22 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

or even linked together somehow?

After playing on Alpine and Tourmanline, I think it safe to say we definitely feel a little claustrophobic on the old maps. I notice that many seem to have at least SOME persistent looking terrain outside the boundaries though, and was wondering if the Devs had ever said anything about making them bigger, and if not, how the community as a whole would feel, as one would think it would take less time to give us "Improved" versions of the old maps, and make all of the rotational a little better.

Obviously with their sizes and all the predetermined "Conquest" points,giving random team drop sites would also, IMO improve things, as one match you might drop as Neighbors, the next, far sides of the map, but it would also change the bottlenecking in the middle, and improve the role of scouts, since you could no longer just assume the OpFor was on the other side of the map.

thoughts?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bigger maps better. *Grunt*

[jay35]

Not until they allow us to filter out Large maps so we don't have to play them unless we have the time and want to.

If we can separate out the Large maps then yes, I'd like to see Large versions of all of them, but only provided the rest of the time I can play the normal smaller-sized maps. When I feel like spending twice as long on a match, I'd toggle the filter and allow Tourmaline and Alpine and any new Large maps, but the rest of the time I'd much rather play the smaller more action-packed maps.

[Tickdoff Tank]

They should NEVER allow the unrestricted choice of maps.

And I see LOTS of people that hate Alpine and Desert because they are so big (I am not one of them). I like having a diverse stable of maps. I would not mind more "alternate" versions though, as long as the original maps are still in the rotation.

[Target Rich]

Excellent topic which I want to expand to look at big picture stuff.

I have no clue what this current development team is working toward...frankly I think that they are in crisis/damage control mode from what I see.

Since I was on beta testing for MW3 and 4, and corresponded with Mitch G fairly frequently on the MW5 concepts and first cuts...I kind of have some idea of where everything was going...

And it was going towards what later was released by another developer on the XBOX 360.....Chromehounds....

The tactical game was amazing....but the Strategic...was a dead solid implementation of the battletech macro war...with the Inner Sphere, Clan, and Freehold sectors replaced by 3 nation states on one planet. The entire macro map was divided into over one hundred subsectors....and each sector had three huge play maps of approximately 60 miles each. These included just frigging amazing city, mountain...etc maps that were so realistic you almost wanted to take a tour justto see the pretties.

You were REQUIRED to join a unit to play... you had built in voice communication...and 16 player matches for the disputed territory. The outcome of your battle impacted what you could purchase and recover from the battlefield. In addition, that outcome impacted the entire war as the relative boundaries of each nation state expanded or contracted...and the available resources changed according to the outcome of said battle.

Eventually, one nation won the war....and after that war....your unit could choose to "turn their coats" and join another nation in the new "war."

That is dead solid perfect stuff....and is why Microsoft chose to use Chromehounds as the killer app to initiate their new XBOX 360...

And the maps....those lovely maps.....and the build in voice com....and the infinately better control suite offered by the Xbox controllers....

Frankly if that game or this game ported over...I would go and purchase another XBOX 360 in a new york minute....just to get that amazingly immersive experience back again.

Thus...this is not about reinventing the wheel...that wheel has already been operating perfectly for 20 years now....

Its about returning to the foundations...and implementing them in a consistent, stable, and fun game platform...

NUFF SAID

[MrTarget]

I thought that was the plan, look at river city, by the bridge heading towards upper there is a pathway that you can easily get down...

[jeffsw6]

I personally prefer the small maps, and hope they will create more. I suppose 12v12 might change my opinion; but for now, I would rather play River City Night all day than go back and forth between Alpine and Tourmaline.

[jay35]

Tickdoff Tank, on 12 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

They should NEVER allow the unrestricted choice of maps.

Good thing that wasn't the request. Filtering by size is important and would go a long way to alleviating a lot of disconnects and other behavior due to not providing the player any options regarding maps.

[FrostCollar]

Hm... I'd be interested in seeing larger maps based on the aesthetics of the smaller maps, but I think it's still important that we have some smaller ones in the map cycle. So "maybe."

[l4Dl]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 April 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

thoughts?

Option 1:
- Quadruple the poly count of the small maps to make them 4x bigger =
Not possible, unless, you want 5fps.

Option 2:
- Convert the smaller maps into larger ones, and, optimize the maps without losing current buildings/structures/gameplay elements that make the maps what they are =
Alot of work as the current maps are nowhere near optimized, cant see it happening to be honest. Not when PGi is involved.

