This topic is locked
I love everything in this developer update except the consumables (but we have a massive thread for that already). Lots of fantastic stuff on the way that should not go without some postivie feedback. Thanks for all the hard work.
0
2013 March Creative Director Update
Started by InnerSphereNews, Mar 04 2013 11:45 AM
221 replies to this topic
#182
-
-
- 355 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:28 AM
Lyrik, on 05 March 2013 - 03:41 AM, said:
I really hope that we will NEVER get to choose the map or mech . And I hope that the Devs will ENFORCE that players can't delete mapfiles or change the user.cfg so that they don't have to play certain maps.
Yeah, I agree. We can't let them do that, because then they'd only play maps that they deem fun. And we surely cannot allow the players to have fun, can we? Who the hell would play games to have fun? That'd be preposterous!
#183
-
-
- 6,386 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:39 AM
Genewen, on 05 March 2013 - 04:28 AM, said:
Yeah, I agree. We can't let them do that, because then they'd only play maps that they deem fun. And we surely cannot allow the players to have fun, can we? Who the hell would play games to have fun? That'd be preposterous!
They could make Map preselection a MC based service!
#184
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 42 posts
Member
- LocationIn the land of Twilight, under the Moon.
Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:44 AM
I'd like to go into greater detail on why I don't like a new map being added that's larger than Alpine.
Alpine is the worst map in the game. Period. The reason for this isn't because it's open. It isn't because it's largely flat. It isn't because it unduly punishes mechs with brawler builds. These are all annoying contrivances, but none of these are insurmountable even on Alpine with proper creativity and a little bit of a gung-ho attitude. The map is especially susceptible to one side getting stacked with short range and another with long, but this goes all ways on all maps to some degree or another to mixed results, so whatever. Fix it in the matchmaker, or not, it doesn't really matter.
There are 2 major problems with Alpine. One is relevant to Tourmaline Desert, the other....not so much. First, imbalanced map layout/design. Alpine is a map that innately gives the high ground advantage to the north-east spawn. This is pretty huge, since this means LRMs are more effective, mechs like Stalkers with most weapons mounted on arms more effective, and scouts are more effective due to the central point. This is one reason why Alpine is bad, but I don't want to focus on this since it's not relevant to Tourmaline Desert as this tiny tidbit of info suggests. Hard to complain about layout when you don't know what it is yet.
The problem with Alpine is that it's, simply put, too large. It's a map that very heavily disenfranchises assaults and heavies to varying degrees (especially depending on build) while very heavily putting strong emphasis on fully upgraded (read: fast) lights, and to a lesser extent mediums. Speed is key on it more than range. Why?
Well, if you're not fast, you can't respond to shifting battle lines or changing conditions. Alpine is so large that most mechs can't even respond to a base cap if the enemy player initiates it with just one person. This is partly due to terrible capture design and mechanics, but largely due to the sheer vastness of the map. I understand that the game shouldn't purely be about who has the largest mech, but there are better ways to balance mechs; if this is a concern in favor of Alpine, there are better ways to deal with it.
See, because of how large it is, if you don't spawn in the NE base, it would take too long for even your lights to gain a proper appreciation for where on the map the enemy team is. Even pulling 150kph, it takes a long time to traverse the map, and with sheer cliffs in the way to screw you in terms of impassible terrain, you can't send your major forces in the right direction. Unless you're the NE base, where you have access to the top of the highest point of the map at the center of the map just by proxy of spawning in the NE very easily. Then, if you don't have draw distance issues, you can direct your team properly.
But, in pugs, you don't see scouts well...scouting. So what happens is both teams inevitably take 2-5 minutes trudging to the main battle area, and then they sit there with impassible terrain (if snipers/LRMs are present) until someone decides to make a move.
This happens in the center of the map usually, but there's another problem. Remember the whole "most mechs can't react to base caps" part? Well, there's enough cracks and crevices that only the most attentive of people will ever notice any mech sneaking around the smallest parts of the map. I call this tactic "operation cheesecap" because, as the name implies, it's a cheesy way to win largely by capping. It's cheesy because the enemy can't actually react to it. Pubs choose a good place to generally engage, and everyone goes there, leaving the other half of the map no matter which side is chosen as an open free run to the enemy base to gain what is essentially a free victory by base cap.
