335 replies to this topic

[Zuesacoatl]

I love big maps, but the lack of game types to support play on larger maps limits the amount of the maps used. If there were game play elements to support alpines larger size, you would see less of charge the hill and defend, and more tactic based play. I think further game types and/or refinements of current game types should occure first before releasing another big map, or run the risk of it being doa like the other three.

Some people hate 2 of the three big maps because they hate having to adjust their massive heat spike builds. They do not enjoy having to actually manage heat and would rather play in the cold press button and win maps. Those are the COD freaks that just want to run in, guns blazing, and hope they come out last for the win kind of crowd. we have to change that mentality about MWO if you ever want to get grander maps, otherwise it is straight to the center and duke it out like it is today. To hell with tactics.

[Sandpit]

Sky Legacy, on 20 June 2014 - 10:55 PM, said:

I think alot of people agree not only that Crimson is the best map but also agree on the same reasons for WHY it is so. Not just because it's large but because of the variety it offers as opposed to something like Terra Therma which is huge but forces and funnels the teams into small pre designated pockets and Alpine which is huge but terrible with 0 variety just giant open spaces and stupid mountain peaks that force assault mechs to unrealistically climb them to not be at a disadvantage.
Even during the recent tournament I remember the commentators speaking about Crimson for the same reasons and that they agreed it was the best map due to the size AND variety where you can choose alot of different locations to fight and each location has variety and offers unique environments like the above/below parking garage looking thing, the tunnel, the city on the other side, etc. We need more asymmetrical maps like that with cool variety

here's my thing though. That actually reinforces my idea that most would rather have large maps. large maps don't have to mean long endless boring tromps up bland scenery that just repeats itself. large maps can be robust. They can combine different elements.

One thing I like about WoT? The maps! They jsut feel huge but are so varied and can have everything from beach fronts to blown out cities. They give you a sense of scale and scope that make you feel like you're really in a tank rolling across terrain.

Anyhow, that's just another reason I really think the players both want, and would be ok with bigger maps

[Dymlos2003]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 11:12 PM, said:

here's my thing though. That actually reinforces my idea that most would rather have large maps. large maps don't have to mean long endless boring tromps up bland scenery that just repeats itself. large maps can be robust. They can combine different elements.

One thing I like about WoT? The maps! They jsut feel huge but are so varied and can have everything from beach fronts to blown out cities. They give you a sense of scale and scope that make you feel like you're really in a tank rolling across terrain.

Anyhow, that's just another reason I really think the players both want, and would be ok with bigger maps

I would be ok for bigger maps. Just tell all the people whining that it takes a while to get into battle to shut up.

Also I think that's where we are headed though. With the news that PGI has been working on ways to make maps with certain themes easier to create, we will probably see MW4 style maps.

[Lyoto Machida]

Monky, on 20 June 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

Alpine is poorly designed for actual gameplay with huge open sightlines and massive terrain advantages to one spawn or the other. Tourmaline is alright, needs a MAJOR terrain geometry pass as shots that -should- hit will almost always impact invisible walls if they are fired near or at an opponent near the crystaline structures. Terra Therma is a mix between alpine and Tourmaline but at least most of the time both teams have a shot at getting to the high ground. Terra is ridiculously samey all around as well, and since you can't use thermal or night vision on it because they don't have the ability to tune equipment in the future, well, it's not pleasant.

So most of the problems with 'big' maps are due to poor map making, not the size of the maps themselves. Crimson is fairly large, and while some areas are underutilized or over exploitable it is a popular map. On the contrary, making maps too small like river city/river city night can be very frustrating as you often take fire from the enemy in or coming out of your spawn. This limits maneuvering and surprise as well as breaks up coordination in pugs as some want to move in while others are forced to shield themselves from fire, and splitting the team is almost always a bad idea once the firefight starts.

Alpine would be different with some low level clouds/fog that separate view from the peaks to the valleys here and there.

[Ozric]

Big maps are always the way to go for a game like MWO. By controlling spawn points the game designers can focus combat into one area or another for varied gameplay, and get multiple maps out of one.

Caustic (currently my favourite map) is just the right size for a single zone map in my opinion, Forest Colony is still fun but too small for 12vs12. As other have already said Alpine is not the best designed map in the game, but if it was the size gives it the greatest potential of all.

