ONS-Ahebban
Map Info
	File Name ons-ahebban.zip Author Zoo Gametype UT2k4 Onslaught Date Added 04-07-2005 File Version 1.00 File Size 5.42 mb Player Count 16 - 3 Map Description None Review Rating 7 User Rating 8 Overall Rating 8.0
Review
Reviewer ArcadiaVincennes Awe Score:  2.0/3 Date 06-17-2005 Build Score:  2.5/3 Review Schema Cast Score:  2.5/3 User Point:  +1 Overall Score:  8.0/10 ONS-Ahebban (UT2004) Take 2. :) Due to community and author feedback regarding inaccuracies in the original review, and finding out the map is often played online, I felt a re-review was in order. Especially because what I learned was inaccurate could have an influence on the scoring - and because I do not often have the opportunity to play review-queue maps online. My apologies to the author for the incorrect statements in the original and the quality of the review in general. I have re-written and re-scored it from scratch and remember - the final point out of ten is decided by the users - not me. ONS-Ahebban is a mostly exterior mid-to-large ONS map utilising a frozen Salisbury plain theme dotted with caves. Certainly wintery in feel, and creative in terms of the juxtaposition between indoor and outdoor areas, the map is a little desultory in terms of AVA but makes up for it on the gameplay side. Note: This map makes use of the ECE vehicles so you should ensure you have the ECE package before attempting play. I would reccomend to the author that he support the 'unofficial' naming convention of including 'ECE' in the map name when using materials from the ECE package. AWE: 2.0 When addressing texturing in an outdoor map, one is usually relegated to discussing the terrain texturing however here we also have the opportunity to address some interior areas. First, the terrain is nicely textured with rolling hills capped off with accumulated snow. The sides of the hills have been textured with an erosion-inspired dirt texture which accentuates the difference between the snow on the 'roads' and the snow on top of the hills. Almost as if the wind winding through the wills has scoured the sides of the hills clean and left the tops to fend for themselves. There is a seperate snow texture used for the road/lower areas that is just different enough to delineate them but at the same time blends very well with the other snow texture and the erosion texture. However, I get the impression that the least amount of texture layers possible were used and a couple more spotted thrugh the map would have aided in rounding out the terrain theme better as well as providing locational clues for players. The Castles and associated fortifications are custom static meshes, built by this author or not I do not know - they're not redited in the readme. The UV mapping on these was well done and certainly lends credence to the medieval theme. Some other custom meshes dotted around the castle, were also UV'd well and nothing seems disjointed. I will say that despite the winter setting, there is not a spec of snow or ice anywhere on or in the castle, except the terrain courtyard and frozen moat around it. This brings the believability down a notch and it would have been nice to see a the castle as entrenched in winter as its surroundings are. The small fortress-like side nodes also suffer the same lack of winterizing despite their good UV mapping and integration with the terrain. Finally, the caves are custom meshes as well and are UV mapped well. However, the texturing is just the same texture repeated over the entire surface and a little more variation would have helped entrench it more firmly in 'unreality'. Also in terms of the caves, the projected textures used in the health grotto were a very nice touch however I found it inconsistent that they were used in that location, but not used in either of the node grottos. I can understand resisting placing them in the node grottos in terms of framerate and optimization but one must also consider consistency of design. The lighting for the most part is quite ambient. One of the problems facing exterior ONS maps is how to light the huge landmasses created without making it all one color/brightness/saturation. The author here placed two sunlight actors high in the sky over the center map with two slightly different colors. The effect created is a winter landscape at noon with only very subtle shadows to be seen. This gives the impression of the same quantity of light shining on every inch of the map with the same intensity. An excellent way to add drama, depth, and lighting ambience to a map is to play with the contrasts between light and shadow which can be affected even in an outdoor map. Placing the sunlight actors lower in the sky, or skybox, altering their rotation to remain fixed on the skyzoneinfoactor, and then playing with their intensities would create deep long shadows from the castles and hills and provide a dusk/dawn setting. Even if the sunlight was moved at least to the side, some slight but interesting shadows would be cast from the trees, hills, and buildings thereby adding some drama. As for the non-sky light, the author has placed torches through the