47 replies to this topic

[Nightfirebolt]

Okay, I keep seeing calls to remove Bunker, to rework Bunker, to burn Bunker at the stake, etc., and a lot of generalized statements that more or less say "everybody hates bunker", "everyone wants bunker removed", etc.

 

Well, you're wrong. I don't want Bunker removed. It's my favourite map. Please leave it alone.

 

I'm also not the only one who wants it left alone, so please stop saying that "everybody" hates this map. It's simply not true.

 

My personal feelings aside, there are a lot of good reasons to keep this map, and a lot of good reasons to keep it exactly the way it is. Bunker is the extreme end of a spectrum in Hawken, whereas you could argue that Uptown is the opposite end of the spectrum. What these maps both do well is force people to adapt to situations outside of their comfort zones. Naturally, people hate that. But there is nothing "wrong" with either of these maps. They simply require different tactics and different approaches to succeed at them.

 

One thing I hated about Counterstrike was that everybody wanted to play de_dust and de_aztec ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. And if some of the so-called elite players who could rack up 30/2 K/D ratios on those maps were suddenly thrown into, say, de_piranesi, they would very quickly get their asses handed to them, and then whine and complain that de_piranesi was a "stupid map" and then ragequit.

 

But no, it wasn't a stupid map. It was a great map. The problem was that these players were lazy and refused to master any other style of play.

 

Bunker, similarly is a great map.

 

Why? Because. It is symmetrical, well-balanced, and challenging.

 

Those who complain that it is too open would be well advised to use its many hills, rocks, and structures more effectively.

 

Those who say it's too friendly for air combat would be well advised to stick with their team and concentrate fire on anyone who is unwise enough to take to the air.

 

Those who say it's too hard to sneak up on snipers would be well advised to keep their head low and try walking instead of boosting. Or perhaps take the risk of moving through the bunker in the center of the map in order to quickly cross the distance. Switch to an infil or predator and use their cloaks if you have to. Get creative. It's not impossible.

 

I have never had problems closing distance with a sniper on Bunker, not once. This is because, despite popular belief, the map does in fact have more than enough cover to allow you to do so.

 

If we get rid of Bunker (and Uptown) and make every subsequent map the same basic density of cover, tunnels, small open spaces, etc., all we will have left is a dozen different configurations of what is essentially the exact same map. And I think that would be a damn shame. Diversity is good in a game like this; it keeps things fresh.

 

So let's keep Bunker, okay? And let's keep it the way it is.

 

That is all.

 

EDIT: After reading what people have had to say, I must capitulate and agree that Bunker does need some minor changes in order to fix the spawn-locking/spawnkilling problem that n3onfx described to me. It seems that it does need some more cover points or should be made larger in order to fix this problem.

 

However, this seems to be a problem that only affects high-tier games, and I see this as the only real problem with the map. The other 90% of the complaints I have heard ultimately boil down to playstyle gripes (i.e., "there's not enough cover", "hellfires are OP on this map", "snipers are OP on this map", "i always get stomped"). For these reasons I still maintain that the map shouldn't be removed entirely, nor do I think that the concept of the map should change. Open field maps like this one still have a place in Hawken.

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 14 April 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

That "get good" strawman argument tho... Totally convincing argument that Bunker is balanced.

 

You have any arguments that don't boil down to "You're doing it wrong"?

[M4st0d0n]

Funny thing is, each time I play this map, it's a carousel of stomping. We're progressing clockwise while killing or being killed. MA is even worst. I wonder if it's flushed counterclockwise in the Australian servers.

[Lioot]

Nightfirebolt is the best person I know

 

Bunker is the best map I know

 

Nightfirebolt = Bunker

 

Jokes aside, I do like Bunker too. It offers a challenge to teams and feels especially great if you manage to make a comeback 

[Broham78]

I was disappointed with Bunker and hated Wreckage (aka the bottleneck) when they were released but I certainly wouldn't want them removed. I doubt the devs are even considering such things at the moment.

[Nightfirebolt]

That "get good" strawman argument tho... Totally convincing argument that Bunker is balanced.

 

You have any arguments that don't boil down to "You're doing it wrong"?

 

And what would be your argument?

