New Domination maps -- what's the point?

[Nemarus]

So BioWare released screenshots of a new GSF map with tons of capital ships and a space station. It looks gorgeous.

 

My concern is that there are also Domination satellites in it, meaning it's probably a new Domination map. If that's true, then why bother putting in all that scenery? In Domination, any "terrain" farther than 5k from a satellite is irrelevant for everyone except Gunships.

 

Anyone fighting farther than 5k from a satellite--unless they are a Gunship or chasing one--is only helping their team lose. So why bother putting so much effort into Domination maps?

 

Deathmatch maps, on the other hand, are far more interesting. The two maps we currently have are glorious. Kuat Mesas' terrain, especially, plays a HUGE part in who lives and who dies, and gives each chase and dogfight that much more potential to be exciting and cinematic. A Deathmatch map full of capital ships we can weave around sounds fantastic--bring it on!

 

But Domination? It's all just window dressing, or something I have to fly slightly around in order to get to a satellite. The only nodes for which the map itself adds anything interesting are Mesas/B and Shipyards/C, and even then, the structure of the satellite itself is forcing most of the dogfighting and maneuvering.

 

I'm not saying I want a greater proportion of matches to be Deathmatch than Domination--I'm just saying that unless the mechanics of Domination change, there's not a lot of point in putting energy into making new maps for it, as they are almost entirely cosmetic with regards to their effect on gameplay.

[Delta_V]

Any new map would likely be used for both, just like there are variants of both current maps for Domination and TDM. It's highly unlikely the new map will be used only for Domination, so while the terrain/obstacles might not be terribly relevant in Domination, there will almost certainly be a TDM variant where it will be.

[Slivovidze]

I'm quite sure that new map will be used for both Domination, and its tweaked version for TDM.

 

I am also quite sure that while most of battles in Domination indeed happen around satellites, there is still enough action in the other parts. Scouts and strikes fly around to where the pressure is, it's just bombers and gunships sticking around the satellite. And while flying around, random encounters do happen, quite often.

[Armonddd]

I propose an alternate theory: those aren't domination satellites, they're defense satellites.

 

In some of the space missions (the old rail shooter ones), you're tasked with assaulting or defending a giant station like this one. These stations are often guarded by defense satellites, which are nearly visually identical to the satellites in domination matches and this screenshot. Another important thing to note: that satellite has white solar panels, despite being right next to two capital ships. You can even see a pair of green stripes on the close side of the satellites -- I propose that those are turbolasers fired from the Imperial dreadnaught. But why would an NPC-controlled capital ship fire upon a neutral target? (Answer: maybe white solar panels don't mean a neutral target.)

 

I think this map is more likely to involve a capital ship battle around a station with defense satellites. Maybe the station and satellites are hostile to both factions, and part of the battle involves defending your capital ship from them (by destroying them or steering your ship away from them). Maybe there's a way to summon more defense satellites to the field. I couldn't tell you, and if Dulfy knows, she's probably under an NDA.

 

I can't say whether it's more likely that the objective is to destroy the enemy's capital ship or to capture the station. The former has, I believe, been referred to as "assault", which wouldn't fit with the "denon" image title -- but that could have changed, or be a red herring.

 

(It's worth pointing out as a side note that fighting away from a satellite is a valid tactic if you're preventing reinforcements from reaching a battle your team is not clearly winning, especially if those reinforcements involve bombers.)

Edited March 3, 2014 by Armonddd

[Slivovidze]

Yep, there are several possibilities of using satellites, besides our Domination. Even easier ones than Armonddd said.

 

- Each team starts with 3 sats, target is to "capture" enemy sats and protect allied ones.

- Each team starts with 3 sats, target is to destroy enemy sats with a bomb that spawns randomly.

- There are several sats around the map, but only one is active at a time, and they switch once upon a set period of time. Teams raise their points by keeping the active one under control and protecting it from enemies.

 

Can't really think of another ways right now, but I'm sure there are plenty. And especially the two firsts possibilites would be quite fitting for a capital ship battle.

[ShadowsNIte]

4 screenshots don't make a map. Can we at least wait until its live an PTS before we bash the devs?

[Zharik]

4 screenshots don't make a map. Can we at least wait until its live an PTS before we bash the devs?

 

Aw... a mature post.

