ProMine discussion (vote in the appropiate thread)

[Calev]

This is the right thread to vote and give feedback:
http://steamcommunity.com/app/375230/discussions/0/2425614539588369904/

Just opened this thread to keep on discussing about the map while the voting thread remains clean.

Originally posted by Cursed Hawkins:

The problem with defending C though Calev is the attackers always expect the defenders to defend that point to where B and A are completely left unguarded, I even had a match where some prick Ultramarine said C was the only point that mattered despite A and B were being capped and had time on them allowing the attackers to just box people in on C because they expected a large majority of the defenders to just be sitting on C.

Lolz,♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥aside, C it's a point from where snipers can (and must) support their comrades capping/defending A or B, and that feels too powerful. Obviously capping and defending A and B it's needed, one team can't win the match just by holding C, I agree with that as well.

(That was my last answer =))

Think the big problem about the map is the size of it. Having it reduced to a smaller scale should bring more options to the field, and a close quarters point can bring another loadout options, allowing variety, teamplay and more fun.

[Cursed Hawkins]

Also just so its out there! I don't willingly teamkill people but after that guy pulled a Boreale, oh was i pissed so much that i hunted him down and gunned him dead!

[PurpleHaze]

Thanks guys for making this sister thread, this map needs to be talked about, by as many people as can. I personally, like that we got a new map. That i dont discount one bit. But I'm not on-board the "LoveTrain". And even less to the fact of some of the issues that pop up most are not being "re-looked at".

What works for a group of players, doesn't mean that the whole world needs to adopt these tactics. The other maps in rotation afford players alot more options into how they attack, defend, so on.

(Edits, cause i missed so many words @.@)

[Ghadaro]

There was a short Reddit discussion as well
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eternalcrusade/comments/7ccwje/tested_and_explored_a_bit_of_the_new_mine_map/

[datguy13]

I don't agree that the size of the map is the problem with Promethium Mine.

It's my belief that the entire map is just conceptually flawed, and that the design was tainted from the very beginning by the influence of the ones who did the intial testing as well as the specific biases of the designer. There are far too many inherent asssumptions and biases in how the terrain is sculpted, the placement of the various structures and the overall approach to the map.

Believe me... if there's one thing I know, it's map flow. I spent over two hundred hours meticulously combing the 80 maps used in Space Hulk Ascension for bugs, unfair choke points, biasing and mechanical scripting errors as one of four quality assurance testers. In the Van Helsing series from NeocoreGames, I spent another three hundred-plus hours combing those maps for the same type of things I pointed out as flaws in Promethium mine.

In the case with both of those other games, the key thing to look for was always the one most important factor that is missing from Promethium mine: Is it fun and fair for a player who is recently inserted into the map? "Fun" is subjective for the most part, but there are a few universal elements that all players will agree qualify as "fun". Chiefly, is the map compelling? Do you want to explore it, learn it and then enjoy the visuals on it? Promethium Mine does not meet this criteria, mainly due to the simple fact that the second you hit the map for the first time, you're out-gunned and have to struggle to play catch-up if you're an Attacker, or in for the Defender you find a ready-made spot to set up and them sit around taking easy pot-shots.

The one thing you absolutely do NOT want a map to be is formulaic, and Promethium Mine is extremely formulaic in nature and design, from the ground up.

[[12e] Revenant]

Originally posted by datguy13:

I don't agree that the size of the map is the problem with Promethium Mine.

It's my belief that the entire map is just conceptually flawed, and that the design was tainted from the very beginning by the influence of the ones who did the intial testing as well as the specific biases of the designer. There are far too many inherent asssumptions and biases in how the terrain is sculpted, the placement of the various structures and the overall approach to the map.

Believe me... if there's one thing I know, it's map flow. I spent over two hundred hours meticulously combing the 80 maps used in Space Hulk Ascension for bugs, unfair choke points, biasing and mechanical scripting errors as one of four quality assurance testers. In the Van Helsing series from NeocoreGames, I spent another three hundred-plus hours combing those maps for the same type of things I pointed out as flaws in Promethium mine.