castles and in the cave shafts and braziers up on poles outside the castles and outside the tops of the caves. These all give a nice enough glow to the area/walls immediately next to them but in all the outside areas, the light color is similar to the sky color and gets 'washed out' to a certain extent. An added light source with a tighter radius and set to non-incidence would have helped highlight the light 'hotspots' better and would have increased the contrast between sky and torch light. Plus, why are there torhes lit outside when it's noon? As it is, they don't reduce the 'ambient light' feeling from the sky as much as they could have. As for the caves, the illumination is provided by torches, and the blue glows coming from the crystals dotted along the walls. The effect, again, is lighting that's a bit too ambient and the only feeling we get that the light is supplied by the crystals is from the lovely blue glow about them. Also, I think an opportunity to indicate that a lot of light is coming through the hole in the cave ceiling was lost. Perhaps a static mesh sunbeam angled in the direction of the sunlight actors at the least? Otherwise there was no lights that were overbright or oversaturated, the coronas were sized well, and the outside orange/brown color was balanced well with the cool blue colors inside the caves and provided a nice lighting contrast between the interior and exterior areas. Like texturing, architecture in an ONS map largely refers to terrain so again, that's where I'll start. The terrain is composed of gently rolling hills dotted by stands of trees, a steep gully with a rock bridge and sublimating ice underneath, with castles, fortifications, and caves dotted around it and a megalithic circle protecting one node. All the non-terrain work is integrated well into the terrain and obviously much work went into smoothing out the playable terrain areas. Nothing's too steep to climb up, except the gully and terrain immediately surrounding the cave entrances, and nothing's going to unexpectedly halt your vehicle while zooming across the map. The medieval buildings' architecture is quite convincing and I can't really complain about any of in terms of style or execution. The 'Stonehenge' grouping is nicely done as well and harkens back to a day when all the stones were upright and capped off. Perhaps having one or some fallen caps would have been a nice touch, especially in terms of using them for players to climb on top of the ring, however, in terms of keeping in line with the immaculate condition of the fortifications, nothing's out of line in terms of theme or architecture. The sublimating ice in the gully is a nice touch and I feel sorry for the poor soul trapped under it. However, a shaded gully would be the coldest area, besides the caves, so the sublimation would occur on ice patches in direct sunlight - not the lowest point in the shade. However, this is nitpicking and I'm not lowering the score for that. The caves are a bit of a dissappointment. Yes, they resemble caves and the cave theme is solidly rooted, but I think there's much missed opportunity with them. The caves are pretty much stone tubes connecting the outer areas to the central gourd-shaped node area with a hole in the roof directly over the node. There are a few desultory stalagmites and stalactites, some large crystals growing out of the sides, mushrooms growing out of the bottom and sides, and the bottom is filled with a shallow pool of water. Despite the common cave characteristics providing opportunity for all of these, I feel the winter setting would have rendered the water frozen, and the mushrooms in too cold a locale to grow. This may be unreal, but 'unreality' builds on suspension of disbelief which, in turn, is rooted in 'reality'. I would not expect any Unreal cave system to look completely realistic by far and there is room for artistic license, but based on the above, and the lack of entrances to the caves, I found them a little lacking. In the two different sets of caves - the ones in back of the bases, and the two in the center - the one close to the base have, essentially, two entrances (one is temporarily divided in two by a wall), and the ones in the center, three. Due to the branching nature of caves, and in terms of gameplay, I would have liked to have seen at least three entrances in each set, rather than in just one set. Overall I find the caves just convincing enough but with a lot of room left over to 'enhance' their theme. To put it all together, I thought that the textures, from the terrain, to the custom meshes was very good overall with just a bit lacking in variation for the terrain and caves. The lighting was mostly ambient lit throughout the map from the noon-day setting of the exterior, to the blue-hued cave interiors. The architecture of the terrain was very nice - very supporting of a rolling English countryside - and the castles, fortifications, and Stonehenge were well-realized as well. Despite the clarity of theme, I was a bit dissappointed in the caves and thought that the author missed many opportunities to enhance the cave setting. In general