Cramped Feeling = Player Size?

(DarkangelUK) #1

I was musing on IRC when the conversation got onto the topic of cramped maps. I was thinking today about how London Bridge compares to Goldrush, and the part I was thinking about was the tank escort section at the beginning. From memory (which, granted, is failing with age), the tank going down the hill past the 1st barrier looks bigger and more hulking the EV going down that way… yet things didn’t feel so claustrophobic in ET as they do in DB, so I thought it was maybe the player size and view height.

When standing next to the tank and the barriers in Goldrush, I felt quite small as a player… when I stand next to the EV and the barriers in DB, they’re the ones that feel small to me. I can crouch behind the barrier and still get headshot, a quick skip and a fart and I’ve run round the EV twice without thinking. I feel like an adult in a wendy house and things are just a little too small.

This leads me onto why the jump height has been reduced. I believe it was said that the higher jump height was breaking some of the maps… could that be because the players models are too big for the maps? My proposal… reduce the player size and increase the jump height. Get rid of that cramped feeling.

(warbie) #2

Isn’t it because everything is just more cramped and cluttered with objects? There’s not many open spaces, lots of cover to hide behind, and slim routes overlooked by plenty of windows and doorways that people can shoot out of. I have this constant feeling of running into a trap /o\

(ailmanki) #3

+1 what Darkangel said.

(dommafia) #4

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;412760]I was musing on IRC when the conversation got onto the topic of cramped maps. I was thinking today about how London Bridge compares to Goldrush, and the part I was thinking about was the tank escort section at the beginning. From memory (which, granted, is failing with age), the tank going down the hill past the 1st barrier looks bigger and more hulking the EV going down that way… yet things didn’t feel so claustrophobic in ET as they do in DB, so I thought it was maybe the player size and view height.

When standing next to the tank and the barriers in Goldrush, I felt quite small as a player… when I stand next to the EV and the barriers in DB, they’re the ones that feel small to me. I can crouch behind the barrier and still get headshot, a quick skip and a fart and I’ve run round the EV twice without thinking. I feel like an adult in a wendy house and things are just a little too small.

This leads me onto why the jump height has been reduced. I believe it was said that the higher jump height was breaking some of the maps… could that be because the players models are too big for the maps? My proposal… reduce the player size and increase the jump height. Get rid of that cramped feeling.[/QUOTE]

I think you are on to something…

(tokamak) #5

I’m glad I’m not the only one feeling that way. And yeah it’s extremely hard to put your finger on. Though I think that the low FOV plays a part in this.

(INF3RN0) #6

There is a big feeling of clutter for me as well. The player models might be a tad thick, but even then I think there’s tons of unused space/buildings on most of the maps that would greatly improve the feeling of mobility.

(Evil-Doer) #7

Now that you mention that, it’s very interesting. I’m coming as an outsider an very new to the game which I like. Because at first we always do bad right, because we are learning, experiencing; and as time moves on we get better because we are more aware. I’ve found in the short period of time playing because there are MANY hours an hours ahead, that even when I felt like “ok” I died a few times and I’m learning from that move or mistake I keep constantly running into another player flanking or getting caught off gaurd again after already seeing a few angles. Interesting. Have to continue playing to really see what I’m feeling because in reality you can’t make a full sense of everything until you really know everything in the surrounding. Failure is the mother to success an constantly playing over an over is when you truly get the feel for what is really going on.

(tokamak) #8

The amount of objects in the map is fine. It’s just that the maps could do with a tad more horizontal stretching.

(Evil-Doer) #9

This is tough, I agree an disagree at the same time. I’m strong believer of simpler the better. It’s kind of like a proven principle in many different things. New video released today is kind of interesting an I think it fits perfectly into everything we are doing. Like if you implement more buildings an spaces it gets more an more difficult because there is almost to much…if that makes sense? It’s like an extremely tough balance. At the same time I agree, lol. That’s probably makes map design so difficult.

//youtu.be/BRBcjsOt0_g

(EnderWiggin.DA.) #10

I didn’t know if it would get worse when I got to play on a full server and it definitely did. As far as the maps go, I feel like the current maps are Brink sized but with ETQW sprint so everybody gets everywhere very quickly. Both the offense seem to get to the objectives quickly and at the same time on many parts of the maps so it’s like two medieval armies crashing into each other. There isn’t any pacing, it’s all very COD TDMish, especially with the high ROF. In many objective games there is just a little more space to plan out your route and scout defense before running into the open. Maybe I just don’t know the maps well enough to seek out alternate routes. Maybe I just die too much so I’m always running into battle.

