The JOYS of Skybridges.

I agree. One of the key game design features of most competitive versus games are that each map have three distinct routes to the enemy. Any less and it ends up in a severe choke point / stalemate situation, any more and the fighting becomes too spread out. Medal of Honor (the original) was a great example of good map design like this.

So KAG should have three routes as well. Right now those are underground, on top of the ground, and sky bridges. I agree - don't take away sky bridges until something else is in its place. Even then I'm sure they will have their place.

 

What? No that's completely wrong. You don't need to have multiple paths at all. Among the hardcore CoD players, Blops is notorious for having the least competitive maps due to how many more paths and lines of sight it had than previous games. TF2 often has linear choke point push sections, it works fine. Same as Killzone 2, which often has a single path contested for most of the game mode. And you know what? Those intense firefights are the best part of KZ2.

For me, fighting on the ground level is the best part of KAG and I think many would agree. It doesn't mean stalemate at all. In fact, I don't know why people think tunneling ends stalemates. It doesn't. It just moves the location of the stalemate. You got swiss cheese maps and endless pits where even if you can survive the onslaught of knight grinding, you can't get out. And frankly I'm not even consider whether skybridges do or do not help against stalemates as they are not fun.

In my opinion, the way to prevent stalemates would be to make skill a more decisive factor in combat, make dying have some actual drawbacks, and make catapults good siege machines, the latter being optional.

 

NO U

Of course you don't need multiple paths. If you're fine playing a tug of war game then all you really need is a linear corridor with spawnpoints on both sides and some chest-high walls scattered around. I find your choice of games to be pretty telling as well - COD:BO and KZ2 having very mature players with excellent teamplay skills, definitely leaning towards the "hardcore" gamer audience.

This is mostly because the frontline usually gets ravaged to the point where the crater is deep enough to cross into the tunnel. Ergo turning a separate battlefield into just another way to enter the frontline.

What you're proposing is essentially the removal of the overarching strategic metagame in favour of twitch-based bum-rushing. I don't know if that's MM's intention - for all we know MM may want KAG to be Link-Dead's casual brain-dead cousin and this may be a good thing. I'd rather play a game where coordination and teamplay matter and ping+twitch isn't the only factor for success.

 

The main concept of the game is to kill and capture their flag. Killing takes a big role in this game.

How are skybridges not the spirit of the game? Just because you don't like something and you want people to agree with your views, you back your shitty opinion up with "It's not in the spirit of the game"?

 

Alright, if you really want me to put the added "I think" in before that quote, fine. I edited my post to add it. If you still have any problems then maybe you should consider that I could easily say your opinion is shitty and it wouldn't mean a damn thing either.

As for killing, the whole purpose of it is to be able to advance, if all you're doing is just sitting in one place shooting down people on a skybridge, and they are endlessly coming at you, that's kind of redundant and not really saying much about skybridges at all.

"want people to agree with your views": If I wanted people to agree with me, I would go and make a topic and convince people. I don't really care either way if someone agrees or disagrees to be honest.

One reason I can immediately think of is that it's not in the spirit of the game because MM put in physics already and added fall damage just recently. Skybridges defy both of those simple physics addons just in favour of not finding an alternative. Just because being in the sky is fun, does not mean that everyone finds this one method of it fun. At least I don't, but you've already established my opinion is "shitty" anyway...

 

I don't see the need for this, I supported my opinions with logic and empirical evidence.

Do you really want to veer into the land of ad hominem attacks? Because I am very good at those. Anyways, first of all Call of Duty is deeper than its reputation, if it were simply you could hold a two digit KD, yes? and second of all I don't think you know anything about Killzone. It is a teamplay based game. I'd say its a cross between TF2 and Battlefield. And then of course you ignore my point about TF2, which has a good reputation. TF2 is extremely linear on certain maps, particularly payload maps which is literally just linear push. And it is fairly deep.

But none of that even matters because all of those games are far deeper than KAG, which is the subject at hand. KAG is a casual game.

Um.. Yes? This is basically what I was saying? That tunneling isn't so much a separate path as a way to depreciate the current path? Doing nothing but make the current frontlines shittier is something we agree on, right...?

I'm staggering. According to you, spamming ladders in the sky means the "overarching strategic metagame" and make " coordination and teamplay matter". This is a casual game, I don't know where you get the idea that language like "overarching strategic metagame"s is appropriate. And I don't see how removing skybridges, reducing tunneling, and making combat take more skill and be more meaningful would make the game braindead. It doesn't exactly take a genius to cut some wood then spend 10 minutes holding D and pressing left click way high at the top of the map. And honestly, do you want your team's success rely on your teammates competence more? The average KAG player is not competent, and already fucks up the current game with minecrafting and bad building in general. Do you want coordination and team play to matter more? The game will be unplayable with anything but nearly a full party with mics.

I think if you really want multiple paths to be implemented, map wrap is the way to go.

 

I am of the exact opinion as Contrary, except I couldn't put it as eloquently as he did, so thanks for that.

Everyone keeps playing up skybridges, and then their only argument for them is something along the lines of "Well, it's fun killing people on them" sure, it's might be fun for a bit. Still it's a pretty weak argument for anything staying in the game to be honest. They don't actually do anything significant for the game itself, they do not enhance gameplay, they just dumb it down. Spamming ladders into the sky is just pushing building down to an all time creativity low. One single block, with only one way to build it, is suddenly the most effective method considered by the player-base. Skybridges are doing a bad job of the job they're supposed to be doing: adding sky offense. But that's no reason to keep it. So why not get rid of them now, and then be patient and wait for something to utilise the sky? Something sensible like balloons? MM is already thinking about this. Besides we have our catapults firing humans now, which is one nice and balanced way to get over without spamming left mouse button and holding W and D.

