32 replies to this topic

[Shadow 101]

Would anybody else like to see bigger maps added in the future?

Something on the lines of the Arma 2 size maps. I know some people like fast game turn arounds so wouldn't like bigger maps. Maybe an option to disable big maps in the rotation and vice versa for people who like them.

Personally I would love bigger maps. Far more scope for tactical players. Opens up or sorts tactics, especially scouting.

Edited by Eblean, 28 February 2013 - 12:38 AM.

[Steinar Bergstol]

Bigger! Better! More!

Yes, I would like bigger maps quite a bit. Alpine is their best map so far, much thanks to its size. And no, I don't want the ability to pick maps (although if we did have that ability River City Night would forever be banished to the dark places of the universe) because random maps will help force people to not rely on one-dimensional cheesebuilds (I hope).

[Shadow 101]

Quote

And no, I don't want the ability to pick maps

I dont mean an option to pick maps singularly. Just an option to exclude larger maps (or small maps) in the rotation. If no option for any of the maps was selected in your options then both larger and smaller maps would be in your map rotation.

Edited by Eblean, 28 February 2013 - 12:46 AM.

[ParadigmShifter]

I would only want this if the player count was increased substantially. For an Arma 2 size map it would have to be at least 64 vs 64

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Bigger=Better. Bring on the cheesepult QQs. Sadly we don't really have any interesting game modes to support the size. Real bases that did things or added to combat would be nice. But we'll likely never see turrets, tanks, planes, hostile dropships, or anything of the sort.

AtlasTitania, on 28 February 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

I would only want this if the player count was increased substantially. For an Arma 2 size map it would have to be at least 64 vs 64

Bigger teams would also be great, but 12vs12 will help with that. I hope that they spread out the drop locations, making every lance drop in a different part of the map. These zerg blobs suck.

[p00k]

bigger maps are coming. there should be a desert one next iirc, and i think bryan mentioned another 1-2 big maps in the works

on a side note, as we're getting bigger maps, i'd like to see the ability to toggle your hud minimap zoom, as opposed to having to bring up the big map with 'b' and thus be unable to pilot if you want to see what's going on a bit farther away

[Shadow 101]

Yeah and an increased player count for the bigger maps. Hence one of my reasons to be able to exclude larger maps (Some peoples PC might explode with all the extra graphics ) in the players map rotation.

[KrazedOmega]

Alpine is too big at 8 vs 8 and even 12 vs 12 isn't going to change much. The last thing I would want to see is even bigger maps. The fact that you can't see mechs beyond 1500m (or whatever number it is) makes it almost pointless to have large maps. And the battles are going to take place under 1000m anyways so unless weapon ranges are going to be increased it seems pointless.

I've already seen it in Alpine and with other large maps in various games. There's one or two spots on the map that everyone heads to fight at and the other 75% of the map is ignored.

[GalaxyBluestar]

count me in for bigger maps but we need a lot more details and less hills than alpine. a factory one one side of a large industrial city and a comunications outpost on the otherside would lead to interesting and engauging combat terrain. however as it's said above the game engine needs some serious work for rendering things at a distance.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 28 February 2013 - 12:55 AM.

[ParadigmShifter]

Eblean, on 28 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Yeah and an increased player count for the bigger maps. Hence one of my reasons to be able to exclude larger maps (Some peoples PC might explode with all the extra graphics ) in the players map rotation.

The size of the map wouldn't really cause that many problems as far as stress on the PC is concerned. The game doesn't draw the textures for the entire map, only from area to area.

[Elessar]

1. Yes, I would love bigger maps
2. I think that they should make changes to Assault mode to take into account these bigger maps (it is just too easy for a light mech (especially with a cap module) to sneak around and cap the enemy base ... or for the 2 groups to go different ways to the enemy base, never meet on the map, and then have a cap race, without a single shot being fired (I have often enough experienced this)
3. Nope, they shouldn´t build in any ways to exclude smaller or larger maps from your rotation. Not knowing which map/size comes next rewards universal builds, whereas even the abilkity to select the next map size, would reward min/maxing

[Shadow 101]

Quote

The size of the map wouldn't really cause that many problems as far as stress on the PC is concerned. The game doesn't draw the textures for the entire map, only from area to area.