a good execution of AVA but mostly just lacking the final polish that would really provoke the 'wow' factor that many maps strive for. Nothing's done badly - in fact I would say the AVA is above average - but it just doesn't hit the sweet spot one looks for in each aspect - the textureing, lighting, and the architecture. BUILD: 2.5 The build here is pretty good. There are no HOMs, but their shouldn't be seeing as there's a minimal amount of brushwork. The transporters work well, the pathing is done well, the Static Meshes are integrated well into the terrain, the terrain is smoothed very well, and there's no mysterious falling through the terrain. There are no zones to speak of, other than the sky and play area so optimization relied heavily on antiportals, embedded brushes, zonefog, and culldistances. The antiportals are placed well and do their job appropriately - I can't really see adding or expanding on them in many ways. The only thing that may have helped would have been to turn the two pairs of angled antiportal/BSP combos next to the center nodes into two large triangles. The author did place brushes underneath the terrain to occulde network actors as antiportals do not do this. Sneakily enough the author placed the antiportals in the brushes which was a nice touch, although it made the brushes a little hard to spot from a non-perspecive view. The various torch emitters at the bases and in the braziers on poles were optimized using culldistances. Physics volumes were placed around certain items, like torches to endure fire damage is dealt. However, blocking volumes were not placed around many items at all, such as the torches, so that players would not 'catch' on them and get stuck in the normal course of play. Using blocking volumes as well around many items, such as the torches, could also have increased the optimization by combining this with removing the collision on the torch meshes. This method of collision optimization also could have been applied to a few other meshes around the map. Reducing the number of surfaces/edges the players have the opportunity to come in contact with always helps increase FPS. Another optimization method the author could have used is to use the terrain visibility tool to 'erase' the ring of hills around the map past the blocking volume, and replace them with a new terrain with a smaller terrain area that could then be scaled up and shaped to reform the hills, and then the interior area already covered by the first terrain could have been 'erased'. Thereby the map would have reduced polys visible by the large terrain triangles, but would still retain the illusion that the map extends beyond the fog and blocking volumes. One last optimization method would have been to break up the custom meshes a little more. I think breaking the health cave up into three pieces would have helped the antiporals embedded in the terrain nearby do their job better, and possibly breaking up the castle into a few different sections - however I'm less convinced about this one. In general, the optimization methods were good and well-applied however the framerate does drop below retail numbers occasionally - especially in terms of the 16 - 32 player count reccomended - and utilizing these other optimization tricks may have put the FPS back up into retail territory more often. Another note on volumes, the author did create Named Volumes to delineate the verious portions of the map and the physics volumes for the ice patches were well-done. Finally, the ambient sounds were well-conceived but, again, somewhat desultory. Around the map we have the chittering of winter birds, the occasional howl of a wolf, and the intermittent screech of a hawk (where is the hawk? - could have used an emitter). But no where could I find a wind noise which I would think would fit right in. In a bleak rolling landscape I would expect to hear wind at the top of the fortifications, the tops of the hills, while crossing the rock bridge, or perhaps a higher velocity, higher pitch wind moving through the gully. On the other hand some nice locational sounds were used like the hum of the nodes - although perhaps a smaller radius could have been used for some of these - or like the squeek of the metal of the hanging cage gently swaying in the wind (what wind?). The braziers on top of the poles had a nice fire sound attached to them although I had to get awfully close to hear them - increase the radius perhaps?, however the torches around the castle had no crackling fire sound attached to them. The caves were soundscaped with dripping, echoey water and appropriate splashing was available to the ears. So the map has sound running through it - good. And some places have locational sounds attached - good. But I think some missed opportunities in terms of wind and perhaps a triggered sound of ice creaking and cracking in the gully or around the moats, for example, were missing. Again, a nice job overall, but lacking the finishing touches. Overall the build is quite good with everything that was used working appropriately. Due to the dips in FPS below retail, some furthur optimization