• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Gamescom 2010

CCCP said:
It would be really cool if devs could randomly place certain cover every time map restarts so boxes are in different location every time and more randomly placed

I like this idea. It would stop maps from being memorized and playing out the same way eveytime, therefore extending the 'life' of the maps.

I posted a similar idea a while ago but it had more to do with the spawn areas. My idea was to give the Squad Leader a small set amount of 'cover items' (boxes, sandbags, trucks etc.), maybe 2 or three items at most, that he/she could place prior to the map starting, but only in a very close proximity to his own spawn area. The reason for this idea was to give each team the ability to 'randomize' their immediate spawn area so as to hinder the enemy from getting too close and spawn camping.

Prior to map start, the Squad Leader could set up/place these assets to either provide cover at a spawn exit or to use them to funnel the enemy into a specific area when near the spawn zone etc. etc.
 
Upvote 0
having some random placement in a map is nice although balance must be watched out for as well which becomes a lot harder with random placed obstacles.

Having a player place the obstacles at least makes things fair as both teams got the same freedom in placing obstacles.

For me the most important aspect of having varying game play is probably variation in spawning and spawn location. Which is why I hope that mappers can utilize something like selectable spawns in one way or the other.

As practise has proven that the majority of players simply take the shortest route to the action. If players can start at multiple locations then there are multiple shortest routes to the action bringing diversity in the game play.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, I like the idea of selectable spawns, and in general, more spawn exits. They are simply a must for exit camping reasons. If you have more places to emerge from it lessens the opposing teams' ability to kill you right when you come out. More exits + being able to select your spawn zone + a few placeable 'assets' in close proximity to the spawn area = a winning combo.


..and yes, day & night versions of each map + variable weather conditions = :cool:
 
Upvote 0
I don't think anything in my last post suggested that I was going to spam the forum with posts, complaining about the abundance of geometrically placed cover ...

I'm simply irritated by it when it looks ultra-superficial. But if you also read my post you'll find that I otherwise think the map looks amazing. I'm simply suggesting to Tripwire that they find more creative and more natural looking ways of providing needed cover in a map. In other words, creating maps that don't scream, "HEY LOOK THIS GAME HAS A COVER SYSTEM! CAN YA TELL?"

One thing I have a lot of fun doing in RO is being creative with my hiding places, especially as a sniper. I like to find that perfect nook that people would never think to look in to use as a firing position, and RO always had enough stuff laying around that it was kinda fun to find what worked and what didn't.
 
Upvote 0
If I were the Russians, I would be leaving the areas open so it was harder for
the Germans to cross.

Unfortunately we're making a game and have to do whatever it takes to make it balanced map-wise. Some of you might like the idea of having a scenario were you run into machine gun fire for 6 days straight and then finally take a position because the enemy ran out of bullets. It's not going to happen. The map has to be winnable and with a reasonable challenge.

Cover is ok if it looks natural and that can include destroyed vehicles etc, as
long as its not just placed there by a mapper so it can be used as cover.

What? So wait, you want maps that have natural cover that was placed so it can't be used as cover? This isn't some puzzle game were you solve a paradox.

I have seen some maps where this was done very well, others where it seems
things were just dropped into an open area because the open space looked too big.

If we place cover objects it's there for a reason. Not because it "looked too big".

As practise has proven that the majority of players simply take the shortest route to the action. If
players can start at multiple locations then there are multiple shortest routes to the action bringing
diversity in the game play.

This is true. You can also have multiple routes that bring diversity to the action.

At first I was ok with "extra cover" but Now I have to admit it does look odd,
boxes in perfect order right where you need them , something is wrong with this picture.

There is no "extra cover". There is no cover that wasn't there and then was added because we felt like it. I don't understand where this perception of cover being placed "just because".

One thing I have a lot of fun doing in RO is being creative with my hiding places, especially as a sniper.
I like to find that perfect nook that people would never think to look in to use as a firing position, and
RO always had enough stuff laying around that it was kinda fun to find what worked and what didn't.

You can still do this. No one is being limited to using the cover system. It is completely optional.

I hate to say it, but this screen shot shows what I'm talking about:
I mean I guess it kind of makes sense in this industrial setting, but all of the cover still looks highly artificially placed, kind of
like something in Brothers in Arms. It's too bad, too because the map otherwise looks unbelievable. All of the crates and barrels are at
perfect geometric angles that just happen to provide people with the perfect cover ... it just makes an otherwise realistic looking
scene look very strange.

The Grain Elevator area had some construction going on around it. One of buildings in the map is in an unfinished state. Those pallets, boxes, etc (and the art for most of this has changed), correspond to that building that is under construction.Construction sites don't usually just have all their materials scattered about unorganized and in the way of vehicles. They're placed in organized piles.

Cover in RO:HOS is going to have regular shapes. We're using a cover system. There is no solid way around this. We decided to use one because it brings a lot of useful and immersion features. Positives outweigh the negatives in this regard. Personally I feel a lot of negatives presented so far is just a bunch of arm-chair level designing, and lack of experience with our game - only experience with someone else's game.

