RS KitaJima

[MeFirst]

Some feedback here from the play session yester from the 29th server.


Summary:
The map was played with a nearly filled server if I remember it correctly. So it was probably something between 50-60 on the map. I joined in late for the very first round because my map download was pretty slow. The first thing I noticed was that the attackers seem to be stuck on the first three beach caps. PsychoPiedgeon asked for a new round with scrambled teams and after the new round with scrambled teams the first caps fell rather quick. After that the attackers too most caps with ease and especially the last caps fell pretty fast.

Balance Feedback:
Hard to say yet if the first three objs need some tweaking. The defenders can put up a good defense if they have "better players" on their team. I think the key to to attack these objectives are aggressive attacking and good use of artillery. It could be worth testing only giving the attackers artillery support for the first three objectives. This could help the attackers a lot and will also keep the defenders from pretty much spawn raping the spawn with their own artillery.

When the three objs. fall it can be pretty hard for the axis to put up a good defense. I think the sheer numbers of objs. can be a problem here and a good defense here needs a lot of communication and coordination (and people willing to do that).

Still the last objs. seem very hard to defend. I think maybe the japanese spawn to close/to open and they can be killed off the spawn easily. Might wortk trying to move the japanese spawns to better positions here.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

What if it was more like this

 

[MeFirst]

What if it was more like this

I assume red is the last axis spawn?

 

[PsychoPigeon]

red means it doesnt exist, blue is objective

 

[MeFirst]

I see. Could be worth a try.

 

[G_Sajer]

One slick little detail I just noticed yesterday is that in some areas of the beach reinforcing amtraks can be seen gliding into the beach. Nice touch.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Yeah, on a different version that doesn't support bots I have the players spawn on the ships, they get into the amtrack and it brings them right onto the beach and you can use it for cover. Planes fly over head and shells drop near the vehicle it's pretty epic. I'm going to make a video of it at some point.

But first I need to see if I need to change this map

 

[LugNut]

Nooooooo!

My experiences on this map and I play it whenever possible are very similar to Drecks, although with the last update A & B are much harder for the attackers to capture. One thing that is just so great about this map is that it's big, wide and has a ton of ways to flank around. I'd hate to lose all the great real estate in the left gulley and end up in a linear fight like so many of the other maps. The downside to the size and spread of the caps is that even with a full 64 player server, the multitude of objectives means that the defenders are spread out so thin, a handful of attackers usually sweep each objective.

I do think it would benefit with adjusting the caps (something like the image). The last three caps especially have always felt less than epic considering the terrain and their importance to Axis. Make F & G (move F back a bit and G up towards the entrance steps) have to be capped together to lock, with three spawns for each side, then move the last cap to the far end of the bridge. I've rarely seen fighting on the bridge or in the gulley underneath and it should be a frenzied fight down to the last seconds like on Bridges.

The map is great and as long as spawn protection wasn't excessive, it would allow multiple ways for attackers to approach all the objectives and defenders to flank and harass them.

I love this map.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

I really like that suggestion, it makes sense. When you say 3 spawns for each side at G and F, where would the 3rd spawn go and what would its purpose be? Unless you're saying the bridge spawn be active at the same time as G F?

 

[G_Sajer]

I'll have version 6 on Crucible shortly.

 

[MeFirst]

I've rarely seen fighting on the bridge or in the gulley underneath and it should be a frenzied fight down to the last seconds like on Bridges.

Amen!

 

[Sgt.NightFire]

When i first played people were below fighting in the marshes, the bridge was mostly forgotten and capped by a handful, would be indeed awesome if the final battle took place solely on this bridge. Something i always love to see in a RO map is that the last objective can be a big objective to take, cause it will feel like a bigger achievement when you do capture it.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

The reason why the bridge is accompanied by other objectives either side is because the swamp and the ruins are far apart, when you cap ruins you then have to walk all the way along to the swamp and it's kind of weird. So what LugNut is suggesting is removing the objectives either side of the bridge, but then it brings up the distance between caps issue.

 

[LugNut]

The three spawns would left/center/right for each side. So, each side would have one on opposite sides of the F/G objectives, Axis on the Allied side of the bridge maybe and Allied in front of E, so those center spawners could try to flank either objective, reinforce one or go hunting up the middle.

