# The actual size of the map we keep seeing

83 replies to this topic

### #1Vorus

Member

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:09 AM

We've seen that same map many times in the pics and videos, and I thought it would be nice to know the actual size of it, and I don't think that I've seen anyone else try to figure it out, so I figured it was worth a shot. I used the most recent screenshot we have and made some additions.

So, here's what I have. Since the map has at least a "J" quadrant, then it must have at least 10 "East to west" quadrants. (A-J) and I'm assuming that it's a square map, so it would also have 10 "North to south" quadrants.

Next, I need to know how big a quadrant is. Thanks to the screenshot, we know that the player Mech and the Catapult are about 60m apart, so using the distance shown on the minimap, we can get an idea of how far 60m is on the map. (That is the small red line.)

As for the quadrant itself, that seems to be 5 segments of 60m long, which is 300m.

And since the map is at least 10x10 quadrants, that makes the map at least 3km x 3km.

Now, how big is that? Well, at top speed, it would take an Atlas 4.7 minutes to walk corner to corner. A Jenner, at 118km/h could do that in 2.15 minutes. Of course, you're likely to hit an enemy before you get all the way across the map, so an Atlas would likely take somewhere around 2 minutes to get within fighting distance of the middle of the map, assuming it started in a corner.

This seems a little smaller than I'd prefer, but it's also not a "10 seconds in and we're all bunched in the center" kind of deal either. There is quite a bit of room for hiding and ambushing, and things of that sort.

One final note, my size assumes that "J" is the last quadrant, since it is the last one we can see on the minimap. Which means that this fight is taking place in the far East side of the map. If this screenshot is actually the center of the map, the quadrants might go beyond "J", so the map could easily be more like 5-6km on a side. It would take an Atlas nearly 8 minutes to walk corner-to-corner in a 5km square map.

EDIT: I went looking, and I found that "J" is indeed the last quadrant. This screenshot shows that the map ends at "J", so this map is likely a 3km square:

http://mwomercs.com/...49-screenshot-3

Edited by Vorus, 01 June 2012 - 07:13 AM.

### #2Hobo Dan

Member

• Elite Founder
• 299 posts
• LocationWest Virginia

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:13 AM

I'd be pretty happy if your 3km x 3km estimate is the minimum map size and we can only go up from there.

Nice work!

### #3Kudzu

Member

• Elite Founder
• 769 posts
• LocationSomewhere in the SEC

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:16 AM

Great work. One thing you might want to consider is that different maps might be different sizes and perhaps this is a smaller sized map since it seems to be a lance on lance fight.

### #4MitchellTyner

Member

• Members
• 85 posts
• LocationEast Coast USA

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:18 AM

would also like some larger maps for more tactical play also.

### #5Davers

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 3036 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:23 AM

So, if lance vs lance maps are 3km x 3km then maybe we can assume that 12 on 12 maps will be 9km by 9km?

### #6Vorus

Member

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:24 AM

Yeah, I would assume that there are larger maps too. Like Hobo Dan said, this seems mare like a 4v4 map than a 12v12 map. It would be interesting to lay out sensor ranges on a 10x10 map, and see how much of the map you could see with 4 players, ideally spaced.

### #7SquareSphere

Member

• Elite Founder
• 1654 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:26 AM

very nice analysis on the map size! Considering that MWO is no respawn, I agree with you that maybe the devs wanted the map to be a little smaller so it wouldn't take forever for the slower mechs to get into the action.

### #8Spleenslitta

Member

• Veteran Founder
• 978 posts
• LocationNorway

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:28 AM

I think that the map should be larger. 3km x 3km is a bit too small for 4vs4 with this type of terrain. It might be allright if everything was an urban area since that breaks LOS a lot however.

I would have strongly prefered a 5km x 5km as the bare minimum for 4vs4 for this type of terrain.
12vs12 maps better be huge or the scouts will be useless.

### #9Chris Reiter

Member

• Members
• 240 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:32 AM

Who cares how big the maps are, so long as they are adequate in size. What concerns me is if they are made with more originality then north <-- > south directions if not east <--> west direction or its if not a valley in the middle requring 3 minutes to climb up hill, only have about 3 lines of travel because the rest of the map is untravelable, more choke points then you care about, and you are not playing the same one for the third time in the last half hour, and light units can't zip across it in the first 10 seconds to kill your ranged support units who may actually want to play the ******* game instead of being zerged to death (WoT, we are talking about you).

Edited by Chris Reiter, 01 June 2012 - 07:33 AM.

### #10Toothman

Member

• Elite Founder
• 551 posts
• LocationWisconsin

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:36 AM

Nice job ! Probably can't go much larger or by the time everybody finds each other there won't be time for the assaults to get there.

Chris Reiter, on 01 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Who cares how big the maps are, so long as they are adequate in size. What concerns me is if they are made with more originality then north <-- > south directions if not east <--> west direction or its if not a valley in the middle requring 3 minutes to climb up hill, only have about 3 lines of travel because the rest of the map is untravelable, more choke points then you care about, and you are not playing the same one for the third time in the last half hour, and light units can't zip across it in the first 10 seconds to kill your ranged support units who may actually want to play the ******* game instead of being zerged to death (WoT, we are talking about you).

Are you talking about the T-50-2s Jenners?

Member

• Members
• 270 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:44 AM

The map is small IMO.
It will be great for death matches and fast battles that the adrenaline junkies need these days.
Weapons that travel in 600m + radius...They actually had to nerf laser distances because it was too easy to hit someone across the map.