could have been applied and I found the sound, again, better than average, but lacking the final polish. CAST: 2.5 The layout uses a few uncommon techniques to promote different gameplay here. First item of note is that there are no pinch-points. The layout is similar to ONS-Dawn's where there are always two routes to the enemy's core. This means that a team that is down to the core does not have to force all their attacks on one node which opens up comeback options a little. The second item of note is that the first two accessible nodes are actually placed behind the base - not close to each other but at angles away from it. And one of these two is located in one of the caves I spoke about earlier. Although I'm sure I've seen this setup before somewhere, it's rarely used and some would argue that it aides the team trying to make a comeback by reducing the distance the defenders have to travel from their base, compared to the distance the offensive team has to travel, coming from their closest node. The types of vehicles available at the closest offensive nodes also come into play in this consideration in terms of their speed/damage potential ratio. Slower, more powerful vehicles would take some time arriving at a node close to the base and would be vulnerable to attack from the defenders at the base, or if passing outside the base's realm of influence, would probably arrive as the defenders were (hopefully) on their way to capture the node the vehicle originated at. Whereas a fast vehicle, would arrive fairly quickly, but in general are weaker so that it would be fairly easy, in comparison, for the defenders to destroy it. However, the fast vehicles at the 'center' nodes are in caves so some maneuvering to exit the cave and traverse the landscape adds some extra 'delay' time. The third item of note in terms of layout, is that two of the center nodes on one side, are both cave nodes, but they are linked together underground as well as above ground. The interesting twist here is that the author made the underground path available only to infantry. This delays traveling between these two nodes so as not to make both easy push-overs and send the attackers driving straight through to the core nodes. To travel between them one must choose one of four routes, each of which causes a 'delay' by forced landscape navigation, despite the proximity of the two nodes. The travel delay allows the defenders time to prepare and set up spider mines and/or other such deterents. The final item of note involving layout is the megalith feature. Two interesting features of this is that the shortest route is restricted to infantry only, and the second is that all of the vehicles provided in the map can fit through the holes in the cave ceilings.Surrounding the other, single, center node, is two circles of stone. The inner circle is taller and contains four pairs of stones holding up lintels. The outer right is complete and consists of smaller stones, again holding up lintels. All of the stones are large enough to walk/run/jump/dodge between but small enough that all the vehicles are denies access by the outer circle of stones. You may be able to get the scorpian in but afterwards it's largely useless as there's little room to maneuver. Placed high on a plateau with low hilltops on either side to protect it, the node is very difficult to attack successfully using any of the land-locked vehicles. The scorpian can be guided in carefully but you'll lose the advantage of maneuverability. The manta can zoom over the stones and into the center but its movement, and therefore its advantage, is stripped away. Players on foot can fairly easily defend the node against most of the vehicles by weaving amoung the stones although large armament splash damage is often an issue, as is keeping line-of-sight on AVRILS. However, the node is very susceptible to air attack and as long as there's a 'free' node next to it, on either side, expect a lot of action. It's turns out it's a fairly easy node to take down, but a difficult one to keep posession of. So you have a balance between the dual cave nodes that are easier to hold onto, yet require more work to take control of, and the single stone node that is relatively easy to take control of, but difficult to hold onto. There is a downside to the layout, however. Most ONS maps are symmetrical - as they should be in order to discourage a particluar landscape form, or geomtry, or something similar from providing one team with an advantage/disadvantage. This symmetry does provide value to gameplay but is also a detriment. As each side looks exactly the same with the only obvious difference being the blue/red colors at the bases, it's fairly easy to get disoriented at certain spots in the map. Landmarking a map - whether it's DM, CTF, ONS, or any other gametype is an important feature in level design and perfect symmetry destroys this for half of a map. True, with ONS, the radar map aids in making this less of an issue but still, thought should be put towards subtle visual changes that don't change the physical layout. Variations in terrain texture, different subtle