Improving Whitechapel


(prophett) #1

Personally, I think we are way past the point where SD will make any major changes to any of the maps. It seems like they are trying to improve them with as little effort as possible (cost efficient).

All the same, the map frustrates me so I figured I’d throw out some ideas for discussion regarding the most linear map in the game.

Rather than simply drawing overhead routes, I will try to provide some pictures to help you visualize it a little better - This will be lengthy.

Looking at the map overview, there seems to be a lot of unused space. The 3 highlighted routes are what I am going suggest SD open up to make this map less linear.


1st Route: A flanking route for first phase attackers. This will help take some focus off the EV, allowing for an easier/quicker build and stop everyone from funneling into the same area.





(prophett) #2

I would like to suggest scrapping the elevator controls/terminal capture points as well as speeding up the lift. Have the EV blow open the lab/facility as it did in the past, but rather than secure docs there, have a doc (“intel”) in there that the attackers need to secure in the Chapel (yes, make the Chapel relevant again by opening it up).

2nd New Route: Open up the street behind the Chapel and have a walk-able area all around it. This would be the safest but longest route for the docs to run.



3rd New Route: Have a rear exit out of the final defender spawn allowing the D more options, rather than being boxed in the whole time after the EV reaches the bottom of the elevator. This route will also serve as a doc “chase” option.


In order to disallow attackers from using this route to spawn rape, build it in such a way that the defenders drop out onto the main street (attackers are not able to boost in). 1 of these could be 1 potential exit, with the other being up by the MG in the first phase.




(prophett) #3

The Big Picture: Doc run routes - attackers and defenders


I highly doubt we’ll see any major changes to the existing maps, but I figured i’d throw some ideas out there for discussion.

Conspiracy theory: I noticed on “trainyard” earlier that the entire last two phases were cut out of the map. I hope this doesn’t mean we’ll never see Camden again (hope they don’t plan on making a new “map” out of the second half). Hopefully this was done for performance/convenience issues for PAX.


(attack) #4

to the first point:

i had a similar thought, but a little bit different and easier to do, but yours is maybe better.
here my post :http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37767-sry-but-whitechapel-doesnt-work?highlight=whitechapel

the rest i have to check as soon im sober


(rookie1) #5

I like :slight_smile:
wish it was in rotation Now :wink:


(shaftz0r) #6

yeah it was done a while ago. i can only assume they’re making it into its own map, considering how they’ve been really focused on making maps as short and as boring as possible, but hopefully im wrong. i thought the second half was great


(montheponies) #7

To be fair, the feedback we gave a while back was that large multistage maps where in a pain in the arse to play competitively (there was a poll somewhere about obj and map time). So I’m all for even single objective maps, with capturable spawns, side objectives etc etc - at the moment Trainyard has none of this.

In terms of the proposed changes to Whitechapel, my only concern is that it becomes a nightmare in terms of too many flanking routes. I like the idea of the additional route at the start and also for the doc run - but i’d blow up the chapel and take something from there to the lab, just to cut down on the length of the EV driveathon.

EDIT: on second thoughts, just ditch the EV altogether. Make the first objective to gain entry to the Church, steal the objective and run them to the lab or somewhere - usual story balance where that somewhere is between both spawns.


(prophett) #8

[QUOTE=montheponies;486091]
EDIT: on second thoughts, just ditch the EV altogether. Make the first objective to gain entry to the Church, steal the objective and run them to the lab or somewhere - usual story balance where that somewhere is between both spawns.[/QUOTE]

Even better, and I agree - 2 objectives with some meaningful side objectives is ideal.


(BomBaKlaK) #9

Everything to make it less linear, with more access is welcome


(k0k0nat) #10

great ideas bro!

+1


(tokamak) #11

Same for pubs really. Basically nobody likes staged maps.


(.Chris.) #12

It was done for that demo they showed in public at an expo somewhere, can’t remember which one, it was well received and to be fair to SD a good idea for such an event with people having limited time to try the game out. A fair few people here did moan the original was too long and I’m pretty sure people did ask for shorter maps in general…

Don’t be silly, I keep reading on here that SD doesn’t read feedback so I think all the recent changes to maps to make them shorter are just a coincidence.

Ontopic,

Great ideas prophett, I’ve been meaning to make similar suggestions but I’m too busy making my own stuff at the moment. Keep it up.


(Glottis-3D) #13

Yay! nice to hear


(stealth6) #14

You start off your post by saying SD will probably not make any major changes to the map, then follow it up with some pretty major changes…

There is not much content (buildings etc) along the routes that SD just has to “open up” so it seems like a lot more work imo.