[N0MAD]

I cant believe this I actually liked a post by both Sandpit and Rebas..really.
My mate and I had worked out spots on both River and Forest where we could fire on the enemy team from the spawn (forrest) or within seconds of spawing (both)and were able to make kills at times. We had routes worked out that could bring us onto the enemy literally in under a minute and i dont mean in a 150kph mech. Great if you want a 2 minute death match, nevertheless you can play tactics on it just nothing far reaching that doesnt primarily include fortifying and a jump snipe fight, forget the need of scouts as scouts.
Most people have covered most points, The 4 pillars view of PGI cant be fulfilled on small maps, restriction of comprehensive tactical play, roles ect.
If Russ doesnt realize that a game like this needs good large maps he is not in touch with the players, with the game, or the potential that good large maps offer. That doesnt mean that small maps dont have a place, variety is win.

Dont know where he is getting the info from tho, i havnt seen a post by him on forums (or anyone at PGI) talking about Map Sizes or content/ theme of maps for info. Did i miss such topics/threads?
I have been chatting to mates on TS today about this topic.
Add around 12 guys saying Big is good...

[GreyGriffin]

People don't dislike Alpine because it's big. People dislike it because its size inhibits fun gameplay because it is poorly designed. There's no reason to go to cool places like the aerial or the base or the frozen lake in the southeast corner (bet you didn't even know about it) because Mount Pug is just such a dominant tactical position. All the gameplay on Alpine is focused on either getting to Mount Pug or dislodging enemies from Mount Pug.

But this also leads into one of the other limiting factors of large maps, and that's the match timer. The reason Alpine's Conquest objectives were moved was because it was impossible to recover from a lost objective if you lost your mediums or lights. Now, someone is going to chime in and say "that's what you get for dropping in a 55 kph atlas blah blah blah," but screw that guy preemptively.

Dynamic gameplay means that you have to have the ability to recover from failure. This is why I have been such an advocate of Dropship mode from the start, and why Conquest makes me beat my face against the desk. Conquest mode's capture is just way, way too fast. Getting 3 capture points should not be the win condition. Holding a capture advantage long enough to win should be. And right now, you accumulate points way, way too fast and 'mechs die way, way too fast for any sort of back-and-forth to emerge.

For larger maps and more strategic play, you are going to need a way for 'mechs to live longer, (i.e. limited repair or respawn, or much-revised gameplay mechanics), you need a way to make small conflicts meaningful (through multiple overlapping objectives, none of which win the game by themselves), and you need a way to enable strategic maneuvering, by lengthening the game (you can barely cross Alpine in 5 minutes in some 'mechs) and making victory take longer to achieve (again, Respawn/dropship plus multiple victory conditions).

[maniacos]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

I mean when you spawn and you're automatically within LRM range of the enemy team before you even move, that's kinda ridiculous in my opinion.

Or of the turrets on assault... Talk about Forrest or River...

[maniacos]

GreyGriffin, on 21 June 2014 - 01:03 AM, said:

For larger maps and more strategic play, you are going to need a way for 'mechs to live longer, (i.e. limited repair or respawn, or much-revised gameplay mechanics)

Yes pls
http://www.sarna.net...bile_Field_Base

[Tipsy McTartan]

More big maps please! More breaking up of long sight lines! More route options for tactical play! More objectives for fun! More time on map!

Less contact in 15 seconds from start! Less sniping from across the map! Less funneling to the same spots again and again! and please move away from using this formula of putting an elevated area in the middle of the map!

The thing is, with PGI seemingly pushing support towards Tournament / E-Sport type play I have the sneaking suspicion that the next few maps will not be very large at all.

There are undoubtedly two different player types in MWO, those that want the quick fix action that stat boost as fast as they can and, those that want to have a fun authentic Mechwarrior experience with scouting, tactics, and objective driven gameplay.

Why only take a slice of the pie when you can have it all by catering to both types of players Russ? With map selection becoming an option this should be a non issue as long as you vary the map releases for both types of playing styles or create large maps with the option to play in smaller segments of it.

[GreyGriffin]

Jherek C, on 21 June 2014 - 01:16 AM, said:

Yes pls
http://www.sarna.net...bile_Field_Base

Sigh.

As much flak as I am going to take for this I think in game repairs are not a deal breaker for me. They were in MW4 and MWLL, which are largely considered the pinnacle of multiplayer mechwarrior, and they were there for a reason.

Combat has immediate and deadly effects on Battlemechs, and that's a good thing. It gives aggressors a sense of satisfaction and makes combat impactful and meaningful. We can argue about exactly just how immediate and deadly that combat can and should be, but that's really departing from the core of this thread (map size, which correlates to game length and complexity).

