just now, Akinaba said:

@Jacky95 you can always adjust tge density of those bushes do you not?

 

In fact i do not consider bushes as a failed design desigion simply beacuse in the real life the so-called in our land "greeney" or the dense vegetation may and is playing an important role tacticalwise.

of course but not on a small area like these maps and not in the amount that it is being used....and Reto did not ever commented on the bush problem before, and how it broke the game for almost all classes on certain maps..and how it drains fps...etc.etc  in this amount with these placements its a failed design in my book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206

Good initiative @Reto.Desji

Before diving deeper in design, i'll start with "throwing some oil on the fire" and make a long story short:

 

Current design in terms of deploy zones is a pain and much heard complain. 

Therefor for the sake of game flow and game pace, i'd like to state that deploy zones need to be reverted back to objectives and emergency spawns.  

 

Can you shed any light on future plans? Are they at least being revised?

Not asking for the reasons as of why they ever got altered in the first place but for many players it is one of the most game braking changes made to H&G over the past 2 years.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Jacky95 said:

in this amount with these placements its a failed design in my book

 

As of how i see it.

Original maps weren't designed to hold such a large amount of vehicles as H&G sees now. It completely shifted the balance of the map and asked for desperate quick time measures which, in most cases, are only available in the form of adding simple props/assets from the available tile set. Rebuilding maps entirely takes up way more time. 

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Desji    618
3 hours ago, Mastah said:

Current design in terms of deploy zones is a pain and much heard complain. 

Therefor for the sake of game flow and game pace, i'd like to state that deploy zones need to be reverted back to objectives and emergency spawns.  

 

Can you shed any light on future plans? Are they at least being revised?

Not asking for the reasons as of why they ever got altered in the first place but for many players it is one of the most game braking changes made to H&G over the past 2 years.


I can assure you we won't revert the deploy system. We will continue to iterate. Public opinion has tendency to reduction and then polarization. The deploy-system changes affected the game in many ways - some good some bad. Instead of just reducing any feature into a single binary opinion (good or bad), we should try to identify the positive and negative impacts and try to maintain or strengthen the good while trying to weed out the bad in the next iteration of design.

If i were to make a list of positive and negative impacts of the new deploy system compared to the old i would say something like:

Positive:
- Splitting up capture zones and deploy-zones. A good deploy-zone prevents killing, a good capture zone encourages it. By not having contrary goals for the same area we can design safer spawns and better combat in capture-zones. The revised capture-zones are MUCH better combat areas than the old ones. People say just keep the new capture-zones and revert to the old deploy-system but they don't understand that those new capture-zones would be awful deploy-zones. Having limited entry points to a capture-zone is great for combat because it makes choke-points, having limited exit points from a deploy-zone is terrible because it makes choke-points.


 - It allowed us to introduce spawn protection zones which eliminated numerous spawn-camping issues like spawn mining and farming emergency spawns. By giving the player the choice of where to exit the zone and break the protection we have given spawning players tools to avoid farmers (some deploy-zones still have problems with farming but we will get back to that in the negatives). Being instantly killed on deploy without any chance to do anything was an extremely common and very frustrating experience, now you can take as much time as you need and make choices about how to proceed.

- By having relative freedom to place deploy-zones we can create interesting front-lines in level design. We can use the distance between deploy-zones and capture-zones in order to bias the line for attackers and defenders - for example we can give the attackers clear advantages in the beginning of the line in order to make it much harder to close lines than before. This has resulted in drastically improved win ratios for attackers and much less time spent being farmed at your access point.

Negative:
- Flanking routes blocked. Since we have to put the deploy-zone somewhere we are taking that space on the map away from the players. In many cases we have wrongly placed a deploy-zone in a spot that blocks a popular flanking route. We need to be better at placing the deploy-zones in places where the enemy has no legitimate reasons for being.

- Longer travel times. Fewer bikes. Not much to say here, nobody likes transport time. We can improve this by creating better line design. Some old line layouts (especially Town map) are poor layouts for the new system.