Alpine is a prime example of the restrictions of large maps.
Tourmaline is a great example of how a large map "should" be made.

Edited by l4Dl, 12 April 2013 - 11:11 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Just as another thought.

Just because all the maps were large, doesn't actually mean they would have to be played large.
one could set a boundary generator that easily could set ANY size boundary on any map. One match you might be fighting for the whole map. Another time, the map randomizer could simplybdrop abd put boundaries around one quadrant of a map. As long as the boundary sizes and locations were randomized it would allow for the same mapbto host all kinds of everthing different tactics.

[Ranek Blackstone]

jay35, on 12 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

Not until they allow us to filter out Large maps so we don't have to play them unless we have the time and want to.

If we can separate out the Large maps then yes, I'd like to see Large versions of all of them, but only provided the rest of the time I can play the normal smaller-sized maps. When I feel like spending twice as long on a match, I'd toggle the filter and allow Tourmaline and Alpine and any new Large maps, but the rest of the time I'd much rather play the smaller more action-packed maps.

Alpine and Tourmaline would be played 12v12 instead of the current place holder 8v8 we have on them, so you'll see more action on them. Game time might stay the same, but with 50% more mechs on the field, it should be interesting times.

@Steiner, interesting idea, but problems using that system would arise depending on map. You can imagine what life would be like if you had a large map with a similar lay out to Caustic, and one team spawned on the mountain, and the other spawned in the middle of now where with no cover to be had.

[Bishop Steiner]

Ranek Blackstone, on 12 April 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

Alpine and Tourmaline would be played 12v12 instead of the current place holder 8v8 we have on them, so you'll see more action on them. Game time might stay the same, but with 50% more mechs on the field, it should be interesting times.

@Steiner, interesting idea, but problems using that system would arise depending on map. You can imagine what life would be like if you had a large map with a similar lay out to Caustic, and one team spawned on the mountain, and the other spawned in the middle of now where with no cover to be had.

Very true, but IMO, that is also the appeal. I'm not a balance fanatic. I want to play a War Game. Sometimes, you get bad intel. How do you respond? (How many PvE missions in the MW titles start that way, or canon stories?). I think the very randomness and the chance to get good or bad ground starting would make it more of a challenge, and therefore more fun.

Though it's funny how many "pro-gamers" tell you to step up to the big leagues, but are the first to cry if ANYTHING is not perfectly balanced. Well ,REAL Big League Players adapt and roll with it. Mandatory balance is boring, TBH. No, egregious imbalance is not cool, but sorry if I don't really care if people take a hit to their KDr, ya know You might lose, you might win.

But the huge size makes sense for 12 man, while a random 2/3 scale sample of the Map would work for 8 man, IMO.

I also think Large Maps should have 20 minutes on the Timer, vs the 15 in the small.

[FunkyFritter]

Variety is good. I like how different maps favor different playstyles and you have to design your mech with all of them in mind.

[Bishop Steiner]

FunkyFritter, on 12 April 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Variety is good. I like how different maps favor different playstyles and you have to design your mech with all of them in mind.

Correct, and what I am proposing actually increases variety, as there are several combinations of smaller maps that can easily be programmed out of the Large ones. And if the current smalls were enlarged, then they too would have the traditional small map, but also a large 12 man map AND more 8 man micro maps. Seems win win to me.

[Denno]

Not as big as alpine, slightly smaller, but yes.

[Teralitha]

It costs PGI $250,000 to create a map, dont expect to see alot of changes to current maps

[Bishop Steiner]

Teralitha, on 12 April 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

It costs PGI $250,000 to create a map, dont expect to see alot of changes to current maps

well then since it would increase the number of ways each map could be played, I would say it was saving PGI money to do so.

[AlexEss]

i would not like to see them expanded per se, but i'd like to see a version of the smaller maps that are exapnded (and vise versa) but without removing the old ones. Some times i like a quick and dirty brawl and small maps are best for that.

[Bishop Steiner]

AlexEss, on 14 April 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

i would not like to see them expanded per se, but i'd like to see a version of the smaller maps that are exapnded (and vise versa) but without removing the old ones. Some times i like a quick and dirty brawl and small maps are best for that.

Oh, I totally, agree, which is why I added thoughts along those lines... I need to take those thoughts and attach them to the OP though...