24 replies to this topic

[JernauM]

Spawning each lance in a separate location is a bad idea, for several reasons.

• Separate spawn points do nothing to encourage lance level play, which seems to be the main intention in the first place. Everybody knows that the death-ball is what works and the death-ball is what happens.
  
• Separate spawn points limit each team's tactical options, because each team knows that the first order of business is to group up as quickly as possible. Wasting time grouping up means you have less opportunity to coordinate different tactics. By the time the team is grouped up, the enemy has usually made contact and the fight is on.
  
• Separate spawn points can randomly puts one team at a severe disadvantage. This usually occurs when the assault lance is spawned closer to the enemy team, and is therefore vulnerable to being left behind and overrun quickly (for example, if the assault lance spawns at the tail end of the usual NASCAR on Caustic).

To address the issues above, each team should spawn with all three lances in roughly the same area. What do you think?

[Xetelian]

This really hurts slow heavies and assault mechs that aren't the EXE or GAR.

Spawn us together please...at least closer if not together.

[Xultan]

I agree JernauM but close or apart, a random drop of mechs at spawn points would mix it up, but that is temporary at best.
I think that spreading the mechs out a bit would help with collisions at the initial movement.

Remember your points also affect the other team in the same manner.

Edited by Xultan, 13 August 2015 - 01:42 PM.

[sycocys]

It would work fine if the maps weren't all tiny little deathmatch arenas.

[AlphaToaster]

The deathball, yeah so in theory the 3 lances would collapse towards the slowest/heaviest lance and consider the tactical options from that point. Deciding which route is best to take based on where the slowbies spawned and the map layout to put the deathball in the best place possible to meet the enemy.

In practice, everyone starts going counterclockwise or clockwise, slowbies be damned if they get left behind on whichever side they happened to spawn on. So the beginning of the game is the slowbies typically running for their lives to catch up to their team if they happened to have spawned on the wrong side.

I would suggest using the 3 separate lance locations to spawn the entire team closer together, then have it so each team always spawns opposite each other to allow the furthest distance at the match start. This way there are 3 distinct starting configurations for enemy teams for each map giving us the chance to play some maps more sideways instead of end to end, if that makes sense.

[Deathlike]

I'd rather have the pre-match map show where everyone is spawning to optimize the proper route to regroup with the Assaults.

It's easier to guess from the Command Map (an inferior interface) once the match has already started.

[Jman5]

JernauM, on 13 August 2015 - 01:11 PM, said:

Spawning each lance in a separate location is a bad idea, for several reasons.

• Separate spawn points do nothing to encourage lance level play, which seems to be the main intention in the first place. Everybody knows that the death-ball is what works and the death-ball is what happens.

Separate spawn points absolutely do promote lance on lance combat. Problem is that one lance always seems oblivious to the threat and they get roasted.

Quote

• Separate spawn points limit each team's tactical options, because each team knows that the first order of business is to group up as quickly as possible. Wasting time grouping up means you have less opportunity to coordinate different tactics. By the time the team is grouped up, the enemy has usually made contact and the fight is on.

Just because this is what players typically do doesn't mean you have no options. For example, in the right spawn, I love veering off away from the group to engage another lance. People group up because it's the easy, safe, conservative thing to do.

Quote

• Separate spawn points can randomly puts one team at a severe disadvantage. This usually occurs when the assault lance is spawned closer to the enemy team, and is therefore vulnerable to being left behind and overrun quickly (for example, if the assault lance spawns at the tail end of the usual NASCAR on Caustic).

I would argue that a lot of the complaints people make about spawn locations can be solved with a little effort and thought. Whenever I struggle getting somewhere when I want, I study the map and figure out a better path to take. It's an iterative process but the end results leave me unsympathetic to people who complain about this stuff.

Quote

To address the issues above, each team should spawn with all three lances in roughly the same area. What do you think?

I really dislike maps where teams all spawn together. It makes the early game boring and predictable. There is no danger, there is no dynamism. It helps casual players, but it diminishes the strategic depth of a map.

Edited by Jman5, 13 August 2015 - 02:24 PM.

[DONTOR]

I would much rather have separate spawn locations, that wold make the game much more fun. But they would absolutely have to wait for all of the old tny maps to get re done, for this to be successful.

[Alistair Winter]

We've been over this.

In Skirmish, forming deathballs happens when every lance spawns much closer to their team than to the nearest enemy lance. There are no lance vs lance engagements because it's way too easy to pull back and regroup. The only exceptions are assault mechs that drop too close to enemy light mechs, usually on smaller maps.

In general, PGI isn't using the full size of the maps at all. Probably because they don't want matches to last very long. On Alpine, each lance could start 2 kilometers apart, making deathballing an exercise in futility. Instead, we're all running up H9 hill again and again. No one has ever had a fight in the south-western reaches of Alpine, ever.

In Assault, lance vs lance engagements aren't supposed to happen. It's the deathball game mode.
In Conquest, lance vs lance engagements only happens on a few maps, like Terra Therma, where opposing lances start close to each other and close to a capture point. Ironically, Terra Therma is probably the best Conquest map, as there is less deathballing.
In Skirmish... the word Skirmish implies a situation where two opposing forces come into contact and get caught in a minor engagement. E.g. a company of three lances spreading out over a large area and encountering scattered resistance. Skirmish should and could be all about lance vs lance engagements, but it isn't.