- Farming is not gone, when a protection-zone is small and exposed in open terrain or only has limited exit points you can still farm it. This is seen quite a bit on mountain town (O2 objective deploy-zone and deploy zones on A-line particularly). We need to identify deploy zones which are vulnerable to farming and improve them by making them larger, more covered and with more exit points.

- Deploy-zones being used as firing positions. This exploit was much more problematic when you couldn't fire your weapon inside an enemy deploy-zone but we should always make sure that deploy-zones do not have line of sight to combat areas.

If you want to actually influence the development then don't call for reverts. Development goes forward. You could help me by identifying the individual deploy-zones that have you frustrated, or even suggest game design changes that could alleviate those frustrations. For example the ability to use your weapon inside an enemy deploy-zone was a community suggestion and it improved the deploy-system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reto.Desji

Another negative: People spawn more vehicules. I used to always spawn on foot when I could , but now that is impossible : we often need to get to the CP ASAP. This creates a negatve imbalance in the war economy. I noticed that as a SU player, so I cant imagine how painful it was for GE whales.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dracon652    96
6 minutes ago, Reto.Desji said:

- Longer travel times. Fewer bikes. Not much to say here, nobody likes transport time. We can improve this by creating better line design. Some old line layouts (especially Town map) are poor layouts for the new system.

This is one of my biggest problems. Instead of spawning next to a point where there is already a vehicle or bike waiting for you, you can spawn in the middle of nowhere, run for a minute, get a truck and go another minute to the objective.

I find this to be extremely frustrating, especially with characters that don't have a vehicle unlocked yet.

Adding some civilian vehicles closer to these spawn points would help with this I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Desji    618
15 hours ago, Thisbirdisonfiya said:

flanking A3 is really important since the entrances are horizontal to A1 to work like this you must be able to do that, now there is a problem with A3 aswell as with A2, 

 

a3 entrances can be easily camped by tanks and by infantry the A3 defender spawn, you can camp 1 of the entrances to the building from this and from the bridge you can HE the small shack the well and the plaza infront of the building, that leaves 1 entrance which 1 defender can hold,

 

there are many examples of this where spawnzones make the game,

 

on mountain town C line is to close to Bline, now this is not an issue but the spawnzones make it an issue, the spawnzone for C3 defenders is closer to B3 then B3 spawnzone attackers is to B3 and due to the forest nexto C3 defender spawn its really hard to move up from b3 to 02, also Cline is biased in defenders in more ways the wall that leads from c3 to c2 is blockage for attackers

 

i guess after releasing the new maps you will revisit the spawnzones, if you do go by the spawnPLACES for tanks apcs and jeeps pls, there are many times where i have to go the left or far to the right because there is stuff infront of me which i will get stuck on if i want to drive straight forward, (b1 factory D1 town)

 

 

now these are just examples which you should watch for when adding the spawnzones to the new maps ( the skirmish and encounter dont really apply but i heared a new Town is being produced so )


Agree with most of those points. We need to continue to iterate on deploy-zone location, capture-zones etc. You guys can help me out by identifying the most problematic areas on each map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Desji    618
8 minutes ago, Communist_Idealist said:

@Reto.Desji

Another negative: People spawn more vehicules. I used to always spawn on foot when I could , but now that is impossible : we often need to get to the CP ASAP. This creates a negatve imbalance in the war economy. I noticed that as a SU player, so I cant imagine how painful it was for GE whales.


Related to longer travel time, I agree that transport vehicles have become much more valuable after the changes. I don't know if RedBjarne considers that a negative, but it's certainly true. It has also upped the raison d'être for the paratrooper class. I would very much like to supply more bikes. There has even been talks of being able to spawn on a bike from the spawn menu but I don't know where that idea is at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Desji    618
5 hours ago, Akinaba said:

Okay, @Reto.Desji, I have several questions for you regardless this design:

 

1. Considering your statements we must say that long, mid and close range combat could not be overlaped/overlayed one ontop of each other, do we? 

I mean if you want to provide almost the same amount of space for each class to play you might want to increase for example the CQB zones, cause they are small.

