138 replies to this topic

[Barbaric Soul]

The thing about urban combat, speaking from my +10 years of playing MW4, is that once the first shot is fired, the fight is no longer a team based game and devolves into chaos. With the heavy cover alot buildings give, your team can't focus thier fire power on a single target because not everyone can see that target. If your team tries to focus power on the same target by moving so they can get LOS on the target, they end up getting exposed to the others members of the oposing team, and end up fighting those people. At that point, the game is determined by the indivivual skill of each pilot on your team, just like a open server game is determined in MW4. This is why when Dark Rift would have a match on a urban map, we would try to get the fight to happen in a open area of the map instead of staying where the most buildings are.

In a more open setting, like hills and forests, a team can set up in a crossfire(killbox), focus thier firepower on indivivual mechs when they exposes themselves, watch eachothers flanks, and be able to help a team mate when needed. Too much cover makes this impossible.

Now I'm not in favor of just somewhat open terrain, alittle chaos is enjoyable from time to time. But for actual team play, the urban enviroment is not conducive of team play.

Edited by Barbaric Soul, 01 April 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[Cyrusxs]

Rutok, on 01 April 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

I dont believe that a really big and dense city would work really good for a mech game. Especially if the playercount goes up, those just degrade into instakills if something big walks around a corner and you have nowhere to go. If you have played battlefield 3: think of the marketplace map where everybody just spams rockets into that small long alley..

I would partially agree on that because if you made enough corridors in the city that problem could be eliminated. Therefore it wouldn't be a slugfest and at least some minor strategy could be applied since more options are given.

[Archtus]

I love Urban battles. Especially without the unnecessary long halls to nowhere/dead end. But then, I love running in a Raven decked with all the fun toys and some Energy weapons.

[RodasRocker]

For me, it's more tactical urban environment, run-shoot-hide-detected around not only focus all firepower on one enemy

[WolfDragon Ghost]

Archtus, on 01 April 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

I love Urban battles. Especially without the unnecessary long halls to nowhere/dead end. But then, I love running in a Raven decked with all the fun toys and some Energy weapons.

You know that will be the first thing I do when I buy a Commando? running between buildings shooting will be fun hahahahaha

[HeIIequin]

I prefer a mixture of all of them. (I'm sure someone before me has made a perfect post that I'd agree with, but I don't want to read 5 pages).

So ideally, a small urban city that opens out onto rolling hills littered with thick forests and large clearings. In the distance beyond the trees lies a rocky mountainous canyon that wraps 1/2 way around the map. So yeah, I like maps that mix short, medium & long range combat all together into 1 package.

[RecklessFable]

If I'm in, say, a Catapult, I prefer standing on top of a hill with nothing but miles of featureless bog for my enemies to slog through.

[Cyrusxs]

One type of map I would like to see was in MW4 Mercenaries and it was the arena battles in singleplayer which were somewhat like a small blend of both.

[Cyberlokk]

I'll take my lead from the tabletop roots, terrain ALWAYS enriches the game. To little terrain and it becomes a "at range" game. I personally love urban warfare and was really jazzed when I saw that mechwarrior trailer put out a year or two ago by Smith and Tinker with arial drones for recon and such. Also, a firefight gets hot when you can ambush within a few city blocks. Of course that means distructable buildings and such which takes more code, but I think the results would be impressive with the CryEngine. A variaty of maps including ravines, water features, and foilage concealment should always be core to the game; but urban variety would be recogniized by expieranced players for its strategic value, & I think, fought over accordingly.

[Hanged Man]

Urban battle! Or at least varied terrain, with trees and hills and that to get in the way. Open fields get us big circle-strafe clusters, and I'd rather see tricky maneuvering and ambushes.

[Kifferson von doober]

Depends what i'm piloting, I hope to have two or three mechs to be able to chose the most appropriate.

[Cabalis]

I prefer open terrain. Speed and mobility will put a pilot's abilities on display for all to see.

[Shezmu]

Cabalis, on 02 April 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

I prefer open terrain. Speed and mobility will put a pilot's abilities on display for all to see.

I agree! Nothing shows off your weapon skills then destroying a fast moving target.

[Muhanoid]

Zakatak, on 30 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Probably open battles. I like the beauty of nature, and I also like the beauty of nature absolutely annihilated with craters everywhere.

Vulpesveritas, on 30 March 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Urban combat. Tactical cover and death from above

William Petersen, on 30 March 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

I tend to like more natural surroundings, this is not to say a totally open bowl valley, but a landscape tends to feel better than a cityscape. That said, I've been woking around in this "World of Tanks" game and am gaining a distinct appreciation for fighting in an urban environment (Cover, cover everywhere!).

Shiinore, on 30 March 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

I remember playing MW4 online and learning the horrors of open, hilly landscapes.

Jump > Alpha Strike > Land > Repeat

Larry Headrick, on 31 March 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

I can't answer the question for one simple reason. I do not know yet.