emitters, different light colors, projectors, different building textures can all help differentiate areas without impacting gameplay. Location on any map, regardless of gametype should be instantly apparent. The radar map should be used primarily as node status and secondarily as a navigation backup. After all - anything that takes your eyes off the main screen - even for a moment or two - is leaving you open to attack for that amount of time. Another slight downside to the map is the cave entrance arrangement. As mentioned previously, the caves to the rear of the bases have the ceiling opening and one main entrance bisected by a relatively thin wall. Technically two side entrances, one could argue that it's one considering one can see up both sides to where they join and can therefore see anything approaching no matter which side they use. The point is that, like in other gametypes, there should always be at least 2 exits from every room/area with three preffered and not in the same wall/direction. In these caves we have two exits and yes, they're in different directions, however, there's no opportunity to 'sneak up from behind' anyone defending the cave because it is possible to position oneself so that most of one's view covers both entrances. This means you pretty much know where the enemy is going to be coming from at any given moment. I think this has a surprisingly minimal gameplay impact in this map but it is worth mentioning. Through the combination of some somewhat uncommon arrangements, the author has created a layout that balances out very well and encourages the potential for comebacks, teamwork, and different attack/defense styles/strengths and strategies. Overall, quite the interesting variety of strategies can be put to work in the map. The vehicle loadout is also pretty well balanced. Normally the heavies on an ONS map, the Goliaths only spawn in the bases, there's only 1 per base, and, due to size restrictions, there's only one available base exit. Also limited to base spawning is the Hellbender - so mobile defense placements will have to be carefully considered before bringing the Hellbender out of the base. The bases also sport a raptor and, again, limited to base spawnings, the Cicada. There are a couple more raptors spread amound the nodes but the majority of vehicles on the map are scorpians and mantas for fast travel between the nodes. The stonehenge node provides the main heavy armament found in the map seeing as it spawns an SPMA and Phoenix. Despite the distance between nodes, walking is not so bad. However if you find yourself wanting a vehicle, it's usually relatively easy to teleport around and find one, despite the large player count. The vehicle variation and tendency towards faster, lighter vehicles keeps the play moving and the relative barreness of the landscape keeps the flow moving. Limiting the larger vehicles to the bases and restricting their exit is an interesting tactic and usually means that if they're going to be used, the player in question must have a distinct purpose in mind for them - there's no wily-nilly goliath spam in this map. The cave nodes are somewhat easy to attack from the air as AVRILS exiting the cave can be lost by breaking line-of-sight with the players within the cave. On the other hand if the players teleport out of the cave, then the aircraft become fairly vulnerable due to the lack of features to quickly hide behind. The cave nodes certainly promote teamwork in repelling attackers. If someone manages to get a goliath up the embankments and then dropped through the hole in the cave ceiling, you'll see the online equivalent of a beehive struck by a rock. Profound momentary confusion, but then all the players quickly gang up together and swarm the goliath. Scorpians and mantas entering the cave are also at risk especially if defenders employ linked link-gun tactics. However, most vehicles entering the cave almost immediately suffer an offensive penalty from the lack of area to maneuver properly. There's enough ground to drive and turn around but it's a straight shot to get in and out so trying to escape in a vehicle under attack usually doesn't do one so well. The fortified nodes are a bit easier to deal with in terms of attacking. Although, like the caves, the nodes are somewhat closed in, there are more aereal attack options and opportunities to get out of line of sight of AVRILS. Ground vehicles must also be careful in terms of maneuverability but unlike the caves, there's more than one entrance in different directions so it becomes easier to successfully escape and regroup. In general the vehicle loadout promotes fast flowing gameplay and teamwork to counter the vehiclular onslaught. The heavies are restricted both in number and ease-of-use which encourages skillfull use of them and keeps the 'tank-spam' to a minimum. As for the overall gameplay value itself, I believe the impression you'll get here is largely going to depend on whether you play with bots, casual ONS players, or 'professionals'. Although this can be said for just about any ONS map, I think the difference in experiences will be more evident