But imagine a game with 30 minute rounds and 20 km maps where you got legged and then the enemy just left you there.

Ugh.

[Boris The Spider]

Everyone I talk to despises River City. And I will bet you a million space bucks that if you raised the temperature on Frozen City to that of Terra Therma, everyone would despise that map too. There is a lot more to people liking and disliking maps than the size... that said, biggerer maps, but not at the expense of more maps. PGI should be looking at two maps per patch cycle from now till the release of CW even if they are boring generic moonscapes and such.

[maniacos]

GreyGriffin, on 21 June 2014 - 01:47 AM, said:

Sigh.

As much flak as I am going to take for this I think in game repairs are not a deal breaker for me. They were in MW4 and MWLL

And MW3, and they very often brought fun fights for the repair stations.

Quote

But imagine a game with 30 minute rounds and 20 km maps where you got legged and then the enemy just left you there.

Eject. Oh, you can't? Well...

[Ulketulke]

Slow Mechs are already complaining all day about, "Being left alone", so for PUG games bigger maps might be a bad idea.
Although for organized groups, bigger maps which allow more strategic play, might be a good idea.
Espiacially when you can chose the map before the game, so you dont end up with a SRM-boat on Alpine.

Edited by Ulketulke, 21 June 2014 - 05:09 AM.

[Boris The Spider]

Fatties are mostly complaining about being left behind on the smaller maps though, the ones where an enemy light lance can be on them in the first 3 minutes, not so much on Alpine and the like.

[KGB GRU]

Yeah I dont really want bigger either. As a player who runs with pickup groups or a 4 man team, the larger maps usually involve wagon wheel tactics and its boring drudging all the way around a large map to get to the fight. Also larger maps present too many options and confuses people. No more alpine peaks please. Also could we get another map using the moon assets without the bad geometry?

[BLOOD WOLF]

I want a variety, big and small. Open and close quarter. Maps like the real world should be varied.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Ok, here's what we need... we need maps with 12v12 in mind.

So really, 6 maps need a revamp
Forrest Colony
Forrest Colony-Snow
[both of these need both a size revamp(Larger) and an optimization pass, they tank my FPS unlike any other map. and a fix to the cave]

River City
River City-Night
[Size revamp- Larger]

Frozen City
Frozen City-Night
[These two need optimization passes]

Alpine Peaks, could be kept the same, but really it needs some additional terrain features, yes it's HUGE, but we do need some big maps in MWO contrary to popular belief.

Caustic Valley, could be a tiny bit bigger. Maybe a bit more terrain features here and there, but it's almost the right size.

Tourmaline Desert, needs a SERIOUS optimization pass in regards to geometry. I'm REALLY tired of my shots not regestering because I'm hitting invisible terrain of rock outcroppings. Size is decent, not much other than terrain pass needed.

Canyon Network - no change needed

Terra Therma- Yes I know it's hated, but frankly, it's one of the best symetrical maps in MWO right now, second only to HPG, the overall map layout is good, and it's large enough to feel big without feeling overwhelming even in a slow Atlas or Direwolf.

Crimsion Strait- Interesting sums up this map to me... I really can't think of anything I'd change about this map.

HPG Manifold- Possibly the best map in MWO in my opinion... could use a terrain pass just to cut down on invisible terrain hitboxes, but outside of that, it's almost the perfect size, and flow.

Maps we need:
Swamp
Forrest [real forrest, with lots of trees, possibly something like a redwood forrest, think Endor from Star Wars.]
City [a real, cramped cityscape]
Rolling Plains
Another Lake/River map.
Stadium style map for private matches.
A full Moonscape

Edited by Flash Frame, 21 June 2014 - 05:31 AM.

[Ultimax]

Bigger for the sake of bigger would just be pointless, everyone meets at the major landmarks on Terra Therma and Alpine anyway.


Bigger where separate parts of the map had objectives that needed to be held/destroyed/completed simultaneously so that lance vs. lance combat would take place?

That would be pretty cool.

[GreyGriffin]

Terra Therma really highlights what's wrong with PGI's map design. On paper, it seems fine. Almost quasi-urban, with multiple open battlefields separated by huge rocky mesas.

But it is so goddamn boring to look at. The black basalt terrain is so easy to get lost in, and the only thing that draws the eye is the volcano. I bet if the fields with the lava rivers had more visual landmarks that we would see way, way more action there.