Background Image

UAT - Testing / Playing with Devs

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by jbregg, Mar 30, 2017.


Are you interested in testing/playing with the Devs on the latest build?

  1. I'd want to play but not test.

  2. Not interested.

  3. Sign me up!

  4. I would be interested but the time of the test is an issue.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Mainfold Mainfold Preacher

    I guess a lot of people think the buildings placed on the very temporary look of the map are permanent for some reason?

    @jbregg can change it all out for other buildings if that's more preferable I assume, but I assume it was just to initially get a feel for how the layout of the map works so far (particularly for something that was created in such a short amount of time and ready to be barebones-tested so rapidly after it's basic inception).

    If anything, I can't say I completely disagree with swapping the buildings out for less used ones, which is a perfectly valid complaint by a lot of folks, but I would say it's more important to get the non-objective-areas ironed out so it's not only ok at the actual objectives. Like fixing the elevators, paths for getting to objective areas, how to progress without it being either too hard or too easy for either the attackers or defenders.

    Rather than just complain that he placed "too common buildings" what about listing buildings not seen very often and suggest where they might be used or something?

    For instance; The A-point could benefit from having a big building like the D-point building on Zedek, to be sort of a "gateway" into the mountain-fight, which makes perfect sense as a type of "bastion" to the mountain. B-point could for instance be a modified version of A-point building on Agnathio and be elevated, so it has to be accessed from other buildings (like the phallus-shaped tower the map has), having to first get up the towers, over bridges into the building, take it, and then that building leads to the path going to C (so there are canyons and rifts in the mountain (or maybe lava rivers) that make it required to take before you can progress to C via it, unless you use jump-classes to get over the gaps/lava-rivers to attack B from behind).


    Just stuff to ACTUALLY give him ideas about what to use and such, rather than just constantly "mimimi reused assets mimimi".. because that doesn't help.
  2. We could open up an entire Fortress, remove both gates and play "Conquest" ala BF1 or BF4. In military terms this would be a "meeting engagement" or "chance contact" type of encounter. Both teams attacking, neither team defending.

    It wouldn't be uncommon to discover several abandoned fortresses on a dead Imperial World. Arkhona was indeed abandoned for some time prior to all 4 factions arriving in the system so at some point each faction had to land forces on terra firma, recon the area then move a force to these abandoned installations.

    In the Arkhona scenario I'm describing above it's perfectly feasible in the 40K universe for two or more forces from opposing factions to run into each other near one of these abandoned installations without any of the forces involved actually owning the terrain.

    Match mechanics:

    -Attrition for BOTH teams utilizing BF4's Conquest model. We already have attrition modeled in game, we just need even numbers of tickets for each team at the onset of each match. We can tweak the total numbers of tickets on the test server via testing in order to facilitate each match lasting 25 to 30 minutes on average.
    -Team that holds the majority of objectives starts draining the other teams tickets at a set rate. That's in addition to tickets being drained via each kill or via each cheesy suicide/redeploy.
    -A "fail safe" 2 minute countdown timer that kicks in at the 35 minute mark. We ONLY see this timer starting at the 35 minute mark. Most matches should end by this time via one team draining all of their opponents tickets. That's similar to how Conquest works in BF4. Once the 35 minute mark is reached the 2 minute timer counts down. If the match has not been decided via attrition and one team's tickets draining down to zero by the time the 2 minutes has passed, the team with the most tickets wins.

    Please, for the love of god, dont have the darned timer running the entire match. Let us focus on objectives and fighting our opponents and NOT fighting the bloody timers. All we should see at the top of the screen during the first 35 minutes of the match are the total tickets for each team and objective status for all 5 to 6 objectives like we would see in a Battlefield-Conquest match.

    Match dynamics.

    25 v 25 or 30 v 30. TBD via testing on UAT.