on this map more than any others so far. The bots function well and will give you a hard time. At no time were they playing duck-duck-goose with the vehicles, they launched air attacks on all the nodes, and were aggressive in just the right places at the right times. However, my overall impression is that of challenging, yet mediocre, ONS play. No bad gameplay - you'll have a good enough time. It's just the bots don't seem to use the map to its full potential and I get the feeling this goes deeper than just AI playing different than humans. I get the impression that the map is geared straight and true for online play and that bots were a secondary priority. Playing with bots only for the first review I made, I was satisfied enough and I thought it contained average or slightly better gameplay. I didn't even try to find it online because most of the maps I review cannot be found online and I try to maintain some consistency in play setting when I review. However, if you load up the map with enough casual players, then things begin to get interesting. More thoughtful strategies come into play and more interesting situations develop. Odds are, you'll find the action more harried and challenging and will certainly enjoy the experience. Finally, if you play with expert players - for example those who helped the author with testing the map over at the Titan 32 man ONS server - then you'll find the most challenging gameplay with the widest variety of strategies and tactics used. Despite being geared for this, one mustn't forget that non-experts and bots-only matches will be played on one's map and one must therefore scale the gameplay for this. I myself am not sure what the author could have done to promote this scaling with this map - and I'm still not sure whether the quality of my many bots-only experiences were due to the bot code, or to the level design, or a combination of both. Perhaps adding more pathing around the cave ceiling holes to inspire bots to fire down inside them as well as use the teleporter. But I do believe that one must address both groups - online and offline players - when designing any kind of map. The optimization, as mentioned earlier, is good and does a fairly decent job of allieviating FPS strain. However, more could have been done to try to bring the lower spots up to retail levels. Conisdering that the map is built to accomodate a very heavy player load, those people with older PCs might experience enough of a drag to make gameplay a little difficult. Still, the impact would be minor and reserved for certain areas of the map. Put together the gameplay here is good against bots and very good against humans. A little more optimization, a little more design aspects directed towards non-online play, and a slight rework of the cave entrance arrange would have been better in my opinion. Still, it would be difficult not to have fun on this map. In sum, the texturing, lighting, and architecture are all solid but a little unpolished, the build is also solid but again a little unpolished, and the gameplay is solid with bots, but much better with humans. A must-download for ONS fans and online players, and a generally reccomended download for everyone else.
Map Comments
Kantham 04-11-2005 06:44 PM MDT   Not bad. Where do you learned vextex painting? (if you used maya) EDIT: ok , i doubt it too. Zoo 04-09-2005 02:44 PM MDT   I used 3Ds Max by following Hourences tutorial here: http://www.planetunreal.com/phalanx/tut's/tutorial_sae1.htm Manticore 05-14-2005 01:23 AM MDT Rating: 7   Good gameplay including against bots. The visual style of the architecture reminds me a bit of some of the Angelheart maps. Good job.... PHa-Q 06-02-2005 10:58 AM MDT Rating: 9   This is one of my favourite ONS maps, if not the most favourite ONS map (3v4R). IMHO, you really need to play this with 32 players to get the full effect out of this map. The visuals are nothing jaw dropping, but fit nicely and have a nice plain feel to them. The theme runs throughtout and nothing that obscures anything from the players view or makes anything hard to see. Good amount of vehicles, but even if you do happen to get stranded without a vehicle (due to mindless team players >:) then walking between nodes is really not that grueling in this map. The tunnel between the two large caves (with the megahealth) actually beeing a fun foot path to take. Even though there are caves, they can be entered from above which really is a good game play aspect. I have only seen a few servers play this map - but if you are in europe you should really try and play this on the 32 player titan server, as they seem to play it a lot there and imho this is the way it needs to be played, with 32 players. http://ut2004.titaninternet.co.uk The only reason this does'nt get a 10 is because the gfx aren't jaw-dropping, but besides that, everything is exactly to my liking. Awesome map. [every vehcile on that map fits through the opening in the cave roof] not the best of reviews i have to say. Feels like you did'nt play the map too long. Then again, I've played it loads... rhiridflaidd 06-02-2005 04:07 PM MDT Rating: 9.5   