In an effort to create a map that's more tactically viable or interesting because it's "large", you (the devs) ended up creating the most stale, boring, predictable map with one of the easiest ways to guarantee a victory by just running around the main blob and capturing them because they can't spot you unless they're looking for you to be doing this to begin with while they're engaging your team's blob, where it's so large that once a cap starts you can't respond to it. A map where brawlers are exclusively screwed unless one team commits to what will most likely be a failed push, and in general an unpleasant experience.
See, Caustic Valley, while an annoying map for brawlers, at least gives them options to get to the enemy relatively safely. It doesn't afford one team the high ground advantage immediately just by proxy of spawn. And, you can react to changing battle conditions even as an assault mech without having time to go afk, visit a restaurant, get a 3-course meal, come back, and still not be at your destination. Hyperbole is fun.
As it stands I'd rate the 5 maps in this order from best to worst. Forest Colony, Caustic Valley, Frozen City, River City, Alpine. The reason for this is as follows. Forest Colony doesn't punish any build, it's tight, compact, offers multiple valid options without screwing over your ability to react to situations, and it's great on both map modes. Caustic Valley is the same, but it punishes heat inefficient builds and rewards sniper builds a tinge too much. Frozen City punishes longer range builds and rewards brawlers a bit too much, but it's a good old-fashioned brawling madness and is always fun (for me). River City is bad, but only on assault and only because of the river being basically impossible to safely cross, so it devolves into a base race way too easily. Otherwise it's fine on conquest, ironically, due to how conquest operates. And finally alpine, which my entire post has gone on rambling about how it's terrible largely because it's too large. Hell, if you get conquest alpine, you better pray your team is primarily lights, otherwise you're basically guaranteed to lose right there short of your team with lights choosing to brawl when they could be capping!
So, how does all this tie in? Right here.
I don't want a map larger than alpine. I don't care for one second if you want a map with open sight lines. I don't care if you want to make brawlers a bit harder to use on a map. That doesn't bother me. I can cope with it either by dealing with it or by swapping my build to more effectively handle long-range combat. That's fine. What bothers me is large maps aren't fun for all the reasons I've already stated. And you've just stated you're adding a map larger than alpine, the worst map in the game because it's too large. A map I hate to play on in my LRM-Primary C1 Catapult. A map I hate to play in my scout Raven 3L. A map I hate to play in my mixed-range Stalker. A map I hate to play on my mid-short range Atlas. A map I hate to play on my short range Hunchback(s). Not because it's too open and has limited options to push the enemy position, but because it's simply too large. And you're adding a larger map.
Fan-friggen-tastic.
Alpine is the worst map in the game. Period. The reason for this isn't because it's open. It isn't because it's largely flat. It isn't because it unduly punishes mechs with brawler builds. These are all annoying contrivances, but none of these are insurmountable even on Alpine with proper creativity and a little bit of a gung-ho attitude. The map is especially susceptible to one side getting stacked with short range and another with long, but this goes all ways on all maps to some degree or another to mixed results, so whatever. Fix it in the matchmaker, or not, it doesn't really matter.
There are 2 major problems with Alpine. One is relevant to Tourmaline Desert, the other....not so much. First, imbalanced map layout/design. Alpine is a map that innately gives the high ground advantage to the north-east spawn. This is pretty huge, since this means LRMs are more effective, mechs like Stalkers with most weapons mounted on arms more effective, and scouts are more effective due to the central point. This is one reason why Alpine is bad, but I don't want to focus on this since it's not relevant to Tourmaline Desert as this tiny tidbit of info suggests. Hard to complain about layout when you don't know what it is yet.
The problem with Alpine is that it's, simply put, too large. It's a map that very heavily disenfranchises assaults and heavies to varying degrees (especially depending on build) while very heavily putting strong emphasis on fully upgraded (read: fast) lights, and to a lesser extent mediums. Speed is key on it more than range. Why?
Well, if you're not fast, you can't respond to shifting battle lines or changing conditions. Alpine is so large that most mechs can't even respond to a base cap if the enemy player initiates it with just one person. This is partly due to terrible capture design and mechanics, but largely due to the sheer vastness of the map. I understand that the game shouldn't purely be about who has the largest mech, but there are better ways to balance mechs; if this is a concern in favor of Alpine, there are better ways to deal with it.