[Deathlike]

Alistair Winter, on 13 August 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

In Conquest, lance vs lance engagements only happens on a few maps, like Terra Therma, where opposing lances start close to each other and close to a capture point. Ironically, Terra Therma is probably the best Conquest map, as there is less deathballing.

Actually, I had concluded that Terra Therma is best to partial deathball (one lance regrouping with another) to overwhelm any lance deciding to cap any section (ideally the middle, for greater map control). Then they would regroup for the final deathball as the ultimate result.

Yes, Deathball Everywhere™ is virtually almost optimal.

[Monkey Lover]

Lances were spread out allowing people to kind of move around and fight in different areas. When they spawned in the same location it was murder ball same game every game.

[AlphaToaster]

Alistair Winter, on 13 August 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

No one has ever had a fight in the south-western reaches of Alpine, ever.

I was in a group queue match last year where we had a fast drop deck and were racing to reach the H9 hill. When we got there the OPFor positioned on the far ridge across the canyon on the other side. We flanked down around to the right wide in the low hills to come up from their flank without them seeing us until we were at the bottom of their hill.

There's a whole set of structures over there and some small hills and stuff. I was amazed that the cluster of buildings isn't one of the spawn points on conquest. On the map it appears this cluster of buildings was intended to be opposite from Sigma on the bottom side of the map. We use probably 40% of Alpine at the most.

[Telmasa]

I figure lance spawn balance should be part of the map reconstruction project that PGI's started doing - it seems fine on River City, for instance, at least to me, though it usually isn't long after a lance-sized fight starts that the rest of the teams come swarming in.

I wonder how it'll look on the new Forest Colony coming out in a few days...?

Edited by Telmasa, 13 August 2015 - 04:01 PM.

[bad arcade kitty]

spawn them together, deathball from 1st minute for the win!

[Alistair Winter]

Telmasa, on 13 August 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

I figure lance spawn balance should be part of the map reconstruction project that PGI's started doing - it seems fine on River City, for instance, at least to me, though it usually isn't long after a lance-sized fight starts that the rest of the teams come swarming in.

I wonder how it'll look on the new Forest Colony coming out in a few days...?

I'm not very optimistic. They totally botched Conquest on the new River City. Instead of spreading the bases all over the map, they put all 5 of them fairly close to the Citadel, which makes Conquest matches on the new River City feel almost exactly like the old River City.

Now, Forest Colony will be different because the old parts of the map won't be the centerpiece of the new map (unlike River City), but I don't really have high expectations of lance vs lance engagements.

[Telmasa]

Alistair Winter, on 13 August 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'm not very optimistic. They totally botched Conquest on the new River City. Instead of spreading the bases all over the map, they put all 5 of them fairly close to the Citadel, which makes Conquest matches on the new River City feel almost exactly like the old River City.

Now, Forest Colony will be different because the old parts of the map won't be the centerpiece of the new map (unlike River City), but I don't really have high expectations of lance vs lance engagements.

Well, there's no reason they can't go back and move the spawns around, I think - at least if it's as simple as I think it is, like placing spawn points in Halo 2's map editor...(the memories of maze building on the xbox, wow I feel old already...).

Conquest in general could use some revisiting, when it comes to map layouts.

But, honestly, that's all not as important compared to other stuff I'd like to see. This is a problem I find quite tolerable if it means PvE, revamped maps, formulaic mech & weapon balance, and the other stuff coming down the pipe.

Edited by Telmasa, 13 August 2015 - 04:37 PM.

[Deathlike]

AlphaToaster, on 13 August 2015 - 03:00 PM, said:

There's a whole set of structures over there and some small hills and stuff. I was amazed that the cluster of buildings isn't one of the spawn points on conquest. On the map it appears this cluster of buildings was intended to be opposite from Sigma on the bottom side of the map. We use probably 40% of Alpine at the most.

I think it was Russ that said he/they hated creating big maps.

However, the error in the logic is how the stuff is placed on the map.

When you design something that favors ignoring more than half the map, it's obviously an error in map design.

Alistair Winter, on 13 August 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

I'm not very optimistic. They totally botched Conquest on the new River City. Instead of spreading the bases all over the map, they put all 5 of them fairly close to the Citadel, which makes Conquest matches on the new River City feel almost exactly like the old River City.

Now, Forest Colony will be different because the old parts of the map won't be the centerpiece of the new map (unlike River City), but I don't really have high expectations of lance vs lance engagements.

Updated map same as the old map. How quaint.

I don't think Forest Colony will end up like that (it's super crowded - River City isn't actually that crowded).

Then again, I've lowered my expectations.

As soon as I played it the second time, I sincerely thought I was playing the same map for the most part.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

sycocys, on 13 August 2015 - 01:47 PM, said:

It would work fine if the maps weren't all tiny little deathmatch arenas.

Or didnt become them because of one spot you have to fight in (alpine, Terra Therma)

[JernauM]

bad arcade kitty, on 13 August 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

spawn them together, deathball from 1st minute for the win!

Is it really so much different than death-ball from the second minute?

Unless PGI creates game modes that incentivize lance-level play, players are going to group up because doing so gives them the best chance for success. So far only Conquest offers a good reason for lance-level play, and even then only on certain maps like Alpine Peaks. Invasion used to create opportunities for lance play in the past, but with recent changes to generator position that is no longer as viable.

[Khujjo]

Random spawn points based on several possible locations. May be hard to implement fairly so a winner isn't determined by who had the better spawn locations, but I would love to actually see variance in games. So tired of game after game of having every fight in the exact same areas.