Quote

I was researching this a week ago. Spent a while actually, there were hardly any assets back then which is why I never mentioned it.

Map size has been 10x10 squares on the demo map, probably will be a real game map.
A-J

How many meters in a square?
Think about 250m - 300m per square.
So 3000mx3000m total for that map.

http://mwomercs.com/...post__p__236010

Closer to 250m per hex from what I remember, seemed like 300 corner to corner.
All someone has to do is find one video that shows the length of the hex on your reticule, compare it to visible terrain.
It is an actual in game map, not just a test map, forget the name.

Edited by MadBoris, 01 June 2012 - 07:52 AM.

### #12Supraluminal

Member

• Elite Founder
• 160 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:47 AM

Good work, OP. Hard to say without playing it, of course, but that seems like a fairly decent map size at least for 4v4. Would probably get crowded with more players, though.

Member

• Members
• 270 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 07:50 AM

Chris Reiter, on 01 June 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

Who cares how big the maps are, so long as they are adequate in size.

People that have spent far longer than you thinking about it. For all the reasons you mentioned and many more.

### #14Zearoth

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 77 posts
• LocationSouth Carolina, USA

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:02 AM

Spleenslitta, on 01 June 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

I think that the map should be larger. 3km x 3km is a bit too small for 4vs4 with this type of terrain. It might be allright if everything was an urban area since that breaks LOS a lot however.

I would have strongly prefered a 5km x 5km as the bare minimum for 4vs4 for this type of terrain.
12vs12 maps better be huge or the scouts will be useless.

I'll have to agree with you on this one. Smaller maps like this should have something to obscure LoS as well as make it so you can't just run right into the enemy 'Mechs. And the larger maps should be WAY large. Might be a bit of a walk, but, it's not like old English line combat. You need to find your enemy. And having a large map were using scouts can give a large advantage thanks to tactical data would be amazing for both a 'Mech sim, and a combat/Tactical warfare sim.

### #15Vorus

Member

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:03 AM

MadBoris, on 01 June 2012 - 07:44 AM, said:

Weapons that travel in 600m + radius...

I was thinking about this too. If you stood in the center of the map, you would "control" an area with a 1.2km diameter. Seems like a pretty large chunk of the map, to me. And then you add in things like LRMs that have even longer ranges, and a ranged unit in the center of the map would be able to cover a significant percentage of the map all by himself.

Granted, there are too many other variables to claim it is that simple, but still, I'd prefer larger maps. But I think nearly everyone thinks that 3km square maps are too small, so I'm sure the Devs agree, and surely there are larger maps ingame. I'm not too worried about it.

### #16Malikai Constant

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 27 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:19 AM

Nice work Vorus!

I am hoping for larger maps, I think the bigger they are the more relevant the scout mechs will be. Also the slower speeds of the heavily armed/armoured mechs will be more of a detriment. I think this will be necessary to reinforce their idea of roles for all their types of mechs.

Member

• Members
• 270 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:49 AM

Vorus, on 01 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

I was thinking about this too. If you stood in the center of the map, you would "control" an area with a 1.2km diameter. Seems like a pretty large chunk of the map, to me. And then you add in things like LRMs that have even longer ranges, and a ranged unit in the center of the map would be able to cover a significant percentage of the map all by himself.

Granted, there are too many other variables to claim it is that simple, but still, I'd prefer larger maps. But I think nearly everyone thinks that 3km square maps are too small, so I'm sure the Devs agree, and surely there are larger maps ingame. I'm not too worried about it.

Exactly my concern for weeks. One of the devs recently said they consider there small maps large by comparison, comparison to what console port I wonder.
I just don't want to hide behind a hill, and can't be seen due to LOS. I'd hate that to be the essence of the information warfare, hiding behind a hill on a small map.

A map this size seems to get the battle going very quickly, no strategic paths, or flanking the enemy. Or you get stuck behind a hill, and that is where the battle plays out.

Small maps are better than large maps for the gamers today, they need adrenaline pumping tactics, strategy is boring to the 15 second commercial mentality.

we need to see it to be sure, just seems small. Small maps are usually quicker/easier/cheaper to make too.
Small matches could be ok.

Edited by MadBoris, 01 June 2012 - 08:53 AM.

### #18Frostiken

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 1118 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:55 AM

Hey it could be worse, it could be DICE's idea of 'large maps', where the map is 3km x 3km, but half of that is blocked by an out of bound area and half of what's left is empty, so the only interesting place to fight is in the corner

### #19Mister Dubis

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 106 posts
• LocationOhio

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:56 AM

i like the size of the map there. its good, confined and keeps the pace of the game up. But bigger maps for that long range slug fest would be pretty sweet too especially for mechs like the catapult which really needs long distance to be effective.

### #20Vorus

Member

• Members
• 171 posts

Posted 01 June 2012 - 08:57 AM

MadBoris, on 01 June 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Small maps are better than large maps for the gamers today, they need adrenaline pumping tactics, strategy is boring to the 15 second commercial mentality.

They've said before that this is a "thinking person's" game, so hopefully they don't cave in too much to the "adrenaline junky" mentality. If nothing else, having a variety of map sizes lets tho players play the way they like to play, so I can't imagine that all the maps would be small, or that you only get the large maps if you play 12v12, or something like that.

I wish they'd release some pics on a different map though, seeing a pic with a "T" quadrant would answer the question pretty quickly.

#### 1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users