 

Feel free to share it.

 

By the way, I never used "get good" as an argument.

 

To clarify, my argument can be summed up in this one sentence:

 

Just because Bunker doesn't mesh well with your playstyle doesn't mean that it's a bad map.

 

Same goes for Uptown.

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 14 April 2015 - 02:18 AM.

[DerMax]

For lower MMR brackets the map's not good because people don't know how to play around hellfires and seekers. This problem is aggravated by the fact that it's difficult to see them against the map's white background.

 

For higher MMR brackets the map's not good because two competent snipers can wreck you or force you to spend a lot of time repairing or staying in one position, which is not fun. I've played Bunker against iDim + karnak sharpshooting me, and it was bleh xD

 

I don't think the map should be removed, though. A little bit more cover would do the trick.

Edited by DerMax, 14 April 2015 - 02:19 AM.

[Houruck]

Even the creator of the map intended it as an experiment, he never wanted it to be released like that.

 

And what would be your argument?

 

Feel free to share it.

 

Map size

The playable area is way too small for most of the game modes (but it still has a lot of unnecessary detailed parts outside of the boundaries).

 

Silo locations

Triangular MA maps are inferior because the game usually boils down to a merry-go-round, with no real strategy involved. You basically spawn into silo range almost every time after you die. You can cover the distance between them boosting with one fuel tank. Siege mode (you can load it on private servers) is only good for a laughter.

 

Lack of cover

The slopes and those boxes are not sufficient enough. I get it, I love to utilise hills on the map (just like the pyramid on Last Eco) too, but that is no way balanced. If the enemy team has two half decent sharpshooters they can spawn kill A-classes. You can spam with a Rocketeer and easily arc the Hellfires over almost every cover on the map.

[n3onfx]

It has nothing to do with playstyle.

 

The problem with Bunker is twofold; size and visibility.

 

The two together make so that if one team manages to get a wipe on the other team while losing nobody or only 1-2 players, spawnlocking has a very good change to happen until the end of the game. This means that players on the team having been wiped will spawn somewhere on Bunker, and given that's it's small and you can see from one end of the map to the other in some spots, or every spot in the map from the center, you can see exactly where the enemy team spawns.

 

Meaning you can kill enemies just after they spawn, and the enemy team will never have a chance to regroup, basically locking down the spawn-points of the enemy team.

 

I've seen it happen again and again, and it has nothing to do with skill. Maybe it happens more in higher level servers because players have better awareness of their surroundings and can find the spawning players even faster, but it definitely happens and gives for horrible 40 - 16 matches or similar.

 

It's not about playstyle, it's about a map design that doesn't work with Hawken. I remember a while ago the guy who was responsible for making maps in Hawken gave a small AMA on the Hawken Reddit, and he actually brought it up himself; Bunker is not in a finished state for Hawken, it's not a map that can work with Hawken.

 

If you like the open playstyle, then you need a much bigger map. If you like the size, then you need a lot more verticality and places on the map where you can hide. But the combination of small size and nowhere to hide makes it a horrendous map for this game, there's honestly no arguing about it, it's been verified again and again.

[Nightfirebolt]

 

... spawnlocking has a very good change to happen until the end of the game. This means that players on the team having been wiped will spawn somewhere on Bunker, and given that's it's small and you can see from one end of the map to the other in some spots, or every spot in the map from the center, you can see exactly where the enemy team spawns.

 

Meaning you can kill enemies just after they spawn, and the enemy team will never have a chance to regroup, basically locking down the spawn-points of the enemy team.

 

If you like the open playstyle, then you need a much bigger map. If you like the size, then you need a lot more verticality and places on the map where you can hide. But the combination of small size and nowhere to hide makes it a horrendous map for this game, there's honestly no arguing about it, it's been verified again and again.

 

Interesting.

 

Well, I see your point. I hadn't heard about the spawn-locking problem until just now. But based on what you're saying, I would have to agree that Bunker should be expanded to be larger and/or have some extra cover points thrown in to protect people who are spawning in.

 

I just don't think Hawken should be entirely free of a good, solid, open-field map like this. That was my original point.

 

If they must tweak it, then I would ask that they at least keep the map's concept intact.