 

/hug ShadowsNIte

 

Thanks!

[Nemarus]

4 screenshots don't make a map. Can we at least wait until its live an PTS before we bash the devs?

 

Who is bashing the devs? And also, when is the last time PTS feedback was acted upon? By the time something is on the PTS, it is well past the design phase where decisions like "game type" can be changed. There is nothing wrong with preemptively voicing a reasonable concern, so long as it is voiced civilly.

 

And honestly, I think those who believe Denon is going to be some brand new game mode are suffering from wishful thinking and are going to be disappointed. The fact that Domination satellites are included in the screenshots at all pivots the evidence dramatically toward this being another Domination mode--if it were something entirely new, why would BioWare take screenshots that could make some think it is Domination? Wouldn't they want their screenshots to unambiguously generate as much hype as possible for a new game type if they had one close to release?

 

I hope it is a new game type, but in the meantime, I wanted to just say that, as Domination is currently designed, map makes very little difference.

[Nemarus]

And PTS patch notes confirm it is just a new Domination map. There isn't even a Deathmatch variant yet.

[Armonddd]

And PTS patch notes confirm it is just a new Domination map. There isn't even a Deathmatch variant yet.

 

Yeah, there go my hopes and dreams.

 

Seems like a lot of effort to make and test a new map when there's a lot of more basic problems waiting to be fixed. Oh, wait, they addressed those by nerfing missile evasion abilities -- because those really needed a nerf.

[RiVaN_]

Aw... a mature post.

 

/hug ShadowsNIte

 

Thanks!

 

LoL!

Now that is funny right there.

 

 

 

 

Honestly a new Domination map or a new game type is prefered to a new Deathmatch map.

 

Unless you are a gunship deathmatch is broken right now.

If you are on a server that hasn't de-evolved down to 12v12 gunship battles in deathmatch, be thankful.

 

Over the past week (on Jedi Covenant) I have played in only a few deathmatches that didn't become straight gunship battles. This past weekend started the trend that everyone just jumps on their gunship and "sluggs" it out like Rocky and Apollo.

These matches are usually insanely quick, but extremely boring and 9x outta 10 one team becomes the clear victor by about half way through. The the losing team just starts losing people and the match is over even quicker.

 

 

Deathmatch was a lot cooler when it was brand new and people didn't know that you could group 12 gunships around an asteroid and just smoke the other team with minimal chance that you would actually die...

[MisterBlackJack]

It's a domination map but it's different than the typical domination.

 

There are actual capital ships that actually fire at each other and blow things up.

[Nemarus]

It's a domination map but it's different than the typical domination.

 

There are actual capital ships that actually fire at each other and blow things up.

 

Does anything actually blow up, or is it all just ambiance?

 

Granted, I've nothing wrong with ambiance ... but unless the capital ships actually do something which significantly affects the fighting on and near the satellites, it doesn't really matter.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyone fighting farther than 5k from a satellite--unless they are a Gunship or chasing one--is only helping their team lose. So why bother putting so much effort into Domination maps?

 

...

 

But Domination? It's all just window dressing, or something I have to fly slightly around in order to get to a satellite. The only nodes for which the map itself adds anything interesting are Mesas/B and Shipyards/C, and even then, the structure of the satellite itself is forcing most of the dogfighting and maneuvering.

 

I don't agree. The mesa and laser drill by Mesas/C matter a lot for dogfights there (not to mention gunships). The superstructure to the south of Mesas/A is similar, though less important. The asteroids close to Shipyards/A are also useful.

 

More generally, I think you overreach with the "anyone farther than 5k from a satellite" - unless there is an imminent capture opportunity for one team or other other, it is reasonable to use the nearby terrain to briefly disengage from an unfavorable position and then reenter the battle on more favorable terms.

[Lytewraith]

Only Reason for not having stuff and junk and space debris on a battle field. Is for scouts and gunships to have clean fire path. scous evade everything in sight blaster wise and break every missile lock attempt out there.

Give other ships such as the slower strike's a chance other wise you might aswell remove them from the game.

 

I play all the ship types out right now and you got (long range better have prema boost or a drone and mine or your dead aka the strike fighter's).

 

everyone can say what they want and how out there fine but we all know the missile based strike need shorter lock on time's. Heck even the supposedly slow firing rail guns can fire every 1 seconds and scout's out chase out damage and blow everything up a gun sip does not.

