BETA - Slaughtered Overhaul

Discussion in 'Mapping' started by Varbles, Nov 14, 2015.

  1. Varbles

    Varbles Simply Maptastic. Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A continuation of my first overhaul of the relatively ancient emp_slaughtered. This time, the layout and gameplay is being expanded, along with a more coherent theme and purpose for the map.

    original post from alpha release:
    [​IMG]


    Visuals are still in progress, so no screenshots. Download it or join during a test to help flesh out the gameplay.
    slaughtered_new_wip11.7z
    PLEASE NOTE: there is a version appended "wip10" floating around that works perfectly well clientside but will not play on a real server
    If you take part in the testing at any point I'd love feedback on how it plays and what you think. If you can record a demo of any part of a test that would be a great way to help, too. Remember the visual side and polish is largely unfinished, but gameplay exploits should be minimal.




    CHANGES
    From the in-game description:
    The somewhat drastic changes are designed to refine the strong points of slaughtered:

    • well defined territory
    • constant sense of direction for individuals and team
    • balanced asymmetry
    • several options for main base locations all similarly balanced
    While minimizing the weak points:

    • an entirely predictable and boring yet crucial rush at the start
    • one sole route of fighting for the entire game, with one niche secondary route
    • the losing team being cornered in a dead end for a drawn out, crowded defeat
    • massive, low resolution displacement gorges in all the main combat areas, ugly and uninteresting from infantry perspective
    • no real justification or context for the map i.e. why are we fighting over some random hills
    Whether all these features are good or bad is arguable. There is something to be said for the fact that slaughtered's mindless S-bend rush and simple push-pull is why it's often played, and that it's single route makes it better for really low population. Those concepts were in my mind from the start, and I believe the new additions bring more variety without upsetting too much the simplicity and ease of play. There may be substantial changes until this is achieved, as gameplay testing goes on.

    [​IMG]


    New slaughtered is finally ready for a beta release, and pending 2.7 I'm going to call it emp_slaughtered_2015.
    Screenshot album: http://imgur.com/a/EzE4z

    Res has been reduced from what it was in the alpha (the server config set output to %80 in most games on the alpha), and the original res layout is back, 6 refs all with 2 res/second. Mid has become slightly hard to describe, my objective was to make it easier to control and monitor, like the old lake with it's ramparts, but also have it be as useful and relevant as it was in the alpha. The layout allows vehicles to freely go from tunnels to S bend, but crossing the crater in the north-south direction is awkward unless you build the small Combat Support Bridge. NF infantry have an advantage in middle by design since BE attacks through mid can strike at NF's main easier than vice versa. NF's main has been pulled back towards the corner a bit more and they've been given more space and more cover from the tunnel entrance. A few craters have been added in the major fighting areas for infantry cover and variety.

    Cosmetic changes have come a long way but still are pretty rough. I may yet switch to a grey stormy sky, but the current warm sun will do for now. Adding the trails was an experiment and I personally like it, but I'm not sure if it ultimately suits the map. It was a real pain to curve all the trails realistically and sometimes something seems like a good idea simply because it's taken so much effort to implement, so comments are welcome. The textures are my own new 2048x2048 ones and I'm really happy with the way they came out because the terrain doesn't show much of the tiling effect that used to be so bad, though brightness and tone may still change. The water animation is new as well along with many other details, which regrettably means 150mb of textures to download along with the map, but if these changes are stock in 2.7 then downloading shouldn't be an issue.


    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2644783/maps/slaughtered_b4.7z
    the water is not included in this but will show up when empires updates through steam hopefully
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2016
  2. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only took a quick glimpse at the minimap, but isnt it way too open now? It looks like be needs four different squads to cover any possible approach. I get that slaughtereds 1,5 is "unique" to say the least, but more than 3 is just asking for trouble.
    I mean i see like little to no places that you can get some sort of a frontline, looks like a real hell to defend against apcs.
    I struggle not to call this straight up delusional. You said it yourself, slaugh is popular because its as complicated as tic tac toe. One route to take with an occasional chance of using the lake. Your map on the other hand looks like a maze. If you mean to keep it, it quite honestly looks more like a remake of king rather than slaughtered and i fear it would suffer the same fate of being virtually unplayable outside of the once per year event because of the complexity and sheer inability to effectively command on it.