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 14 April 2015 - 02:47 AM.

[PepeKenobi]

IMHO, Bunker is fine and great as it is.

 

The enemy team plays plays on it running clockwise all together? Then wait for them sitcking together too or try playing "in" the structure of the middle.

 

Just my 2 cents on this.

[teeth_03]

I don't like bunker because its too damn small, for the same reason I don't like Shipment in CoD4.

I do however wish more maps had "triangular" silo setups just to mix things up. If larger maps were setup like that, it would be less "Merry-Go-Round-ish"

The thing with Bunker, is I have to play on it way too much. It seems to be the one map that comes up the most while my favorite map, Prosk, seems to come up the least.

I don't have any issues it being there, but it should come up less often.

[BaronSaturday]

Okay, I keep seeing calls to remove Bunker, to rework Bunker, to burn Bunker at the stake, etc., and a lot of generalized statements that more or less say "everybody hates bunker", "everyone wants bunker removed", etc.

Well, you're wrong. I don't want Bunker removed. It's my favourite map. Please leave it alone.

I'm also not the only one who wants it left alone, so please stop saying that "everybody" hates this map. It's simply not true.

My personal feelings aside, there are a lot of good reasons to keep this map, and a lot of good reasons to keep it exactly the way it is. Bunker is the extreme end of a spectrum in Hawken, whereas you could argue that Uptown is the opposite end of the spectrum. What these maps both do well is force people to adapt to situations outside of their comfort zones. Naturally, people hate that. But there is nothing "wrong" with either of these maps. They simply require different tactics and different approaches to succeed at them.

One thing I hated about Counterstrike was that everybody wanted to play de_dust and de_aztec ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. And if some of the so-called elite players who could rack up 30/2 K/D ratios on those maps were suddenly thrown into, say, de_piranesi, they would very quickly get their asses handed to them, and then whine and complain that de_piranesi was a "stupid map" and then ragequit.

But no, it wasn't a stupid map. It was a great map. The problem was that these players were lazy and refused to master any other style of play.

Bunker, similarly is a great map.

Why? Because. It is symmetrical, well-balanced, and challenging.

Those who complain that it is too open would be well advised to use its many hills, rocks, and structures more effectively.

Those who say it's too friendly for air combat would be well advised to stick with their team and concentrate fire on anyone who is unwise enough to take to the air.

Those who say it's too hard to sneak up on snipers would be well advised to keep their head low and try walking instead of boosting. Or perhaps take the risk of moving through the bunker in the center of the map in order to quickly cross the distance. Switch to an infil or predator and use their cloaks if you have to. Get creative. It's not impossible.

I have never had problems closing distance with a sniper on Bunker, not once. This is because, despite popular belief, the map does in fact have more than enough cover to allow you to do so.

If we get rid of Bunker (and Uptown) and make every subsequent map the same basic density of cover, tunnels, small open spaces, etc., all we will have left is a dozen different configurations of what is essentially the exact same map. And I think that would be a damn shame. Diversity is good in a game like this; it keeps things fresh.

So let's keep Bunker, okay? And let's keep it the way it is.

That is all.

Hey. You and I carried a Siege on Last Eco from a 285 to 2000 to a 60 to 0 tonight!

I agree with you on most of this. The one thing I would change is how spawning is handled. Unfortunately you spawn in a pit which means that the enemy team can lock you in from high ground.

Aside from that, I love Bunker. Second only to Last Eco. It takes me out of my comfort zone. I'm a challenge seeker and for a person who owns two techs and only plays those, it's a challenging map. It ours my dodge game to it's ceiling. It's one of 3 maps that can put me out of breath. I'm sure I make some funny faces too and we need more funny faces.

Edited by SaturdayGhede, 14 April 2015 - 03:15 AM.

[CraftyDus]

The dod port of piranesi is in my top 3 favorite 1.3/1.6 maps.
And people are still hung up on maps. For example the swapping of train for nuke in the csgo active pool last week. Some ppl lost their minds.
Bunker for all it's faults has......balance.
Seige on that map has never a solitary dull moment. MA is a constant frenzy as well.
I'm never one to complain about maps in any comp fps. They're all good.