This review is way wide of the mark. I know nothing of awe and build, but a lot about ONS gameplay; and much of this part of review is at best wrong, and often factually inaccurate. I know that maptesting is difficult, and it takes a lot of time to look at map structure and construction, but gameplay is critical, and the same level of detail that goes into analysing map build should go into the way a map plays. The glaring inacuracy is that the holes in the caves are small. You can drive tanks down them; (and great fun it is too.) Calling the megalithic node "cramped" misses the ponit entirely. The monolith environment is the only place in the entire ONS online universe where a footsoldier can take on vehichles and usually come out on top. Widening the stome circles would allow vehichles - once inside; to have an advantage over the footsoldiers, by going round in circles at speed, for example; and tanks would have clean blast radii. The caves are not overdefended- because the real wonder of this map has been overlooked; the node configuration. If a node is overdefended; the node can be bypassed and cut off. And dropping a tank into a cave through the roof gives the defenders a pretty hard time - prepared or not. In terms of reality; caves don't tend to branch; and three enterances for caves would change the ambience and feel of the map; would change the way the whole map plays and I would hate it if the authour would take this suggestion seriously. The gameplay of this map is as different to run of the mill onslaught as it gets. It's one of the most popular on the most popular server in Europe; so yes, us ONS adddicts do love this map - because of it's innovation in being able to handle 32 players in such a small maps without the map feeling crowded or spammy; and by having a node setup that always allows a plan B. G.Lecter 06-02-2005 06:02 PM MDT Rating: 7   How can you say the review is not good??? I've read part of it and I agree in everything... - The buildings and walls are too cubish and simple. However the rest of the map (terrain and caves) look great. I liked those spider webs inside the caves... - I agree with Arcadia the stones in the megalitic node should have been a little more spread, although now it's fun making shockrifle battles there. The layout and the node setup are quite good IMO. - Despite the ugly walls, and framerates going a bit down in some places, this one is a worth download... JuggaloKyle 06-02-2005 08:35 PM MDT Rating: 6.5   a pretty decent ONS map. the frame rates were bad in some areas, but it played fine over all. i wasnt to fond on the caves because at one point, you couldnt use a vehicle to get to the other node, so you had to go around, which felt very out of the way to me. the stone henge area felt really cramped between the rocks. i could barely get a scorpion through them. over all, its a pretty good ONS map. Defeat 06-08-2005 01:27 PM MDT Rating: 7.5   >This map isn't too bad, Not the best ONS map iv'e seen but above average too. A fun that i do in this map is when a person is defending the stonehenge node and they think they are safe from vehicles I go through the rocks with a scorpion and turn them into roadkill. Draco 06-10-2005 07:40 PM MDT Rating: 7   Nice map. Hannibal 06-11-2005 12:33 PM MDT Rating: 7.5   Sure there are bits that can be improved, but a very enjoyable map. Botplay is superb. I'm quite addicted to it. souldividersjosz 06-17-2005 12:04 PM MDT Rating: 7   Very shallow visuals that fortunately aren't the map's strong side. Gameplay is killer. I would've really boosted the score if the map had looked better. Fully agreed with AV on that Twrecks 06-20-2005 04:24 PM MDT   You lost me at "Take 2" hunter 06-22-2005 02:21 AM MDT Rating: 8   its "scorpion", not "scorpian" :) i heartily endorse this map. no, you won't gasp with awe at how it looks, but you will have a shitload of fun with it. MurkOx 07-09-2005 08:39 AM MDT Rating: 8.5   "A very nice ONS-Map"! the reviews at the top cover most all comments! I enjoied the topology of this map, as well as the flowing textures that covered all pollys. the castle was nice.I also enjoied the stonehendge and internal cavern-nodes. my only "nag" would be the size of the playing field.the map felt like a small-medium map.eventhough the visibility ranges were good and open. I am a fan of large maps.I also would have liked to have seen some weather effects,as well as a better feel of being in that map it's self.Congratulations!!great map! regards, MOx. =IRON=CORAX 09-23-2005 10:00 AM MDT Rating: 9.5   One of my favourites in ONS. I just loooove the undergroung pass with big-keg-o-health in the middle cave. *sqeak* CursedSoul1 09-23-2005 04:04 PM MDT Rating: 7.5   Look at the review. read it. In my time on nalicity, I havent seen a review like this. Do you remember the "warning: game experience might change when you play online" note in unreal. Im guessing that when Arc played the map online, his experience with the map changed, he looked at it in a different way. (imho) and you can see the result of that in this very good review. as for the map, i totally agree with the reviewer :)