    Nitpick central :
    And yet theres an elaborate tunnel to a place that you can get to on foot or on wheels without any noticable decrease in travel time
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2015
  3. flasche

    flasche Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    13,299
    Likes Received:
    168
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the western tunnel looks fucking awesome (except for the tool textures ofc ^^ )
    the omaha beach feeling at brenodi start is great aswell.

    i hope the gameplay works out equally well and the tunnels neither fuck over nf nor give them too easy access to south.
     
  4. D.D.D. Destroyer

    D.D.D. Destroyer Member Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    9,509
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll be honest, at this point you might as well call it a new map entirely. The entire premise of the map is gone and all that is similar to the old version is aesthetics. The single corridor of fighting is gone, and now you have a bunch of well interconnected areas much akin to bush. There's no risky secondary route. Playing this properly would require a much larger playercount than the old version. I do believe that instead of removing a, let's face it, unique map in the pool, it'd be best to just let it be or continue tweaking the visuals.
     
  5. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Im not opposed to to the left tunnel and base swap is a good change, but it really looks if mid should remain impassable terrain.
     
  6. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I need to play it first, so far it does look like more fun then classic slaughtered. I will agree that if you want it to maintain that slaughtered feel you should probably put the water and bridge in center. The ability to instantly separate the map in half for either team is actually a neat concept and should be kept somehow.

    But man, the be base swap and tunnels are good shit.
     
  7. Trickster

    Trickster Retired Developer

    Messages:
    16,576
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    0
    K I could be talking out of my ass completely because I haven't played it and I have no idea what it even looks like outside of your map, but it looks to me like you've basically turned the map into emp_alpinerush. Not saying that's a bad thing because I actually liked the map, but it doesn't look like Slaughtered to me. I would personally have preferred a remake in the vein of Omneh's version.

    [​IMG]

    He basically opened up the S-bend a bit so it wasn't such a clusterfuck, added a platform in the lake to fight over in the mid and a few other things. I think he worked on the bridge a bit as well.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2015
  8. Varbles

    Varbles Simply Maptastic. Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    potential impassable walls I'm considering
    A, B, C, or a combination of B and C.

    [​IMG]

    There's a reason this map is not a beta or release candidate. It is a litmus test of actual gameplay and dynamics, not minimap analysis. Again, "There may be substantial changes until this is achieved"
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2015
  9. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wanted to say it might be neat if 2 things could happen. First is a handy dandy image.
    [​IMG]

    The second part is that the bridge can be destroyed. I would say it would be great if the tunnel could be collapsed too and have some sort of emergency door close off the tunnel in the mountains, but I feel like that's an impossible request for hammer.

    But yeah, putting a wall at b and c like you said might be better to try first. I'm not entirely digging vehicles being able to go anywhere right at mid.

    Everything else is cool beans though, I really like the changes.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2015
  10. Z100000M

    Z100000M Vithered Weteran

    Messages:
    9,120
    Likes Received:
    70
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mines drop through the map on the south pass between mid and west. In fact at least twice did only part of a mine stack detonate at the same time, the other place in the tunnel of all things. No idea why.
     
  11. Catface

    Catface Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love all the changes. Having tested it now, it plays a lot better than classic slaughtered. Even if the gameplay is radically different.

    Match length is similar to classic slaughtered, but the gameplay is a lot more vibrant and dynamic, including for infantry. Bases were swapped frequently, though the north west and south east continue to be secure locations.

    The tunnel it self is a brilliant edition. It is both an escape route for whoever is pinned down in one of the corners, as well as an attacking route for when one team has both the north and south western corners.

    The details feel natural rather than gimmicky and they aren't nearly as distracting as some maps. The main combat areas in particular look a lot more interesting.