See, because of how large it is, if you don't spawn in the NE base, it would take too long for even your lights to gain a proper appreciation for where on the map the enemy team is. Even pulling 150kph, it takes a long time to traverse the map, and with sheer cliffs in the way to screw you in terms of impassible terrain, you can't send your major forces in the right direction. Unless you're the NE base, where you have access to the top of the highest point of the map at the center of the map just by proxy of spawning in the NE very easily. Then, if you don't have draw distance issues, you can direct your team properly.
But, in pugs, you don't see scouts well...scouting. So what happens is both teams inevitably take 2-5 minutes trudging to the main battle area, and then they sit there with impassible terrain (if snipers/LRMs are present) until someone decides to make a move.
This happens in the center of the map usually, but there's another problem. Remember the whole "most mechs can't react to base caps" part? Well, there's enough cracks and crevices that only the most attentive of people will ever notice any mech sneaking around the smallest parts of the map. I call this tactic "operation cheesecap" because, as the name implies, it's a cheesy way to win largely by capping. It's cheesy because the enemy can't actually react to it. Pubs choose a good place to generally engage, and everyone goes there, leaving the other half of the map no matter which side is chosen as an open free run to the enemy base to gain what is essentially a free victory by base cap.
In an effort to create a map that's more tactically viable or interesting because it's "large", you (the devs) ended up creating the most stale, boring, predictable map with one of the easiest ways to guarantee a victory by just running around the main blob and capturing them because they can't spot you unless they're looking for you to be doing this to begin with while they're engaging your team's blob, where it's so large that once a cap starts you can't respond to it. A map where brawlers are exclusively screwed unless one team commits to what will most likely be a failed push, and in general an unpleasant experience.
See, Caustic Valley, while an annoying map for brawlers, at least gives them options to get to the enemy relatively safely. It doesn't afford one team the high ground advantage immediately just by proxy of spawn. And, you can react to changing battle conditions even as an assault mech without having time to go afk, visit a restaurant, get a 3-course meal, come back, and still not be at your destination. Hyperbole is fun.
As it stands I'd rate the 5 maps in this order from best to worst. Forest Colony, Caustic Valley, Frozen City, River City, Alpine. The reason for this is as follows. Forest Colony doesn't punish any build, it's tight, compact, offers multiple valid options without screwing over your ability to react to situations, and it's great on both map modes. Caustic Valley is the same, but it punishes heat inefficient builds and rewards sniper builds a tinge too much. Frozen City punishes longer range builds and rewards brawlers a bit too much, but it's a good old-fashioned brawling madness and is always fun (for me). River City is bad, but only on assault and only because of the river being basically impossible to safely cross, so it devolves into a base race way too easily. Otherwise it's fine on conquest, ironically, due to how conquest operates. And finally alpine, which my entire post has gone on rambling about how it's terrible largely because it's too large. Hell, if you get conquest alpine, you better pray your team is primarily lights, otherwise you're basically guaranteed to lose right there short of your team with lights choosing to brawl when they could be capping!
So, how does all this tie in? Right here.
Quote
Tourmaline Desert
MechWarrior Online’s largest map yet!
MechWarrior Online’s largest map yet!
I don't want a map larger than alpine. I don't care for one second if you want a map with open sight lines. I don't care if you want to make brawlers a bit harder to use on a map. That doesn't bother me. I can cope with it either by dealing with it or by swapping my build to more effectively handle long-range combat. That's fine. What bothers me is large maps aren't fun for all the reasons I've already stated. And you've just stated you're adding a map larger than alpine, the worst map in the game because it's too large. A map I hate to play on in my LRM-Primary C1 Catapult. A map I hate to play in my scout Raven 3L. A map I hate to play in my mixed-range Stalker. A map I hate to play on my mid-short range Atlas. A map I hate to play on my short range Hunchback(s). Not because it's too open and has limited options to push the enemy position, but because it's simply too large. And you're adding a larger map.
Fan-friggen-tastic.
#185
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 568 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:58 AM
Mimimimimimimimimimi... my fatlas is too slow to respond to anything and I'm just a pugger who doesn't like other people.
I hope that the devs will crank enough large maps that they will remove the small ones.
I hope that the devs will crank enough large maps that they will remove the small ones.
#186
-
-
- 52 posts
Member
- LocationStrana Mechty
Posted 05 March 2013 - 04:59 AM
You should make MC and C-Bill consumables identical. What you are trying to implement is clearly a PayToWin, and this way you will lose customers. If you think that this "cool" feature will attract alot of people, you are terribly wrong. MWO is a niche game, and your target group are people who engage in competitive 8vs8 matches, and PayToWin kills the gameplay we came here for.