Good example of good city map: Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries: Inner City.
It was almost the only city map played because of it's... well... everyone knew that map and had a list of tactics for it. Fights were from slow pew-pew to fast rush and destroy.

Open hill landscapes in MW4 with alpha strike. Exactly, same as city map if you have jump jets: Speed up behind corner / behind hill, jump, fire at someone who is walking in the street / in the open, land, run away, repeat.

But if in the open there was at least 1 catapult and 1 narc light mech..."
"I've got in close! Firing Narc! IT IS IN PLACE! FIRE FIRE FIRE!!!!"
"Roger that, missiles away".
Boom.

As result, it is all about tactics and strategy because devs said: ALL mech sises will be used.
More maps: both open, closed, low/high gravity is GOOD.

For example, MW4 Mektek maps had a very special map. A flat plane. Just a flat place with no hills, no buildings, only some crates (destructible). And it was still FUN.

But if i have my favourite type of battle, then i do not care if it is wild area or a city because i like: Pea soup fog + No radar.
Max visible range: 5 steps of Atlas. Lock on: only manual if you saw your target, no "next target" option.

And back to world of tanks. Very good UNEVEN (one team always has less terrain advantages, than the other) open maps.

[Killashnikov]

WolfDragon Ghost, on 30 March 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

I think the mech You CHOOSE to fight, depends on how you like it, to strike with force I use an atlas or an AWESOME, but not use them to round or hit and run, you know?

I disagree here, after all how often would a mechwarrior have had access to more than one mech? I should have said perhaps, that it will depend on what weapons your mech has fitted to it... Sure if you are commander of a large merc unit or prince of a great House you can pick and choose your mech, but us poor Mechwarriors are forced to "make do" with what we can scrape up!

[WolfDragon Ghost]

Cyberlokk, on 01 April 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

I'll take my lead from the tabletop roots, terrain ALWAYS enriches the game. To little terrain and it becomes a "at range" game. I personally love urban warfare and was really jazzed when I saw that mechwarrior trailer put out a year or two ago by Smith and Tinker with arial drones for recon and such. Also, a firefight gets hot when you can ambush within a few city blocks. Of course that means distructable buildings and such which takes more code, but I think the results would be impressive with the CryEngine. A variaty of maps including ravines, water features, and foilage concealment should always be core to the game; but urban variety would be recogniized by expieranced players for its strategic value, & I think, fought over accordingly.

I agree, nothing more than thrilling I hide in a city with a mech small but veils, locate the enemy launches, transmit their positions, while refuersos come for them.

[WolfDragon Ghost]

Killashnikov, on 02 April 2012 - 02:34 AM, said:

I disagree here, after all how often would a mechwarrior have had access to more than one mech? I should have said perhaps, that it will depend on what weapons your mech has fitted to it... Sure if you are commander of a large merc unit or prince of a great House you can pick and choose your mech, but us poor Mechwarriors are forced to "make do" with what we can scrape up!

Of course, the weapons will always be the basis of your tactics. in MW4 Vengeance, I used a NOVACAT. With 2 ERPPC. 3 MRL. And 2 AC/10, The remaining weight armor and used it to speed. why?


The ERPPC are to destabilize the enemy mech. The MRL to cause the most damage. The AC/10 to continue with fire.
There should not be fired all at once like you're crazy,
But I've said too much of my combat tactics ..... guns are the way you fight, but the mech?
The mech take your weapons, although you design a good firing pattern, if your mech overheat, you are lost, if not fast to go and hide against the enemy while recharging.
If I can not choose my mech and my arms, I will die as soon as I set foot on the battlefield

So I'm a mercenary, I can buy / repair / rebuild / save / steal any mech I want

Edited by WolfDragon Ghost, 02 April 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

Honestly a difficult choice. Close-range urban (and may I stress blind?) combat can be quite exhilarating, tactical, and fun. However I tend to prefer long-range weaponry and as a result enjoy fairly open yet moderately broken-up terrain. I expect very few people like fighting on completely flat and open plains as generally the fastest person with the longest range load out will win. But put in significant rolling hills, scattered ravines, cliffs and line-of-sight blockers and you have a playground.

[WolfDragon Ghost]

Alaric Wolf Kerensky, on 03 April 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Honestly a difficult choice. Close-range urban (and may I stress blind?) combat can be quite exhilarating, tactical, and fun. However I tend to prefer long-range weaponry and as a result enjoy fairly open yet moderately broken-up terrain. I expect very few people like fighting on completely flat and open plains as generally the fastest person with the longest range load out will win. But put in significant rolling hills, scattered ravines, cliffs and line-of-sight blockers and you have a playground.

So you prefer the open battle? To be honest I enjoy more urban tactical battle, but the meeting in open battle lasts less

[RodasRocker]

I still think that the urban environment is best for my type of game, well I'll play as a scout so I guess that's why I prefer that environment.