In the case with both of those other games, the key thing to look for was always the one most important factor that is missing from Promethium mine: Is it fun and fair for a player who is recently inserted into the map? "Fun" is subjective for the most part, but there are a few universal elements that all players will agree qualify as "fun". Chiefly, is the map compelling? Do you want to explore it, learn it and then enjoy the visuals on it? Promethium Mine does not meet this criteria, mainly due to the simple fact that the second you hit the map for the first time, you're out-gunned and have to struggle to play catch-up if you're an Attacker, or in for the Defender you find a ready-made spot to set up and them sit around taking easy pot-shots.

The one thing you absolutely do NOT want a map to be is formulaic, and Promethium Mine is extremely formulaic in nature and design, from the ground up.

Now i feel bad i gave 5/5 for that map, lol

[Arkady]

Originally posted by datguy13:

I don't agree that the size of the map is the problem with Promethium Mine.

It's my belief that the entire map is just conceptually flawed, and that the design was tainted from the very beginning by the influence of the ones who did the intial testing as well as the specific biases of the designer. There are far too many inherent asssumptions and biases in how the terrain is sculpted, the placement of the various structures and the overall approach to the map.

Believe me... if there's one thing I know, it's map flow. I spent over two hundred hours meticulously combing the 80 maps used in Space Hulk Ascension for bugs, unfair choke points, biasing and mechanical scripting errors as one of four quality assurance testers. In the Van Helsing series from NeocoreGames, I spent another three hundred-plus hours combing those maps for the same type of things I pointed out as flaws in Promethium mine.

In the case with both of those other games, the key thing to look for was always the one most important factor that is missing from Promethium mine: Is it fun and fair for a player who is recently inserted into the map? "Fun" is subjective for the most part, but there are a few universal elements that all players will agree qualify as "fun". Chiefly, is the map compelling? Do you want to explore it, learn it and then enjoy the visuals on it? Promethium Mine does not meet this criteria, mainly due to the simple fact that the second you hit the map for the first time, you're out-gunned and have to struggle to play catch-up if you're an Attacker, or in for the Defender you find a ready-made spot to set up and them sit around taking easy pot-shots.

The one thing you absolutely do NOT want a map to be is formulaic, and Promethium Mine is extremely formulaic in nature and design, from the ground up.

Totally agree, this map has an obvius team composition to be defended and attacked. This means if you don't play the composition the devs and testers has in mind when the map were designed and tested you will be ♥♥♥♥♥♥ in all manners. On a videogame when players are forced to play focused onto a specific way there is something wrong, everyone loves to play their builds as they think they should be played and not as a Dev or few testers think others should play and this map do that. Also on every single shooter there is something annoying that every single (no-camping lover) hates: Sniperfest and this map flavor the the campingfest so much, from a tactical view defenders can win by holding the 2 points most defensive with sniper positions A and C they don't need to care about B to win, while in other maps all the points are almost the same tactical value, that's make the game very static since every defender team that understand they can control the whole map if they hold A and C will give B to the attackers just to turn the enemy respawn on B a shooting gallery for them.

[PurpleHaze]

Its mostly is the constrained angle that attackers come from in the first place. All the tunnels are covered by the building mass next to B. Then C has the Flanked outside circle and the approaches to B and Center buildings. A is far out and requires that the push "Get" that point, or another assault's % of success is diminished greatly.

C biggest problem tactically, is the fact that it has the pinch point of a single set of steps being the only way to the Point. Pretty much doesn't matter which way, from what point you come from, the push has to make it through that bottleneck. When almost all maps have more then 2 ways to reach the point, and in some cases, we're adding more ways to the current rotation. So why this oversight tactically here?

B in its location is the most important point for the attackers, but its what i would call an inward facing point, in that its not defend able from the inside out. So really this point becomes the one you'd like to force the defenders to as their last hold-out.

If the Attackers came from the North end by A, and the Defenders from the tunnels, you would see how the balance would shift greatly. If i was a General sending people to attack this location, it wouldn't be from the south. Fighting Uphill the whole way.