By implementing PayToWin elements you discourage your most loyal players.
I will not spent more cash on MWO until MC and C-bill consumables are identical.
By implementing PayToWin elements you discourage your most loyal players.
I will not spent more cash on MWO until MC and C-bill consumables are identical.
#187
-
-
- Bridesmaid
- 42 posts
Member
- LocationIn the land of Twilight, under the Moon.
Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:14 AM
Lyrik, on 05 March 2013 - 04:58 AM, said:
Mimimimimimimimimimi... my fatlas is too slow to respond to anything and I'm just a pugger who doesn't like other people.
I hope that the devs will crank enough large maps that they will remove the small ones.
I hope that the devs will crank enough large maps that they will remove the small ones.
I don't play an atlas frequently. Or my stalker, for that matter. In fact, recently, I've been playing a 92kph hunchback. It's still too large. Your ad hominem strawman (trying to say I, and anyone supporting my position are people who play slow mechs exclusively are whiny babies and that we hate other people) attack really doesn't help your point. And, in fact, is largely discrediting the point you're attempting to defend (that large maps are beneficial to the game) since you decide to attack the person directly instead of dealing with the point at hand, which is my larger, less formal argument as to why large maps aren't fun or interesting to play on.
So please, when you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, do come back as I'm more than willing to go point for point on this to any logical conclusion that would come of it; but check your childish attitude at the door.
Edited by Onyx, 05 March 2013 - 05:14 AM.
#188
-
-
- 6,386 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:32 AM
Keep in mind that we will get 12vs12 matches and maps like Alpine will offer a more reasonable size for such matches compared to the shoebox maps.
#189
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 568 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 05:56 AM
Onyx, on 05 March 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:
So please, when you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, do come back as I'm more than willing to go point for point on this to any logical conclusion that would come of it; but check your childish attitude at the door.
Onyx, on 05 March 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:
I don't play an atlas frequently. Or my stalker, for that matter. In fact, recently, I've been playing a 92kph hunchback. It's still too large. Your ad hominem strawman (trying to say I, and anyone supporting my position are people who play slow mechs exclusively are whiny babies and that we hate other people) attack really doesn't help your point. And, in fact, is largely discrediting the point you're attempting to defend (that large maps are beneficial to the game) since you decide to attack the person directly instead of dealing with the point at hand, which is my larger, less formal argument as to why large maps aren't fun or interesting to play on.
So please, when you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, do come back as I'm more than willing to go point for point on this to any logical conclusion that would come of it; but check your childish attitude at the door.
So please, when you decide you want to engage in an actual discussion, do come back as I'm more than willing to go point for point on this to any logical conclusion that would come of it; but check your childish attitude at the door.
You are running a Hunch with 97kmph and still find it too large? Aha... sorry noob but learn to play if you loose the entire time on Alpine. Or get a better team.
But it is true that on Alpine the stupids pugs are acting even more like brainless brawler idiots. It's like an IQ test for pugs :-P No one wants to defend. Return to base. Cap. etc... easy wins while I'm leveling my Jenner :-P Hard Job when I use my Founders C1 xD
My vote goes to large maps. And that Piranha dismisses the small ones.
#190
-
-
- 473 posts
Member
- LocationMontreal
Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:04 AM
QUESTION ABOUT NEW MECHLAB:
Ammo display?
I did not see if you have the correct ammo loaded?
Two games yesterday where guys had the wrong ammo and disconnected.
Add that to the regular disconnects and it really sucks...
Ammo display?
I did not see if you have the correct ammo loaded?
Two games yesterday where guys had the wrong ammo and disconnected.
Add that to the regular disconnects and it really sucks...
#191
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 6,003 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:16 AM
I'm of the same belief many are; that coolant and other consumables which provide bonuses in the style suggested lean the game away from F2P status.
BUT, I've also been here long enough to watch "whining storms" hit EACH and EVERY SINGLE time a new feature was implemented. In many of the previous cases, the game was just fine, and I'm not sure if the hesitation for the newly implemented functionality is just fear of change or good ol fashioned sensationalism, but I am, at the least, going to give PGI enough credit to see how they implement this in gameplay for a while before I pass judgement on its effect.
