27 replies to this topic

[ERRATIC CHEESE]

Do you think the maps - at least those we've seen so far - look too "concentrated", "environmentally cluttered" and "not expansive enough"?

The maps in "Chromehounds" were sprawling, and you got a real sense of scale...



Here's Arma2...

http://youtu.be/OiDu1tLMAEg

The MWO maps we've seen so far seem to have all their features compressed together; no expansive spaces. Even long range combat seems fairy close quarters.

Off Topic - was looking at MW4 and MW3 footage again on youtube. Graphics-wise, MW3 seems to have aged much much better.

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

You're making a serious post? ***?

I can't believe W -- T -- F is censored :| ***

Edited by BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, 15 June 2012 - 10:26 AM.

[Roland]

I don't understand what this has to do with Hotshot.

Regarding the apparently serious post, I would tend to agree that things definitely seem a lot more close range based on the (albeit limited) footage we have seen.

[Corpsecandle]

As far as I know we've only seen a single map that's large enough to hold varying terrain. If I recall correctly devs have said that map is on the smaller side too.

As you've mentioned scaling is a factor and I believe BT mechs are much larger than the example vid you've posted.

[Adridos]

It's part of the balance. Or is a map designed for kills from 10 km better for you?

[Kobold]

The Chrome Hound and MW4 maps were wide barren expanses of nothingness, for the most part (specific urban maps notwithstanding). Those are probably a lot easier/quicker to develop, but boring as heck.

[Hawkeye 72]

BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, on 15 June 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

You're making a serious post? ***?

I can't believe W -- T -- F is censored :| ***

Yes, it makes serious posts too.

ERRATIC CHEESE, on 15 June 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

Do you think the maps - at least those we've seen so far - look too "concentrated", "environmentally cluttered" and "not expansive enough"?

The maps in "Chromehounds" were sprawling, and you got a real sense of scale...

The MWO maps we've seen so far seem to have all their features compressed together; no expansive spaces. Even long range combat seems fairy close quarters.

Off Topic - was looking at MW4 and MW3 footage again on youtube. Graphics-wise, MW3 seems to have aged much much better.

I loved the maps on Chromehounds, as they were huge and very wide open (except for the urban maps, which were still ridiculously fun).

I can't pass judgement on this first map yet, as it seems like a smaller map that is used more for testing purposes. This way the devs can get an idea of how cover will work, and don't have to spend 15 minutes of their playtests finding the opposing team...not conducive for time efficiency.

The snow map also looks more close quarters as well, but again, same logic might hold true.

However with the emphasis placed on role warfare, and how fast some of these mechs are, I can't see the devs keeping maps this clustered and confined. Definitely look for a few wide-open maps that up the scale of combat.

[Orion Pirate]

This game at Arma scale would require more then 12 vs 12 battles, and would take hours to finish...

But I would love it!

[Hawkeye 72]

Adridos, on 15 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

It's part of the balance. Or is a map designed for kills from 10 km better for you?

I don't know if balance is the right word. I have been playing MW2 a lot the last two weeks, and even it's maps seem small, and some of its objectives are 3+km. Imagine 24 mechwarriors operating in a 3x3km map...it will get crowded fast. Then again, this might keep with the pace of game they want to present

Also good to see you returned to Liao lol. Hopefully all is peaceful again!

Kobold, on 15 June 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

The Chrome Hound and MW4 maps were wide barren expanses of nothingness, for the most part (specific urban maps notwithstanding). Those are probably a lot easier/quicker to develop, but boring as heck.

MW4 was more boring for me than Chromehounds, but the weapons in Chromehounds had a lot longer range than some in MWO. Loved making a sniper hound and tearing apart opponents from a ridge.

[WardenWolf]

The devs have specifically talked in the past about how they want to avoid long-range weapons dominating the battlefield, without making them useless. That is why the LRMs work the way they do - able to go over obstacles, but you can't get a lock on an enemy mech unless it is in LOS from someone on your team. I think this will work out pretty well, personally: it avoids the game being entirely a snipe-fest, but I still see lots of opportunities from the screenshots and videos to make long-range mechs work

[BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON]

There aren't any weapons that can hit all the way across the map anyway.

This video shows how Long-Range support can still be viable in this semi-open map, but is balanced enough with cover so that other mechs won't just die exposed to snipers.



I think the "congestion" works well with PGI's new idea of limited radar and info, this way you'd have to rely on scouting and less on poptarting.

[Orion Pirate]

I like the clutter. Makes weapons/fighting/tactics a lot more interesting.

[Roland]

Kobold, on 15 June 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

The Chrome Hound and MW4 maps were wide barren expanses of nothingness, for the most part (specific urban maps notwithstanding). Those are probably a lot easier/quicker to develop, but boring as heck.

Certainly compared to modern maps, they were pretty barren.

However, take a map like Timberline, for instance. That map was certainly not a barren expanse. You made multiple ridgelines which blocked line of sight and enabled fairly complex tactical maneuvering. They had quite large differences in elevation across the maps.

At certain locations on timberline things can get pretty tight and enable close quarters combat. But at the same time, other locations on the map facilitated longer range engagements.

Ultimately, given the relative lack of information regarding the actual maps in game, we aren't really equiped to compare the MWO maps yet, aside from the fact that they certainly look better in terms of raw graphical presentation.

[Mason West]

Kobold, on 15 June 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

The Chrome Hound and MW4 maps were wide barren expanses of nothingness, for the most part (specific urban maps notwithstanding). Those are probably a lot easier/quicker to develop, but boring as heck.

And so sniper/speed scout prone there was no point to take anything else, making for more boring matches.

Edited by Mason West, 15 June 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[Tebbo]

BenEEeees VAT GROWN BACON, on 15 June 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

I think the "congestion" works well with PGI's new idea of limited radar and info, this way you'd have to rely on scouting and less on poptarting.

Ugh that's basically all MW4 was. BKs with slightly modified configs jump sniping in chorus and coring anything that's exposed. that and using one dude as bait to lure out the other teams snipers and then countering them.

Unfortunate that's what it became.

Though yeah Timberline was a dope map. Lot's of fun. Hopefully there is a lot of variety in MWO map wise.

Edited by Tebbo, 15 June 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[William McNab]

Cluttered or not, the maps will have to be large enough for scouting to be effective and for two bases to be far enough apart to allow for strategy involved in trying to attack and capture a base while not being close enough to defend your own base.

So cluttered, I can deal with, size ... it matters.

[Freyar]

Man, I miss Chromehounds.

[Hawkeye 72]

Freyar, on 15 June 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

Man, I miss Chromehounds.

So much wasted potential. if the developers had actively improved/patched the game and worked on grenade balance, it had real potential to be something big.

Instead...RIP

[Testien Surepath]

they are quite cluttered but im more worried there wont be enough maps. i liked the large empty maps which forced certain types of tactics in mechwarrior 4 but these maps are much more interesting and most battlefields are probably quite cluttered,

[Roland]

Another point... Part of the reason those maps look kind of "tight" is that the mechs in the videos tend to be in canyons.

If those mechs jumped up to the ridgeline I suspect they'd be getting a much longer view of the battlefield.