[BaronSaturday]

The dod port of piranesi is in my top 3 favorite 1.3/1.6 maps.
And people are still hung up on maps. For example the swapping of train for nuke in the csgo active pool last week. Some ppl lost their minds.
Bunker for all it's faults has......balance.
Seige on that map has never a solitary dull moment. MA is a constant frenzy as well.
I'm never one to complain about maps in any comp fps. They're all good.

Bunker is not in the Siege pool.

[Kittles]

 

That map offers no challenge or creativity when it comes to utilizing the map space to overcome your enemy. It's just a brain-dead, long-range, spam-fest.

[Houruck]

Bunker is not in the Siege pool.

But you can set it up on a private server.

[BaronSaturday]

But you can set it up on a private server.

Shush! I forgot about private servers!

=/

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

Bunker is not in the Siege pool.

 

 

NM, Houruck ninja'd me to the answer.

Edited by Call_Me_Ishmael, 14 April 2015 - 03:25 AM.

[Ninja_Goat]

Siege on Bunker is lots of fun if a bit campy,  Siege is the game mode most likely to feel unbalanced as it relies on 1.Skill and 2.Knowledge of the game mode.

 

Bunker Siege has a higher risk of than most maps, due to 1 EU point right underneath the AA gun inside Bunker.

 

My 2 cents is put it on a fixed server or 2 for a community test and gauge how people feel about it going into the rotation,  and put Bazaar in that too.

 

 

Here's a recent game on the KDR Server for those who.... have never seen it / are interested.

 

 

[Houruck]

I do however wish more maps had "triangular" silo setups just to mix things up. If larger maps were setup like that, it would be less "Merry-Go-Round-ish"

You mean "linear", right?

Aside from that, I love Bunker. Second only to Last Eco.

Great example, because Last Eco shares some of these design flaws.

MA is a constant frenzy as well.

Exactly, and I would say that is a problem at a objective based game mode.
 

I'm never one to complain about maps in any comp fps. They're all good.

IMHO, Bunker is fine and great as it is.

Spoiler

[Panzermanathod]

I think Bunker should be left alone. If anything, it could be made larger, but I admit I've rarely seen much of an issue with cover. I agree with the original poster that Bunker should represent one extreme of Hawken in terms of stages.

Edited by Panzermanathod, 14 April 2015 - 04:04 AM.

[BaronSaturday]

You mean "linear", right?

Great example, because Last Eco shares some of these design flaws.

Exactly, and I would say that is a problem at a objective based game mode.

Spoiler

You keep saying "design flaws" as if it's empirical. It's actually not. What you see as design flaws, I see as challenges. But I like challenges. It's okay if you want every map to be the same, but I dom't. I want a very large and diverse pool of maps.

[M4st0d0n]

Long range fight in Hawken... Enough said.

 

Wreckage is better. Well half of it at least. You wont see players outside the wreck in high tier because the open air and lack of corners are toxic.

[Houruck]

You keep saying "design flaws" as if it's empirical. It's actually not. What you see as design flaws, I see as challenges. But I like challenges. It's okay if you want every map to be the same, but I dom't. I want a very large and diverse pool of maps.

I can respect that. But as soon as I can edit the map rotation on the CA server again, I will remove it.

You wont see players outside the wreck in high tier because the open air and lack of corners are toxic.

They actually are, for certain classes.

[PepeKenobi]

Maybe some few big cages here and there on Bunker might make it more appealing to certain pilots.

 

But again, I think Bunker is fine, pretty good map and offers decent and fun gameplay as it is now.

[dorobo]

Well you are right kind off but than give me a vote option to choose map and what if then no one ever gets to play bunker cause majority would vote for something else.. 

 

btw it can be fun 

[Superkamikazee]

That "get good" strawman argument tho... Totally convincing argument that Bunker is balanced.

 

You have any arguments that don't boil down to "You're doing it wrong"?

 

Is a really strong argument, and used a lot when someone questions certain aspects of this game. 

Edited by Superkamikazee, 14 April 2015 - 05:04 AM.