 

Yeah, I kinda hate skybridges. Just played on the gC server, and all three rounds I played, blue was skybriding. First round we used their bridge and won, second round they used it to win, and third round I spent half the game making a ladder to reach theirs and destroy it, just so they could do it all over again (we finally won via ground warfare).
But yeah, skybridges are kinda gamebreaking. You can spend a long time building up defenses on the field just to have someone drop down behind your flag, grab it, and escape. And once they break the bridge behind them, it's impossible to get them. Usually they're too high up for archers to fire at.

 

What makes skybridges so fragile and unreliable? Griefers.
Oh and friendly catapults.

90% of all skybridgess which ive ever seen were destroyed by GRIEFERS. Just played on EU server, one round we've almost built a skybridge from stone+ladders+castleBG from one edge of the map to another when suddenly it crashed killing every living thing one the ground. We've spend 40 minutes on it. 40! And it was destroyed by some random guy from OUR team (which was kicked immediately).

I think as long there are skybridges as song there are griefers killing it with a strike or two.

 

Skybridges just dont rly match in the physic concept the game has, such as colapsing, fall dmg(gravity?) etc. They're bullshit and with a clever archer on the oposite; stupid death traps lol^^

 

You're saying you're good at dissing people. Back off, that's my turf.

Yeah, just like I'm ignoring this whole paragraph and the rest of your nonsensical ramblings, like this:

If you can't even get a simple thing like this straight then I'm wasting my time talking with you. For the record: KAG in it's current form has a learning curve that places it outside of the realm of casual games - along with the necessity of teamplay. Angry Birds is a casual game.

Map wrap alone isn't any improvement unless the two paths differ considerably. When map diversity increases, think water tiles, it may be a good solution. Think water vs mountains. Otherwise it's just duplicating an existing gameplay mechanic and pretending it's something new.

 

You have made little effort to address my points. In a nutshell your post is:

-You bragging about your ability to insult people
-You disregarding intelligent points you cannot refute
-You refusing further conversation because you think you are somehow better than me.

Excellent debating skills. My opinion of your posts is also that they are nonsense, yet I do you the respect of attempting to explain the logic to you in simple terms.

To the one point that might be gleamed from your "post": Why do the paths need to be different? And what's to say that left isn't different from right? Is the fact that tunnels is just normal ground fighting's most clusterfuck-y elements distilled make them a proper path in your eyes?

 

*HIIIIISSSSSS* Do i see a comparison of CoD, TF2, and other FIRST person shooters to this 2d platformer game??
Comparing First person shooters to a 2d arcade platformer game is like comparing a fish to an elephant (Eet Du'n mix)
Why are people so hyped up over sky bridges, they get griefed nearly every round and easy target practice for defenders.
There are going to be new war machines coming up soon, which will change gameplay slightly.
This ees ALPHA stage

 

I like skybridges. They don't look good but they're funny. And they're not at all overpowered! Don't remove them!

 

Valkyrie just told me in the game that he considers using skybridges "cheating". I don't think so. MM was not really forced to reactivate this "bug" because it broke sth else. It was his choice. Builders spamming stones in one of the previous builds wasn't considered cheating even if it was really anoying and it was also "unrealistic" that builder suddenly hat such power, just as skybridges are considered unrealistic now. Why not deal with the physics of one build and when it changes change your tactics, too. It's not like a skybridge uses the wrong spawnpoint bug from one of the earlier builds or the get knocked through walls bug. It even doesn't give you an unfair advantage because it's easy to connect to them or to sniper the attackers down. I see from this thread lots of people hate the skybridges but hey - deal with it as long as they are part of the game mechanics and if they are removed be happy and deal with what comes next. Peace :)

 

NO MORE SKYBRIDGE HUZZAH

 

No, it would only be no more sky bridges out of cheap material. They will be much more time consuming to make but stil possible.

My opinion on the matter is that low level sky bridges are fine and very useful and don't detract much from gameplay as they are easily taken down. They are essentially just bridges. In comparison I grievously dislike the sky bridges that go so high no one on the ground can possible see it. My fix to this whole dilemma is that you should not be able to build higher then the tallest background dirt tile. Or that you cant place ladders or castle background without support past that height limit. Thus sky bridges would only become bridges and they would just be another factor that is not undefeatable.

 

This may have been the most incoherent post I've seen in the ten minutes I've been here.

Also, to logically rebut your statements...
Don't avoid your burden of providing proof. How does it not fit in the physics concept the game has? Things come down when they have no support, as in the rest of the game, and in real life. Same thing for sky bridges. You are forgetting that the team building the skybridge often have archers too, easily sniping off the enemies of the opposing team.

I'm not supporting skybridges, but your post makes no sense. At all.

I think it's good they are gone now. It's easy enough to use catapults on towers to cover long distances, or to dig tunnels to reach the other side. Sky bridges are probably unfair. You can't fight back. You can not destroy them from below. Tunnels can be clogged, passages be reinforced or blocked. This seems more balanced. Hooray for the developers!