Give the Pike and Quell a reason to be flown to make them as powerfull in there givin field of expertise.Right now it is not there.

 

Debris only make it even worse so they need a abilty like blaster over charge that over charge's missile lock timer,

once evey 60 secs.

 

I know that is a bit off topic too but debrie is really what the strike's have going for them to get a break to recharge engine's and shield's don't take it away or just remove every ship type out and make them all gunship's.

That's what were heading towards anyways gunship's and bomber's

Edited March 11, 2014 by Lytewraith
misspell

[Itkovian]

Having a new map is nice, period. I'm happy we're getting one, even if it's domination.

 

Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if they're going to use that map for other game modes as well. Clearly they're apt to do that, having re-used existing maps (with extensive changes) for TDM, I imagine the same will come with Denon.

 

Moreover, there are also strong indications of new game modes coming (though not immediately), to which this map might be useful.

[FridgeLM]

Oh, wait, they addressed those by nerfing missile evasion abilities -- because those really needed a nerf.

 

They do. They're part of what make lasers and railguns so dominant in the tactical wheel - lockons are terrible because missile breaks are so ubiquitous and spammable.

 

Bombers have made missiles somewhat better but missiles should not only be useful against bombers.

[Armonddd]

They do. They're part of what make lasers and railguns so dominant in the tactical wheel - lockons are terrible because missile breaks are so ubiquitous and spammable.

 

Bombers have made missiles somewhat better but missiles should not only be useful against bombers.

 

That's not true, though. Lasers and railguns are dominant because they have infinite ammunition and are usable in a wide variety of situations. With railguns, this is compounded by the fact that they outrange literally everything else in the game, giving the sniper the ability to hit any non-gunship with ease (and making other gunships fairly easy to destroy if you know how to approach them).

 

Most missiles, on the other hand, are very hard to use. Keeping someone in a 12 degree arc for 3.4 seconds without breaking LoS or having the server screw you over is hard -- it's very easy to break a lock by circling an asteroid or satellite, or even just boosting in the right direction for a short time (and really, most directions will do). The long recharges on most missiles don't help matters.

 

You know what missiles are competitive with lasers and railguns? Clusters and rocket pods are, and both of those have nearly negligible lock-on times compared to everything else. The only limitation on how many pods I fire in a game is how many of them I can get, and I launch clusters in plenty of situations where I just can't get a laser lock. (My main ship has one cluster fired for every eleven blaster shots fired, and that's almost entirely clusters and bursts -- I think that's a lot, given lock-on time, rate of fire, cooldown, server hiccups, ammo limitations, and the number of times I've fired at nothing.)

[FridgeLM]

I don't see how a single part of your reply counters any assertion I made as to the necessity of nerfing missile lock breaks. In a world where it's already hard to get a lock even when the target doesn't use an instant break, why should breaks be so spammable?

[Armonddd]

I don't see how a single part of your reply counters any assertion I made as to the necessity of nerfing missile lock breaks. In a world where it's already hard to get a lock even when the target doesn't use an instant break, why should breaks be so spammable?

 

Spammable breaks have nothing to do with it. You don't need a break to dodge a torp, probe, or conc. Sure, it helps, especially if your break is retro -- but it's far from required. I think missiles would be helped far more by a reduction to lock-on and cooldown times than nerfing missile breaks.

[FridgeLM]

I think the idea that spammable missile breaking abilities have "nothing" to do with the underperformance of lock-on missiles is silly. They're so obviously part of the problem that I find myself wondering why you're arguing the point.

[-Streven-]

Making missiles a little more effective is a good thing. Not to mention, the nerf of barrel roll is going to make gunship piloting harder and therefore a little less attractive. A good thing if all the 12 v 12 gunship deathmatches are as prevalent as they seem to be. Reducing lock on times is less preferable than nerfing lock breaks imo. I like having a few seconds to decide how I want to react to missiles. Shorter lockons would just be annoying because almost every missile would now likely be a lock and flying away would be less useful. I think we want to increase the use of basic flying maneuvers to break missile lock rather than rely on 'special moves', i.e. cooldowns. I personally don't have that difficult a time acquiring missile locks from people not using cooldowns. The pike when played well is constantly landing missiles. My $.02 .