I'm assuming there will be a visual effect that lets you know the player flushed coolant, and I hope that consumables can be USED in Training Grounds but NOT actually used up (ie, allow you to test it out but without actually consuming the item)
BUT, I've also been here long enough to watch "whining storms" hit EACH and EVERY SINGLE time a new feature was implemented. In many of the previous cases, the game was just fine, and I'm not sure if the hesitation for the newly implemented functionality is just fear of change or good ol fashioned sensationalism, but I am, at the least, going to give PGI enough credit to see how they implement this in gameplay for a while before I pass judgement on its effect.
I'm assuming there will be a visual effect that lets you know the player flushed coolant, and I hope that consumables can be USED in Training Grounds but NOT actually used up (ie, allow you to test it out but without actually consuming the item)
#193
-
-
- Elite Founder
- 845 posts
Member
- LocationFinland
Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:33 AM
35% off heat and then you have to buy the consumable again and most importantly it takes a module slot. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a module like advanced sensor range in that slot. Seriously, you think coolant flush is op and pay2win? I think it's very weak, tbh, and will not use it.
Consumables work just fine in WoT and I think having to buy them again after use is the way to go. If it was just one time purchase everyone would use them all the time. Better that everyone thinks twice about the cost and only uses them sparingly. Still, in WoT they are in their own slots, so you only lose money. Not the ability to equip very useful modules.
Consumables work just fine in WoT and I think having to buy them again after use is the way to go. If it was just one time purchase everyone would use them all the time. Better that everyone thinks twice about the cost and only uses them sparingly. Still, in WoT they are in their own slots, so you only lose money. Not the ability to equip very useful modules.
#194
-
-
- FP Veteran - Beta 1
- 568 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 07:36 AM
Helmstif, on 05 March 2013 - 07:24 AM, said:
When would we be able to see what map we'll be dropping to BEFORE selecting our 'Mech?
Hopefully never
#195
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 6,003 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:00 AM
The ability to KNOW what map you're going to drop into is a planned feature down the line. You won't have control over what map, but at least you'll know and can take an appropriately configured Mech. ETA? Who the heck knows.
#196
-
-
- The Bold
- 42 posts
Member
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:07 AM
Quote
When would we be able to see what map we'll be dropping to BEFORE selecting our 'Mech?
Hopefully, it will be implemented as an optional match-type. While sometimes it may be nice to jump in blind, it also takes away some of the 'immersion' factor of the game for a team to go into a warzone without any prior knowledge of said warzone. Dropping in blind will make even less sense once community warfare is implemented, seeing as how factions will (mostly) be fighting over known territories, so having some ability to strategize in advance would be appropriate.
Edited by RatBast, 05 March 2013 - 08:08 AM.
#197
-
-
- 2,698 posts
Member
- LocationStrana Mechty
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:25 AM
Aegis Kleais, on 05 March 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:
The ability to KNOW what map you're going to drop into is a planned feature down the line. You won't have control over what map, but at least you'll know and can take an appropriately configured Mech. ETA? Who the heck knows.
Community Warfare is the ETA.
#198
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 243 posts
Member
- LocationWinnipeg, Manitoba
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:49 AM
Why is everyone calling this a bad idea. I agree the thought of spending money on it is bad, but hell I will spend C-Bills for sure. Stalkers gonna get some loving with an extra Atlas smashing alpha strike no doubt. But here is why i think if it were only C-Bills we have a good idea on our hands.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Coolant_Pod
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Coolant_Pod
#199
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 12 posts
Member
- LocationBrazil
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:53 AM
Uoou, really great, you guys are doing a great work :} \o/
But I still missing Factions, Community Warfare, house wars, Clan Invasion..... I want to battle for Inner Sphere!!!!!!!!
But I still missing Factions, Community Warfare, house wars, Clan Invasion..... I want to battle for Inner Sphere!!!!!!!!
#200
-
-
- Bad Company
- 382 posts
Member
- LocationBielefeld, NRW, Germany
Posted 05 March 2013 - 08:54 AM
Thorqemada, on 05 March 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:
Well, many good things to come in March and some questionable stuff....should i be happy or should i be concerned?
Both!
I'm not sure about what I should more be annoyed of... another Level 3 crap put into or the late distinct answer about the "will money do get you an advantage" question! (which BTW was a clear "NO" at the time they were at the GDC 2012!)
I wonder how PGI will be remembered in the future: as the company which revived the MechWarrior franchise... or the company which always promised A and did B instead...
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users