    I'm not sure about the new bunkers. The middle one sees little use and is generally (far) away from the action. While the one to the south doesn't provide a clear advantage to either defenders or attackers.
    I think they would be more useful if the southern one opened to the east rather than the north, and additional bunkers were added to central C5 and the lower-left corner of A4.

    I wouldn't add any impassable walls or things that seriously restrict mobility, nor raise the elevation in the red areas.
    Rather, I'd like to see more craters on the main routes, and more foliage for infantry to hide in. I don't think additional tunnels are really required either.
     
  12. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you are talking about the things I suggested that was mostly to add water back to the middle area. I like the idea of there being a crossroads in the center of the map, but I'd rather a way for the teams to control vehicle access in the crossroads.

    I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it being super open in general though. I think I need to command a game to really get a feel for it. It isn't bad by any means, but now that there's a third pass to north, the tunnels, slaughtered might not need to be an open map of sorts. That third pass takes enough pressure off sbend to not feel like a terrible meat grinder I think.
     
  13. CRITAWAKETS

    CRITAWAKETS Member

    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont even see an S in the map i see a 3. And that 3 is the only strat i know for NF.

    But this one adds options.

    I have multiple rush ideas for both teams like BE taking south completly and rushing NF main to then take over the less powerful areas or wall off the comm.
     
  14. Metruption

    Metruption Member

    Messages:
    804
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    the slaughtered on most maps also has a 3 bend
     
  15. JustGoFly

    JustGoFly Member

    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Feedback

    I got to play this map Saturday. I loved it! I was very impressed with the changes. I do agree that you need not honor the old name, and should make your own map name. It is different enough.

    Regarding the impassible area in the old pond. I like the terrain you have there now. It slows down any attempt to rush and becomes a kill zone. I came over the hill (orange stripe) in a heavy into the enemy base in old S bend. I couldn't back out, which I think that was good. So I drove straight through fighting two tanks and made it out alive, just barely. My point is most people would attack through the old pond on foot. We pushed jeeps in there and easily took out the S bend enemy base. But pushing tanks through middle was suicide. So it adds something to the tactics.

    I need to play it more, but love what you've done with it. It won't replace old Slaughtered, but should be in the server cycle and an official map.

    Some name ideas:
    Thesaurus look up for Slaughtered:
    Wipe Out, Butcher, Crush, Vanquish, Luiquidate, Over Whelm

    Play on the name:
    Slaughtification, Onslaught
     
  16. Varbles

    Varbles Simply Maptastic. Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So after two pretty realistic test games this weekend, I think I have a good footing for the next changes. The results as I saw them were:

    Saturday's test, averaging 15v15 with lots of vets, was a BE victory after an intense 74 minutes. Very, very fluid game; NF claimed both corners first but there was no continuous front line and every base location was contested at least once. A resource flow issue gave what seemed about 25% higher income for both teams than intended which may have softened the impact of losing ground. NF were pinned to their main before losing.

    Sundays test, averaging 11v11, another BE victory after about 45 minutes. Somewhat less fluid game with a more typical player roster and some balancing issues at the start, though the res flow was adjusted to 80%. Lots of back and forth through center with those two refineries being totally undefendable and unplaced much of the game. Corners were contested a few times but decisively BE got a base north of center and ultimately NF was pinned to the northeast and lost quickly after a few players left.

    My takeaway from these is that any area is too quickly contested through middle, with players taking too many different paths for any real front line to crop up. The quick routes through mid were constantly undermining northeast and south center, but actually controlling mid meant nothing. The fight over southwest and through the tunnels to NF main seemed more slow and steady, never gaining momentum because of the influence of mid. No delaying features and no natural funneling of defenders are related problems leaving too much of the map always contested even if the attackers can't hope to actually gain the ground.

    After thinking through a lot of options, this is the solution that I want to test next:
    [​IMG]
    Here's a template if you want to mark one up yourself.





    The kill zone in center was what I wanted but practically it only works when there's a good stream of players/tanks/defense from both sides present. With low pop empires I think it leaves too much open and sucks life out of the other two routes.