You guys will soon see that the maps have evolved. A lot of the screenshots released so far have been early production shots. Even recent ones will evolve further. One thing I want you to keep in mind is that if you see that generic box mesh, it's very likely it'll be something else later. That box gets placed a lot because we don't have what it really should be made yet.
 
Upvote 0
This is true. You can also have multiple routes that bring diversity to the action.

Like you say there are multiple roads that lead to Rome. For instance I still love your old Berlin map for the objective layout and diverse pathways, the choice of going NA or SA first gave the battle 2 distinctly different flavours.

I just think that the ability to select a spawn for a player could be a powerful tool for mappers in adding to the unpredictability of a battle. Especially in frantic maps where the mapper wants you to spawn really close to the action (limiting the ability for a mapper of creating equal alternative routes)

In maps like Koningsplatz it just feels as such a waste to only see a handful of people fight on the northern and southern flanks. With everybody else rather going directly into the meat grinder of the centre of the map. A lot of tactical manoeuvres are possible on the wide plains but just don't get utilized as taking the flanks simply costs a lot more time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Unfortunately we're making a game and have to do whatever it takes to make it balanced map-wise. Some of you might like the idea of having a scenario were you run into machine gun fire for 6 days straight and then finally take a position because the enemy ran out of bullets. It's not going to happen. The map has to be winnable and with a reasonable challenge.



What? So wait, you want maps that have natural cover that was placed so it can't be used as cover? This isn't some puzzle game were you solve a paradox.



If we place cover objects it's there for a reason. Not because it "looked too big".



This is true. You can also have multiple routes that bring diversity to the action.



There is no "extra cover". There is no cover that wasn't there and then was added because we felt like it. I don't understand where this perception of cover being placed "just because".



You can still do this. No one is being limited to using the cover system. It is completely optional.



The Grain Elevator area had some construction going on around it. One of buildings in the map is in an unfinished state. Those pallets, boxes, etc (and the art for most of this has changed), correspond to that building that is under construction.Construction sites don't usually just have all their materials scattered about unorganized and in the way of vehicles. They're placed in organized piles.

Cover in RO:HOS is going to have regular shapes. We're using a cover system. There is no solid way around this. We decided to use one because it brings a lot of useful and immersion features. Positives outweigh the negatives in this regard. Personally I feel a lot of negatives presented so far is just a bunch of arm-chair level designing, and lack of experience with our game - only experience with someone else's game.

You guys will soon see that the maps have evolved. A lot of the screenshots released so far have been early production shots. Even recent ones will evolve further. One thing I want you to keep in mind is that if you see that generic box mesh, it's very likely it'll be something else later. That box gets placed a lot because we don't have what it really should be made yet.
First of all I really appreciate the reply. Even though I've known Tripwire for a very long time, it's still nice to see that a game's developers actually read their forums!

But yeah I'm sure alot of what we're talking about sounds like a bunch of ignorant forum-goers who of course have no experience with how the game actually plays, and so we are going to get worried about stuff that maybe we shouldn't be.

But of course, all we have to go off of is screenshots, and when we see something that raises a red flag from our experience in another game, we want to bring out our concern and share it with the devs. Then you all get the opportunity to enlighten us on how things really are. It's just inevitable -- until we get the game in our greedy little hands, all we can do is base our knowledge off of screenshots and out of date alpha videos!

So I would take it as a compliment that your community is so concerned with little details like this. We want you to make a fantastic game that pushes all the right buttons and gets everything right. Of course that's a big goal, but we wouldn't be posting essay-sized rants if we didn't think you could actually do it ;)
 
Upvote 0
That shot doesn't look too bad as there is still some open area, although from a defensive perspective, the crates look out of place, but at least it is not crowded. If I were the Russians, I would be leaving the areas open so it was harder for the Germans to cross....

Unfortunately we're making a game and have to do whatever it takes to make it balanced map-wise. Some of you might like the idea of having a scenario were you run into machine gun fire for 6 days straight and then finally take a position because the enemy ran out of bullets. It's not going to happen. The map has to be winnable and with a reasonable challenge.

Obviously that is understood. A map has to be winnable and some sort of balance must be involved. I wouldn't want every open area to turn into another version of Doggreen Omaha Beach. Of course, balance can come in many ways as seen in ROOST with alternate attack routes, artillery, smoke, number of reinforcements etc etc as I'm sure you are more aware of than I :D

Cover is ok if it looks natural and that can include destroyed vehicles etc, as long as its not just placed there by a mapper so it can be used as cover....

What? So wait, you want maps that have natural cover that was placed so it can't be used as cover? This isn't some puzzle game were you solve a paradox.

OK, obviously my post was a little difficult to understand and not really a paradox. What I meant was cover is ok if it looks like it naturally belongs there. If a city is in ruins, then cover such as destroyed vehicles, shellholes and rubble look natural. However, you did get what I meant overall when you said...

If we place cover objects it's there for a reason. Not because it "looked too big".

That is the best answer. I don't really believe that you and the rest of TWI will disappoint us with the maps and gameplay. I can't speak for others, but my comments were in general and more or less reference how some maps are done in general; mostly a few custom maps or maps from other games as someone mentioned in BIA above. I don't think anyone thinks you are going to go that route with your maps.