I also thought about leaving the three objectives F/Center/G if you could make only two of them randomly spawn. That would be cool. It just seems like 3 caps spreads everyone out too much for good fighting. I always come back to maps that are fairly big like Bridges, Winterwald and Rackowitz, that alternate single center to dual side objectives to good effect.

If removing that center cap creates too big a distance, you could keep it then move F & G back somewhat so you'd take the center, then have to lock F&G before H. Make H the base more than the bridge so the allies could attack from three sides? Clear the cover from the bridge to make it harder to get across and add some bunkers or fixed MG's to beef up the base defense.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

I don't think having the village (middle objective in front of bridge) would work with the G, it's kind of in the way . I like having just the 2 objectives active but if you take ruins then you have to slog it over to the swamp, and if there's a Japanese spawn in front of the bridge you'd have to try and get past that also. It'd be good if you didn't have to go near the bridge until it was active, but the positioning of the objective forces the player to walk across and become entangled.

What about having F and the village active, then G and the bridge is active? I don't want G on its own because it's a small objective. Or remove G objective and just keep village + F?

 

[Zetsumei]

Personally I never had issues with that the capzones are far apart initially. My main issue is that at some point when you cap the far left it forces you to go to the extreme far right. If i could continue forward or even slightly off to the other direction it would be fine.

Personally In that sense I feel that a kismet setup similar to UT3's onslaught might work well with kitajima

Pretty much allow people always to go forward towards the next node, and that spawns depend on the nodes available. The terrain of your map is not directly setup as a push map, but i think it comes very close to the onslaught maps which had a lot of differently located objectives as well.

 

[LugNut]

Zetsumei is describing one of the problems with the map, especially initially for new players, we're so used to pushing straight-ish ahead for the next cap that it was confusing to have to head off at such acute angles to the next objective. I was trying to make the sequence more linear without making it too domino-like.

Hmm, I see your point about the village being in the way.... I like your idea of F and the village, although I also like the pathway you have at G towards the barracks. Maybe have the final cap on the G side of the base so there's incentive to still flank that way? Or, to make that pathway important, how about make an awesome defensive position along it for the Axis to rain death down on the bridge with a bunker and fixed MG. Then at least some attackers would have to try to control it to help cap the bridge. I want to play over every inch of this great map.

Just thinking out loud....

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Yeah I want to avoid a total linear experience, but at the same time I want it to be believable. The village and F seem like the best bet, it keeps the allies away from the bridge, but also separates the forces enough that either objective won't be too cramped. So the final objective would cover half the bridge? and either side of the little bunker areas creating incentive to flank.

 

[LugNut]

My experiences attacking have ended either sitting on the bridge not even under fire after having simply run on to it, or flanking up into the base from either side and hunting down Axis as they come from the spawn. Very underwhelming. The fight for G is always markedly tougher than the final cap.

From an Axis perspective, it doesn't seem there are positions on their side of the bridge that are clearly superior and with the Allies easily swarming in, it's hard to even get to the bridge. Since the fights don't last long, I don't have that great of an idea of how to make it better there I end up dying so quickly. I'll have to load it to explore more.

From a RL perspective, the bridge is the best passage through to further inland and I assume they built it. The base side of the bridge would be the most heavily fortified piece of the map with clear lines of fire to the other side of the gorge from multiple angles. Trenches, bulwarks and bunkers, fixed MG's. A makeshift barricade on their side of the bridge. Obstacles like fences that need to be blown maybe?

No easy way up from the bottom either. Maybe short walls leading up that axis could step off but the allies had to mantle to slow them down? Right now a small group from F can just barrel right in.

I suppose you could put the cap in the middle of the bridge and use spawn protection to keep the Allies out of the base, like the last cap in Bridges where you can't get all the way in. I'm not a fan of spawn protection though, I'd rather see it realistic where the attackers have to control the entire bridge to cap, which means the cap being on the base side.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

I'm going to add some Japanese defenses at the bridge and an MG at G, thanks for all the feedback so far and if you come up with another idea for the bridge and G let me know, I'm going to try and implement that stuff tomorrow into the map. Going to go with Village + F active for now, then bridge final objective leaving out G.