    I know at the moment it's a far cry from old Slaughtered but the project was and is intended to specifically improve Slaughtered itself. It may end up as a separate map or a high player alternate version, but I'm still aiming to refine the simplicity of Slaughtered into an appealing, well rounded map instead of a new custom.
     
  17. Catface

    Catface Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm going ahead and say this would probably ruin the map.

    One thing I like about your map is that while there were a lot of ways to approach or contest an area, there still was a sense of direction. But without trying to funnel all players through one area like classic slaughtered.
    I basically see this resulting in more slow grinds once either team gets bogged down in one of the corners.
    You might argue there are still two routes left, but in reality, with every other map where one team ends up stuck in a corner, over 90% of the time it will result in a long boring grind followed by the defending team losing.

    I really don't think we need more maps like canyon, silk, homeland, coast, etc. And all others where the game basically revolves around cornering the enemy team and then grinding them down. Nor do I see the need for buildable gimmicks and infantry only areas, which are near universally atrocious (or completely unused) unless they are directly adjacent to the main vehicle routes.

    This map is a vast improvement over classic slaughtered in terms of enjoyability. And when properly played properly (see the 45 minute match) it ends a lot quicker as well, preventing player hemorrhaging due to boring stalemates.
    I do think going back to 6 refs is a step in the right direction. The classic version already has a lot of res.

    In the end, I don't see the need to funnel players. Nor to prop up artificial fronts. See a map like frozensummit for example. With a decent player count you can have front formation, while the rest of the map remains dynamic. It's the same here. Not every player needs to be at a front. As a result the map is a lot more enjoyable.
    And there are a lot more ways for a disadvantaged team to get back on top as well, as opposed to classic slaughtered where the only real move is to build a ninja rax in the South or North West and hope you can divert forces or do a base swap.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2015
  18. Lazybum

    Lazybum :D Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    4,827
    Likes Received:
    190
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The only suggestion I got is put an infantry bridge between the impassable terrain you want to put in mid. Might look nice and show that's a point of interest if there's a bunker at each end of the bridge, though maybe you don't want to advertise it as much? The nice thing about that is it gives infantry a third access route between north and south which I really think is needed. The main problem with old slaughtered is everyone being funneled into 2 spots, which is kinda boring. Canyon isn't so bad because the spots are both level and rather wide areas so poeple can build little wall trenches, but slaughtered doesn't quite offer that. So a third pass for at least infantry is necessary.
     
  19. Catface

    Catface Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I actually don't see why separate infantry only areas are necessary. Rather I think we need more craters and foliage for infantry to hide in, similar to canyon. If resistance is fierce you can try and flank the enemy.

    If the north east sees too little action you could make it larger and more interesting (perhaps a supply depot of some sort?). Or even create an additional tunnel from the BE main to the north east past the middle.

    Both the north west and south east are easy to defend (more so the north).
     
  20. JustGoFly

    JustGoFly Member

    Messages:
    897
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've only played this map once on the Saturday 15v15 match on NF team7 that lost. I like that you are moving the NF base north since we lost mostly due to sniping from heavies from the tunnel. NF has much more confined base location than BE. Maybe if you chisel some of that NW center wall away and open it up for easier building and turret placement.

    Shooting down into the tunnel from NW with a heavy was difficult and required us to rush into the tunnel to defend. I spent a lot of time sniping center, since NF owned NW, SW, and BE was entering the tunnel from the old pond, once they got in there we had to defend from two locations - main base, and the old pond. I don't usually defend, but found myself defending center, then attacking into old S bend. We took it a few times and quickly lost it. Fighting on three fronts was difficult and since we owned SW, it became four fronts. We had a lot of calls for help going on and little tactical attacking. 2 heavies were enough to clear any one area, but not hold it.

    It will require different tactics than most other maps and this is what makes it interesting. It is not just a choke point map. Give it a little more time. Some of the changes you plan will shut down some of the free flow of players to any region in the map. It's more like Desert Storm due to it's many path's, but still very unique.

    Oh and I still love old Slaughtered. There are still many tactics employed to win, but can still be enjoyed with head to head tank battles.
     

Share This Page