(Virus047) #11

Agreed. The more open the maps are in terms of various routes the better however you also risk maps becoming almost too large and having too many variables. I would recommend they tweak the maps so that they focus on remaining balanced. I think back to Village in RTCW (ported to ET and ET:QW as well), it had several ways to get to each location from each location (Think the Tavern Spawn Flag for instance could quickly access the cemetery via the wine cellar but you could also run back through the Tavern and make a quick access to Axis Spawn through those side halls). The current maps in DB have the same amounts but the managed to keep the buildings close and the routes balanced with the right team size so that the matches felt right if that makes sense.

Someone also mentioned. I think the more we play the maps as they are the better we will be able to envision the routes/paths at our disposal.

(DarkangelUK) #12

I just get the feeling of being oversized when playing. It’d be curious to see how it feels with a smaller (or shorter) player model. When I was tricking in Quake 4, for some reason it just felt off, turned out the view height was higher than Q3, lowered the height and everything felt much better.

(Hyperg) #13

I also think the maps could use a bit of horizontal stretch. I get a constant feeling of threading the needle when running through corridors and if I’m that uninspired to use sidewalk props as cover (light poles, cars, boxes, w/e), nine times out of ten I get stuck because all the exit spaces are too narrow. And there’s a big discrepancy indeed between how big you feel compared to the EV and how much space it actually occupies on the road (or how bit it is compared to the surroundings).

Not sure I mind the geometry / texture clutter that much, if the scale is right. Even Container City in Brink had a lot of stuff displayed on your screen at any given time, yet I didn’t get the same claustrophobic feeling because the scale was somehow “better”.

I’ve experimented with several fov settings so far (tho I’m mainly using ~95) to see if there’s any change in how I perceive the geometry scale but I can’t say it improves anything. And like I’ve said before, player speed seems to have its own role in creating this toy-town effect because when I engage a guy in front of a large door (supposedly 4-5 meters across) and he starts strafing in front of me, covering the 5 meters in a split second, my brain keeps telling me we’re fighting in an inflatable castle :slight_smile:

(tokamak) #14

Yeah I’d love to see that.

(GlobalWar) #15

I have the same. Maps need more space and player model feels to big.

I feel like a playmobile character in a Lego town (which is already to small to fit the Lego villagers)

(Breo) #16

I’ve posted a while back after a few games:

http://forums.warchestgames.com/showthread.php/33117-My-very-first-impression?p=409348&viewfull=1#post409348

I think the point of view isn’t right because everything (environment) looks too small imo.

(iwound) #17

darkagel mentiond goldrush sloping street which is really 1 corridor with tank as cover. you pretty much knew the enemy was infront or behind.

with the first db maps those streets now have side corridors etc with more holes than a sieve. you have to be aware that you may be attacked from all these angles. add in the fact that its cramped.

there needs to be strict control over the amount of indoor routes. outdoor not so much an issue but indoor along side outdoor main routes.

at a bottle neck its nice the attacking side has some different approaches because attackers must have an advantage otherwise you end up with no progression. but between the objectives it needs simplyfying.

if you drew your map routes just with a pencil in lines you shouldnt see a pile of squigly lines just a few straight simple lines. broken by objective areas.

camden is a perfect example of this, could be better but hey its just seen the light of day.

there is a chance im 90 % wrong but it is hard to articulate why it is, and how to change it to improve enjoyment.

(warbie) #18

I hear what you’re saying, iwound, and agree completely. Goldrush is a good example - it gave options but you were never caught completely by surprise in a way that felt unfair. This was why I gave up on BF3 after a few months - there were so many routes and places to hide that chance played as much a factor as skill.

(Locki) #19

Someone once told me that CoD is designed that way - to spawn people in a sort of wheel, so that even newbies surviving for seconds, get to shoot someone in the back :slight_smile:

(we don’t want that by the way)

(DarkangelUK) #20

[QUOTE=iwound;412956]darkagel mentiond goldrush sloping street which is really 1 corridor with tank as cover. you pretty much knew the enemy was infront or behind.

with the first db maps those streets now have side corridors etc with more holes than a sieve. you have to be aware that you may be attacked from all these angles. add in the fact that its cramped.

there needs to be strict control over the amount of indoor routes. outdoor not so much an issue but indoor along side outdoor main routes.

at a bottle neck its nice the attacking side has some different approaches because attackers must have an advantage otherwise you end up with no progression. but between the objectives it needs simplyfying.

if you drew your map routes just with a pencil in lines you shouldnt see a pile of squigly lines just a few straight simple lines. broken by objective areas.

camden is a perfect example of this, could be better but hey its just seen the light of day.

there is a chance im 90 % wrong but it is hard to articulate why it is, and how to change it to improve enjoyment.[/QUOTE]

Add to that an objective that needs the player close so it moves and you’re guaranteed to be killed one way or another. When I’m walking with the EV, my mouse is circling faster than a strippers tassels.