    -All 6 objectives start as neutral with both teams attacking.
    -Each team starts at their own DZ.
    -Both DZs are located on each flank(far right and far left flanks) of the fortress.
    -Each DZ is located equidistant from the Fortress
    -Both teams start with 4 rhinos, 2 predators and 1 vindicator available in each DZ.
    -Objectives can be captured in any order by any faction at any time. Potential for P v P v P? We can explore three faction potential after we master the basics of Conquest in EC with just 2 factions.
    -3 neutral objectives spread throughout the ruins with an additional 3 neutral objectives located inside the fortress.
    -Fortress gates are already down at the onset of the match because the entire area is in disrepair
    -both teams get an extra 1:00 set up time so squads can get organized and sort out a strat. That's an additional 60 seconds on top of the normal countdown so we're not so rushed and so that both sides have an equal opportunity to actually load in, squad up and get out of the starting gate at the same time.

    -The two most remotely located objectives should have a single rhino available to spawn at each objective upon capture. So the objective starts as Neutral. Once capped a transport appears next to the objective. The vehicle can only be utilized by owner of the objective. Basically like vehicles spawning at objectives in BF4 and BF1 conquest except that with EC's version of Conquest vehicles cannot be stolen.

    All tech I've described above already exists in EC. We're basically copying BF4's attrition model and utilizing their large Conquest match dynamics via multiple capture points.

    We'd finally be breaking away from zergy game play we see in EC because we wont be limited to 3 objectives. Five to six objectives makes small squads composed of five to six players per squad much more viable. Numerous 5 to 6 man squads guarding/attacking the various 5 to 6 objectives is a much more viable strategy and destroys the power a single 10 to 20 man zerg enjoys when there are only 3 objectives.

    We'd also be moving away from meaningless timers in every single match mode and would be moving towards a more immersive attrition based game play for each faction where each kill, each revive, where each heal has a tremendous positive impact on the outcome of the match. There's also the fact that with attrition based game play for BOTH factions, each loss of a ticket via cheese mode suicide/redeploy would have a tremendous(and proper) negative impact on each match. Suicide/redeploy = easy fast travel should never reward players as it does now on maps like Olipsis, Torias, Medusa.
    LOBOTRONUS likes this.
  3. Mainfold Mainfold Preacher

    Why are you suggesting this now? Since there's a new map of more relevance currently for UAT-feedback. This feels like you should have made a new separate thread for
  4. Because this is the only current thread where I see BHVR participation.
    Vaanes, LOBOTRONUS and Firskon like this.
  5. Anvil The-Forge-Dragon Arkhona Vanguard

    I forget. We know we're allowed to make cosmetics for the workshop. Are we allowed to make new map assets for Jbregg to use when mapmaking?
    Njord-Halfhand likes this.
  6. From discord:
    "[08:20] ennsta: Assets for maps and even making a map is fine
    [08:21] ennsta: The assets are usually no problem to use
    [08:21] ennsta: but the map won't convert directly
    [08:21] ennsta: so someone like jbregg or pierrick would need to work it with you basically"
    Mainfold and The-Forge-Dragon like this.
  7. Horus Firskon Cipher

    They had money. Where did they go? Perhaps Nathan spent it on tea.
    Deadknight and LOBOTRONUS like this.
  8. Krayt Krayt Preacher

    Sure assets are always welcome , they just need to be ready to use ( so already Uvd and Textured)
  9. Mainfold Mainfold Preacher

    @jbregg I'm wondering.. Could you make a "map" that's not intended to ever be an actual map, but just some place you can put all assets and buildings etc that can be used for crafting new maps, and let folks join to give feedback on what the objects/assets/buildings could be used for on new maps?

    Would be very nice to get an idea of what variety is available and might be usable for maps (for instance the new mountain push map). Or even just super-def screenshots including assets and something to show standardized scale (like a marine next to stuff so it shows the size of the object), so we can help you assess what fits a certain style of map and authentic etc in terms of lore and whatnot
    Njord-Halfhand likes this.
  10. Krayt Krayt Preacher


Share This Page