But it might if 40+ (for example: 20 vs 20) mechs were all concentrated in the same firefight

Quote

3. Nope, they shouldn´t build in any ways to exclude smaller or larger maps from your rotation. Not knowing which map/size comes next rewards universal builds, whereas even the abilkity to select the next map size, would reward min/maxing

Good point but it may exclude players who's PC specs cant cope with bigger maps.

Edited by Eblean, 28 February 2013 - 01:03 AM.

[ElliottTarson]

Well, having just finished Crysis 3, I can tell you guys that it is DEFINITELY a limitation of the engine on draw distance.

There's a level towards the end, (Trying to keep it spoiler free) where you find a DSG-1 at the start of the mission. In a building across from you are roughly 6-7 enemies that all have Bolt Rifles, and are accurate as hell. In order to snipe these guys, you HAVE to scope in, looking at the building without the scope from where you pick up the rifle draws NO enemies in the building.

I played the level 5 times, each on different graphics settings, and not once could I see them using anything less than a sniper scope.

[SmilingElf]

I'm definitely enjoying Alpine Valley, and look forward to more maps of a similar scope.

Fortunately, most of my mechs already had the weapon load out to handle the increased ranges (LLs, AC5s, etc). However, several of my friends, while not running FotM builds, are still running into issues due to the difference in range, and the probability of occurrence. Specifically, we have to select our mech before dropping, and, with the fact that Alpine is only one out of roughly 15-20 maps, they are having some issues finding new, viable builds that function well on Alpine, and still retain the necessary output to keep up with the popular builds optimized for the older, smaller maps.

Hopefully, as new, large scale maps are implemented, along with their variations, the likelihood of occurrence will even out, making the hard optimized builds more of a high risk/reward option, and the more versatile, balanced builds feel like less of a losing bet.

[Rutok]

Not only "yes" but "FKN HELL YEAH!!"

And for the Arma2 sized maps: that could be a completely seperate game mode. Remember the multiple respawn mode they tossed around? Where you would pick 3 mechs before the start so that you would have like 3 "lives" on the map? That would be perfect for a huge map.

Make multiple bases, have each team (you need at least 32vs32 of course) defend or attack the other.

It should not be a problem hardware wise.. the map renders only up to a certain limit anyway. You could decrease the view distance further with fog or terrain, etc.

[Kain]

With bigger maps comes bigger teams,
otherwise it would become a hide and seek type of gameplay.

[dream mode on]
of course bigger is better :-p
company vs company (36 v 36) with dropship mode to replenish the troops, with map capturing, and rearm/repair facilities, so you can slug it out for hours :-)
[dream mode off]

[SmilingElf]

KrazedOmega, on 28 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

The fact that you can't see mechs beyond 1500m (or whatever number it is) makes it almost pointless to have large maps

I think this is what scouts are for...

You know, that whole Role Warfare thing.

Honestly, the increased size gives the fast movers their purpose in life back. Lights are no longer lag shielded ninja killing machines, and mediums have caught enough grief over their lack of a niche on the smaller maps. (There are a variety of threads discussing / questioning the role of mediums to date. I'm not going to rehash them here.) Larger maps give their higher speeds a greater value, above and beyond in-combat maneuvering.

[CrashieJ]

Kain, on 28 February 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

With bigger maps comes bigger teams,
otherwise it would become a hide and seek type of gameplay.

[dream mode on]
of course bigger is better :-p
company vs company (36 v 36) with dropship mode to replenish the troops, with map capturing, and rearm/repair facilities, so you can slug it out for DAYS
[dream mode off]

fixed that for you

[DeadlyNerd]

So you all preach about large maps, yet you all usually just stroll down to the middle like a lemming herd and just mash faces.

I bet that even with the Arma 2 size maps there'd be that one point on the map that would have battles fought 90% of the time.

[Spooky01]

I dont mind the bigger maps as long as the player number matches the size. I know that 12 v 12 is on the cards and i'm looking forward to that.

However, not been an expert , is this a magic number when it comes down to players on any map or can we see 20 v 20 some time in the future?

This would mean that games would have to be thought out first and traps set etc a well balanced team of long and shot range weapons. It would all so mean extra time for a match say 20 to 25 mins.

Bring it on, happy days!