Overall, and in my opinion of course, there should be maps that are crowded with cover and others that may be more open, but I imagine that most may have a combination of both. It allows for more variety. For the most part, I like how the maps were done in ROOST. There you do have that variety and I have every confidence that in ROHOS, it will be even better. That is why I am still here since I bought ROOST on the day it was released ;)
 
Upvote 0
Construction sites don't usually just have all their materials scattered about unorganized and in the way of vehicles. They're placed in organized piles.
The mind does try to organize for efficiency and economy of effort.

On the flip side, organized field constructions, like the positioning of foxholes, trenches, and the placements of heavy weapons and CP locations could become overly-organized, and "patterned", and these entrenchment layouts were learned by the enemy over time. In fact the German mindset for organization could become a detriment concerning battlefield predictability.

The arm-chair criticism is valid, especially since we're looking at map designs as if viewing them in a sports arena (from the top down). On the battlefield, in sim-mode, things aren't so obviously "organized".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
There has to be cover for balancing issues

Being spwaned shot - spawned shot - spawned shot with no hope of gaining ground is not good for the ones being shot or even the ones shooting them if there is no challange

True some of the things used for cover look a bit out of place but if you removed the lorry tank etc etc, whatever they put there is unliklely to look right. All they can do is try and fit the cover as much as possible to the scene which they done pretty well on most maps.

Multiple spawn exits are a must on all maps or should be.
 
Upvote 0
Back in the mod there was a map called Porechye. It was an unfinished unbalanced map but I loved it. There was little cover for the russians who had to attack trenches and a hill behind it. To the left there was a minefield but you could pass throught it if you knew how to do it. Then you could flank the germans in the trenches or attack the hill behind the trenches, cap it, and then attack them the trenches from behind. So even maps with little cover can be fun, but not everyone likes maps like that. I guess some people just go for a full frontral attack always.
 
Upvote 0
First of all I really appreciate the reply. Even though I've known Tripwire for a very long time, it's still nice to see that a game's developers actually read their forums!

But yeah I'm sure alot of what we're talking about sounds like a bunch of ignorant forum-goers who of course have no experience with how the game actually plays, and so we are going to get worried about stuff that maybe we shouldn't be.

But of course, all we have to go off of is screenshots, and when we see something that raises a red flag from our experience in another game, we want to bring out our concern and share it with the devs. Then you all get the opportunity to enlighten us on how things really are. It's just inevitable -- until we get the game in our greedy little hands, all we can do is base our knowledge off of screenshots and out of date alpha videos!

So I would take it as a compliment that your community is so concerned with little details like this. We want you to make a fantastic game that pushes all the right buttons and gets everything right. Of course that's a big goal, but we wouldn't be posting essay-sized rants if we didn't think you could actually do it ;)
Well said, I'm only going to add that it feels so good to provoke devs into some exchange of opinions, this way we get to know some more info. Anyway thanks TWI for actually care
:IS2:
 
Upvote 0
I don't understand the "it doesn't look natural" argument. In real life there could be n+1 reasons why some Zis truck would lie abandoned in the middle of some field. :confused:

True. Besides, where do you draw the line between "natural" and "unnatural" cover? A pile of stacked construction material looks out of place in a grassy field, but makes sense if it's part of a factory complex or an objective that requires defending.

Keep in mind that the defenders might have placed the cover there themselves. So artificial-looking cover isn't necessarily a bad thing if it portrays a barricade or a defensive position.

A random cover system could be great though, I like that. However, there is such as thing as too much cover (and too little too, of course).
 
Upvote 0
I don't understand the "it doesn't look natural" argument. In real life there could be n+1 reasons why some Zis truck would lie abandoned in the middle of some field. :confused:

Well I must say that in ROOST I often miss some open places without cover. There is hardly any street where there aren't sand bag emplacement, flipped over trucks and piles of wood. Having a street where you can look from one end of the street to the other without big wide obstructions is pretty rare.

Usually when setting up a defensive position you make sure that your position got a clear view of the area, and roads get cleared to make transport possible. So stuff like broken down trucks would often get pushed to the side of the street. In most war photographs I've seen, the view over the streets are still relatively clear even if the buildings around it have fallen down, with there being loads of rubble/cover along the sides.
soviet-russian-army-berlin-1945-ww2-second-war-two-incredible-pictures-images-photos-001.jpg
second-world-war-two-berlin-destruction.jpeg


In odessa you can clearly see that cover is placed in the center of a road nearly every 5 meters. Which feels a bit unnatural to me. http://pics.roladder.net/ed3d42a57bf13609aff424a92a694ed9.jpg Or on Danzig it feels as a weird coincidence that on top of both of the bridges there is a broken down vehicle.

I can understand that for balance and game play reasons and for making it possible for attackers to move forward loads of cover is needed. But it would be nice if more cover could be at the side of the roads rather than right in the middle of it. So rifleman can actually have a nice wide view of an area without always having to be on higher ground. And so that roads become something for all players to avoid to not become sitting ducks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0