 

2. Why does the concept that you've shown almost have only one and a half A2->A1 line? I do understand that you thought of this in terms and from the side of attackers. But I can clearly see how this can lead to a bad disposition towards atackers when the game traps them at the access point.

 

What I want to say is that the accesspoint-to-capturepoint segment should be approached just as any other capturepoint-to-capturepoint segment and have at least three routes (one general and two flanking) considered.

I could say more. Since the access point does not have another point behind it - it can be not only flanked, but in fact surrounded, and I'd like this paths to be considered too in game design.

 

3. What I want to say is those red paths are not at all the paths the players will follow. In fact those paths will be followed mostly by the vehicles for the sake of getting to the point faster. And even though there will be many vehicles that will go round.

 

So in the end I'd like to ask what exatly does those paths meant to depict?


1. I don't necessarily aim to have equal distribution from a top view, CQB zones are inherently small when viewed from above, but since they are capture-zones they have comparatively high impact. You could also break down the area even further and create more areas but I find it's better to make details in the actual level editor and keep the design rough. I do the rough combat ranges map to make sure that every player class has a function in my design.

2. The distances are made to create a battle between A2 and A3. If the defenders manage to capture A2 they will have a much longer run distance from their spawn area to A1 then the attackers have to recapture A2. This is to bias the beginning of the line for attackers. The size of the deployzones are not included in this image but as a general rule deployzones at the beginning of a line MUST be very large exactly so that they can't easily be surrounded and supressed.

3. This is a flowchart, Don't think of players only moving on the line in reality. It's figurative. It describes the relationship between points more than an actual path. Like a pie-chart is not an actual pie :-) It's pure design on a higher abstraction layer. A red line between two points figuratively contains all of the actual possible behavior between those two points, including flanking, taking cover, combat, whistling at noobs etc. :-)

That being said I often use the line as the spatial center of the actual pathing, like turning it into a road for example. You'd be surprised how much the heatmaps look like the flowcharts :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:


Agree with most of those points. We need to continue to iterate on deploy-zone location, capture-zones etc. You guys can help me out by identifying the most problematic areas on each map.

 

*listening to Lord Desji*

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reto.Desji    618
1 hour ago, Thisbirdisonfiya said:

okay if you say so, save this response :P

 

*wall of text*

 

 


Let's keep this thread about the internal visual level design language shall we? Can you delete this post and move those points into the individual official map feedback threads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206
3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

If you want to actually influence the development then don't call for reverts. Development goes forward

"We" understand and we do want the game to go forward. Let that be clear. After all that is the reason why many of us have tried for years (2012/2013 - onward) to give and get response to our feedback. If it actually made a difference, not so many long time players would have put the game aside against their will and left.

 

Please do realize there is a saying that goes: "Don't try fixing something that ain't broken" and this saying could be fully implemented on the reworked spawn system mechanics:

Spoiler

Community have mostly been asking for a "simple" spawn protection timer for vehicles (SPTV) as was the case for infantry spawning. To prevent them from being killed on the spot. That was it. No rocket science, no requests to completely rework the spawn locations let alone creating huge capture zones which made CQC way less intense/interesting as it is now.
Not saying it was perfect before but right now 10+ players (exaggerated) on both teams can literally camp a capture zone while hiding in numerous corners creating stalemates. Whilst in before the capture zones were much smaller, had less places to hide/defend thus created much more intense fighting around the capture zones. therefor the come and go of players (read: game pace) was much higher.

The attacking team at a disadvantage by doing so i hear you think? Well in that case people should practice more instead of giving more crutches to them. At least that is what i would think from a healthy competitive POV.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

- Splitting up capture zones and deploy-zones.

 I personally preferred the old system: being able to spawn on non contested objectives/capture points that a team currently holds. If that one was being watched/guarded by the opponent, one could always choose the next point without having to worry about ending up in some invisible spawn location which could change hands when other players in your team recaptured the contested objective again. It's a mess now and players are limited in planning their attacks / flank / outsmart their opponent players.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

People say just keep the new capture-zones and revert to the old deploy-system but they don't understand that those new capture-zones would be awful deploy-zones.