I’ll just throw the idea out there (again) that if you can hack all of the terminals the lift should just break and instantly drop the EV to the lowest level. (so the map can continue)

Imo this fits story wise since you’re hacking the terminal so they’re obviously not yours so why would you care if they break or not? You just want to get that EV down as quickly as possible so **** the lift! You just have to override their safety precautions.

It would also make the terminal part more intense since the chance of winning is still there for a longer period. Now sometimes before the EV reaches the lift I’ve already given up hope, because by the time the lift part is over we’re probably out of time. This also doesn’t require a huge change to the map.


(.Chris.) #15

[QUOTE=stealth6;486323]You start off your post by saying SD will probably not make any major changes to the map, then follow it up with some pretty major changes…

There is not much content (buildings etc) along the routes that SD just has to “open up” so it seems like a lot more work imo.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, the fact there is nothing in those areas where he wants to make the new routes makes it easier, they just have to open up the route and add new content, I’m sure they have lots of assets they can re-use from sections cut from other maps and so on to pad out the details. This would be a lot easier than editing whole sections of existing areas. They could even do the additional routes blockout style just to test the idea.

Agree with second part of your post though, probably a more realistic change but I also like the idea of snatching something from the last stage and bringing it back somewhere.


(stealth6) #16

[QUOTE=.Chris.;486329]I disagree, the fact there is nothing in those areas where he wants to make the new routes makes it easier, they just have to open up the route and add new content, I’m sure they have lots of assets they can re-use from sections cut from other maps and so on to pad out the details. This would be a lot easier than editing whole sections of existing areas. They could even do the additional routes blockout style just to test the idea.

Agree with second part of your post though, probably a more realistic change but I also like the idea of snatching something from the last stage and bringing it back somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Well I’m just trying to be realistic, the amount of times such a suggestion has been made (add more content / routes to a map) has been pretty high. The amount of times they’ve actually added a new route or added a new piece of block out to a map “just to test” is 0.


(prophett) #17

[QUOTE=stealth6;486323]You start off your post by saying SD will probably not make any major changes to the map, then follow it up with some pretty major changes…
[/QUOTE]

They’ve said in the past that the current maps are too far along in the development cycle to make major modifications. Hopefully they’ve changed their minds but it’s apparent from the last update they are trying to make these maps work with as little effort as possible, rather than make some significant changes like the ones myself and several other people have suggested they seem to have gone backwards (Waterloo - I’ll take this opportunity to provide feedback on this map, even though slightly off-topic) :slight_smile:

Sure, the pump has purpose now but they’ve made that stage even more linear, eliminating a route for the attackers. Now everyone is funneled into the same area on the main street.

I liked the split defense between escalators, office, and balcony. It actually required a little bit or rotating based on a pug draft I played awhile back. Now it’s just office and balcony :confused:

Also, arguably the best point for contention and some of the best battles in the whole game were fought over the hack-able objective in the second stage. That got removed and we lost a lot of space and even more routes. 1 step forward, 2 steps back on this map.


(stealth6) #18

Last stage of Waterloo has always been off imo. Originally there was no hack objective, then the complaint was that the C4 objectives were too lose together. In Oasis they were in 2 seperate rooms so planting both at the same time was a lot trickier. (Although in the SW version you could plant / defuse both with a trickjump) In XT it’s just one big room which really changes the dynamics.

Then they added the terminal which in the beginning was more like a speedbump, but as time went by it became more the main feature of the map and the C4 became less interesting. Oh well I still prefer Waterloo above Whitechapel, but maybe that’s just because it has that nostalgic feeling from Oasis.


(.Chris.) #19

I know but they made some rather drastic changes recently, some of it based on suggestions though some based on god knows what ha whilst the changes didn’t require much work I think they’re starting to realise they need to do something big to make existing maps playable, they seem more willing now to play around more with these old maps, prophett’s suggestions aren’t very destructive to the existing content and in my opinion very easy to implement for the most part.

It’s encouraging to see such suggestions still being made, if they don’t get implemented into existing maps I can only hope the level designers at SD are taking notes, there are common problems with possible solutions brought up time and time again which should be considered when making the new maps.


(prophett) #20


Exactly - just throw some existing asset in there to define the route.

One of the main ideas behind these changes, specifically the suggested new routes behind and all around the Chapel was to make the “White Chapel” relevant (currently it’s just eye candy).