[Sylhiri]

Bunker promotes long range spam and it's not very fun to play with or against, even pubs know to stack Sharpshooter/Reaper. All other maps generally consist of long range and short range areas while Bunker does not. I love Uptown but even I admit that it favors my favorite mech but I do think it needs changes because it favors my mech. No map should favor only a handful of mechs, that's just horrible design.

 

I'm sorry I can't give a thumbs up to a map that was made and tested in a day just to fulfill player's hunger for any kind of new content.

[Houruck]

The title reminded me of this classic.

[M4st0d0n]

I've got a Ropefishy solution for bunker. Mininukes. From orbit. Every few minutes. Whoever's not in the bunker's bunker get decently wiped. Let them puppies fight for it.

[Houruck]

I've got a Ropefishy solution for bunker. Mininukes. From orbit. Every few minutes. Whoever's not in the bunker's bunker get decently wiped. Let them puppies fight for it.

A Half-Life DM map called Crossfire actually featured something similar. It had a bunker with a big red button in it. If you pressed it air raid sirens went off all around the map and the bunker doors slowly closed. After the countdown ended everyone died outside of it. I loved that map! The bunker even had two turret towers. I always loved maps with fun features like that. Early HAWKEN videos featured static turret towers on Andromeda (now Prosk) so I guess they wanted to spice things up but later decided against it.

Edited by Houruck, 14 April 2015 - 06:40 AM.

[CraftyDus]

Bunker is not in the Siege pool.

 

I've played more bunker seige matches than you've kills in a crt-recruit.

[crockrocket]

 

 

I don't think the map should be removed, though. A little bit more cover would do the trick.

Raise the height of the hills a tad?

 

In any case, I still stand by my belief that getting new maps is more important than "fixing" old ones.

[Brooklyn77]

Bunker is  a lazy map makers map son. Make it a siege map like that Wednesday pub match thing I played last week on TeamSpeak. Siege on that map is awesome!

[Brooklyn77]

A Half-Life DM map called Crossfire actually featured something similar. It had a bunker with a big red button in it. If you pressed it air raid sirens went off all around the map and the bunker doors slowly closed. After the countdown ended everyone died outside of it. I loved that map! The bunker even had two turret towers. I always loved maps with fun features like that. Early HAWKEN videos featured static turret towers on Andromeda (now Prosk) so I guess they wanted to spice things up but later decided against it.

This was a great map and the best version of TF.

[petracles]

But dat moment when the sole designer of Bunker from the old Dev team says that, "[he] made bunker in a day, it was an experiment more than anything."

 

Check out the AMA if you missed it > http://www.reddit.co...n_for_2013_ama/

 

He also talked a bit about the other side of Bunker's value, in that it provides good variety to HWK's map pool.

 

Quote: "It's the old problem of every map being the same or every map being different. As the only level designer I pushed myself hard go not remake 10 facilities, that would have been easy. You have to understand 1) adhesive is small 2) every match is unique, meaning we can't play internally the same way people do live (I do both and it's a huge difference)."

 

I say there's more to be gained by the players of Hawken with more focus on new map releases, rather than touch-ups of older ones. When we have more variety, then we can get into nit-picking.

Edited by petracles, 14 April 2015 - 12:37 PM.

[Nightfirebolt]

I've updated my original post with an edit. I really have no choice but to agree that Bunker needs either 1) more cover points or 2) more land area in order to prevent the spawn-locking problem that happens in high tier matches.

 

Other than that, though, I don't see any big problems. I think the concept of the map is fine and shouldn't be changed.

Edited by Nightfirebolt, 14 April 2015 - 12:55 PM.

[Houruck]

This was a great map and the best version of TF.

Man, this is not TF classic, it is from HL.

[Sylhiri]

I say there's more to be gained by the players of Hawken with more focus on new map releases, rather than touch-ups of older ones. When we have more variety, then we can get into nit-picking.

 

At what point exactly does touching up happen if the focus is new map releases? Creating new maps takes a **** ton more time and money then it does making sure old maps are balanced. The new shiny map smell doesn't last nearly as long as it takes to make the map or else you end up getting a rush job like Bunker. I would rather have 8 refreshed, balanced maps then 2 more Bunkers. Especially since the only way to avoid them is to own a private server or leave the room.