I agree to this and i can assure you that most players that have been around in H&G for a long time are not the same people asking to do so. Requesting a SPTV was a very valid request at the time which indeed can't be said about what you just described. But these 'superficial' requests (as we have seen and see MANY on a daily basis on this forum) can simply be defended by explaining why it would not work and ignored from then on. It is mostly (relative) new players that come up with black/white suggestions since they do not fully understand the game.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

which eliminated numerous spawn-camping issues like spawn mining and farming emergency spawns

Again. a SPTV would have dealed with that. Infantry spawns already had a "god" mode timer and quite honestly i have never experienced being "farmed" myself because i either chose to pick a different spawn location (being tanker or infantry) or made use of the spawn protection that infantry already had and outsmarted the enemy who might have picked me off at a spawn. This is what i call healthy competition and how games should work to try encourage players to improve their skills.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

Being instantly killed on deploy without any chance to do anything was an extremely common and very frustrating experience, now you can take as much time as you need and make choices about how to proceed.

I honestly think this is exaggerated. People complained about tanks being destroyed on the spot by AT-rambos. Not so much for infantry being instantly killed. Spawning as infantry gave you enough time to anticipated. Again, a SPTV could have been a much easier solution here while honoring the old spawn locations. Complaints on the forum about spawn killing have actually seen a huge increase!

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

By having relative freedom to place deploy-zones we can create interesting front-lines in level design. We can use the distance between deploy-zones and capture-zones in order to bias the line for attackers and defenders - for example we can give the attackers clear advantages in the beginning of the line in order to make it much harder to close lines than before

Of course i ain't that as much into map development as you are, but (being devil's advocate now) would this not be possible by just replacing (back/ forth / left / right) the capture points (which acted as deploy zones as well) in accordance to desired balance??? Or adding the much requested pontoon bridge between B4- B3 Town map? Or adding much requested cover around O2 emergency spawn back in the days of (God have mercy on it's soul) good old Forest Town map? I truly believe there are/were easier ways to adjust the attacker/defender levels.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

We need to be better at placing the deploy-zones in places where the enemy has no legitimate reasons for being.

I don't think they would fit in anywhere except for being placed on or next to the capture point s/ objectives that your team holds. They should not be placed in between capture points or anywhere else on the map for the sake of "open level" design. Please. Preventing players from making use of the terrain / open space in a map only works as a strait jacket and leads to much frustration.
With all the fences, walls and what more, the maps already feel like having to many tunneled way points restricting players from using tactical skills and outflanking possibilities. Currently, team play or tactics are fruitless in the game because there is little freedom left. It's just straight lines now.

 

3 hours ago, Reto.Desji said:

Longer travel times. Fewer bikes. Not much to say here, nobody likes transport time. We can improve this by creating better line design. Some old line layouts (especially Town map) are poor layouts for the new system.

When being able to spawn on a captured point again, and having bikes + trucks available there, it is solved. 

 

Well this is it for now. I think i made my point clear.

I really enjoyed the previous spawn system which felt way more natural than it is now. Despite so many efforts done by so many as in a "simple" request for a SPTV to counter tank farming. I still firmly believe this is one of the biggest game breakers* and led to just playing 1 hour in the past 4 months just to burn 24h veteran membership during sales..

But good thing you dare to pick up the gloves and getting into the ring. Wished to have seen Reto-Moto do that more often over the past 3 - 4 years. I bet the community would have been way less salty.  I rest my case. GL.

 

*(followed by squad system, infantry scopes, iron sight zoom,  removal of WW2 insignia's and artifacts, new HUD/UI, spotting doritos etc).

 

 

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IdleCleese    323

I am wondering can we have a spawn system that is combination of Spawn 1.0 and Spawn 2.0. This means to keep existing protected spawn areas but also to allow players to spawn in owned capture zone if capture zone is not contested. I think this would eliminate many current issues with spawning and players would't be forced to spawn every time far away and use vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites