335 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Screech, on 21 June 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

I am just basing it on what I see in matches. It seems that the majority of complaints are about the larger maps. I do not agree with them but I think they are the majority.

I understand that.

I'll give you an example as to why that's a bad way to come to a conclusion
When Terra was first released all you heard was supposedly how noone liked it. Everyone hated it and it should be removed. Well one of the bigger proponents of that idea started a poll to gauge the rest of the community. The poll showed something like 4-500 votes liking it with about 2-3 dozen wanting it removed.

[Sandpit]

LordKnightFandragon, on 21 June 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

Isnt that what this game is?

that's the $5million question from a lot of founders. That's not the game or playstyle that was advertised. Bigger maps would be a step in the "right" direction to making this game much more than a mindless deathmatch arena. There's nothing wrong with having a game mode for that style, it's just not what the entire game was supposedly going to be.

That's the thing that seems to be hard to get across to people (PGI included) just because you include something doesn't mean it has to come at the exclusion of something else. It blows my mind at how often a suggestion is made on the forums and it gets bashed because "that's not how I want to play"
well....
Ok then. Noone said you do. On the flipside of that you've had several portions of the player base told they can't play how they want to... because....

because why?

because

Uhm ok....
Just because someone is asking for MORE doesn't mean it has to = LESS for other areas or playstyles. It's not hard to set up a queue that allows custom features and map selection and such...
oh wait...
It seems like it's fine and dandy to tell players in groups that they have to use premium private matches so the same should be true for those that don't like stuff like bigger maps. They have the same options as everyone else to play in private matches and set conditions that makes the game more enjoyable for them.

Personally I don't think it was a smart idea to charge people to just play the game but that's a different rant for a different thread. Please don't take any of this personally, I'm just trying to point out that asking for one thing doesn't mean it has to be to the detriment to everything else

[Goose]

LordKnightFandragon, on 21 June 2014 - 11:57 AM, said:

We start as a blob then 1 by one someone feels the need to "Scout" the next ridge...all alone. He gets face planted by 6. Then another guy feels the need to "go help his buddy" so he goes off on his own and he gets rolled. Then another and another. So, the game is now 0-4. The remaining 8 start to fire back, they causes some damage, but are split up and stuff, so the 12 just roll the split up, isolated 8, 2 mechs at a time. and it ends in a 0-12 wipe.

When both blobs stick together it atleast then becomes a 7-12 loss.

Note how the part about "reports via `R' key" gets glossed over? Or the commentary on technique is missing?

"He left the Blob!" "Teh Blob didn't go to the Standard Kill Zone!" "All Hail Teh Blob!"

I maintain this is what people have mis-learned from ECM being in the game …

I also maintain having only four Elos' per player obfuscates this stuff from even Teh Devs …

Edited by Goose, 21 June 2014 - 04:00 PM.

[New Breed]

bigger maps if we can have a selection of mechs going into a drop.. sure. Being stuck in a direwolf on alpine version 2 that's twice as big? no thanks.

[Rebas Kradd]

Ghost Bear, on 21 June 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

bigger maps if we can have a selection of mechs going into a drop.. sure.

Agreed.

[Sandpit]

Ghost Bear, on 21 June 2014 - 01:20 PM, said:

bigger maps if we can have a selection of mechs going into a drop.. sure. Being stuck in a direwolf on alpine version 2 that's twice as big? no thanks.

Now here I agree. I've said it from day one back in CB. Black Ops does a great job on this.
2 maps are available to vote on. The one with the most votes gets picked
You can also vote to replay the same map.
No map comes up more than twice in a row because after the second time it drops out of rotation for at least one round.

Why they haven't implemented anything remotely like this in 2 years I don't know, but I do know it's possible to do

[Dymlos2003]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Now here I agree. I've said it from day one back in CB. Black Ops does a great job on this.
2 maps are available to vote on. The one with the most votes gets picked
You can also vote to replay the same map.
No map comes up more than twice in a row because after the second time it drops out of rotation for at least one round.

Why they haven't implemented anything remotely like this in 2 years I don't know, but I do know it's possible to do

That comes with the lobby system

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

I'll give you an example as to why that's a bad way to come to a conclusion
When Terra was first released all you heard was supposedly how noone liked it. Everyone hated it and it should be removed. Well one of the bigger proponents of that idea started a poll to gauge the rest of the community. The poll showed something like 4-500 votes liking it with about 2-3 dozen wanting it removed.

I hate Mordor with a passion, but I kinda like the artistic view of the map to an extent.

I would hazard a guess that the map simply needs to be "reworked" in the sense that it needs "landmark locations" as some people have suggested.

River City has the "Citadel", Upper City, Lower City, Upper Base...
Caustic Valley has the "Caldera"..
Crimson Strait has the "Saddle"
Frozen City has "Jenner Alley/Highway" and the dropship.
Forest Colony has the ship and the tower.
Tourmaline has the "Ring".
HPG has the antenna...
Even Alpine has an antenna...

These things we can put locations and landmarks to, because they are notable locations, and often times fighting zones.

Mordor does not really have such a "creation". Thus, it makes it difficult to "direct people" to a specific location, outside of the Thunderdome/Pug Zapper.

For a map to have some sort of notoriety... Mordor simply has none of that. I personally would not want ANY map to be removed... but AM ADAMANT that maps needs to be reworked heavily (Mordor and Alpine at the top of the list) and I believe people would agree with such an assessment. Removal is silly. Reworking is almost mandatory for map development over time.

Edited by Deathlike, 21 June 2014 - 02:08 PM.

[Rippthrough]

ninjitsu, on 20 June 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well, Alpine Peaks is super boring, so I don't think bigger is better.

That's just down to very poor map design though.

[jaxjace]

Goose, on 20 June 2014 - 04:38 PM, said:

ECMs' interactions with map size is …

the necessity of it.

Its not just size that matters though, its design.

[Sephlock]

jaxjace, on 21 June 2014 - 02:18 PM, said:

the necessity of it.

Its not just size that matters though, its design.

And also the frequency of appearance.

[Foxfire]

If PGI wants to build good maps.. build maps that have plenty of avanues that allow for closure of distances without having to cross fields of deaths from LRM's and Gausses. Allow people to get close to each other to have an actual fight instead of this stand off distance BS that currently happens.

[Blood Rose]

Our current maps are too tiny and limiting in their approach routes and viable tactics.
We need larger maps too really get the true BT experience.

[Sephlock]

Blood Rose, on 21 June 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

Our current maps are too tiny and limiting in their approach routes and viable tactics.
We need larger maps too really get the true BT experience.

Foxfire, on 21 June 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

If PGI wants to build good maps.. build maps that have plenty of avanues that allow for closure of distances without having to cross fields of deaths from LRM's and Gausses. Allow people to get close to each other to have an actual fight instead of this stand off distance BS that currently happens.

I hereby call for a cage match between these two Mechwarriors!

[SuperNobody]

Bigger maps with the same objectives will not work. We need additional creative objectives that better use all mech roles in a way that doesn't just make everyone meet up in the middle in a big snipefest.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

I would agree with some that the original first few maps were fine for 8x8, but as of now, too small for the full company's of 24 Mech's.

Side note, then back on topic:
- We will be receiving a new mode of play soon, Attack/Defend, this brings with it a physical active Dropship on map for the attackers and defensive positions and structures for the current location holders.(defenders)

I just don't see where all this additional items can be placed on a few of the maps,
- Forest Colony may be able to 'open/unlock the unseen lower area' that's around the corner (in the bay) for the dropship. But there's really not much room for any type of defensive base that can allow 12 Mech's room to move, or the attackers any option but frontal assault.
- River City same deal, unless you bulldoze down a few city blocks there no place to build a defensive base large enough for 12 Mechs.
- And I don't have any Idea what they would do for Terra Therma, as some areas only have enough room for a few Mechs to walk 'in line formation', and would need a major redo for a base to be built.
- If PGI goes with an idea of a base defensive area only large enough for 6 Mech's and have the other 6 positioned as roving sentries /guards there may be some leeway for the smaller maps. You'd still be hard pressed in the gameplay as there is little to no fall back or 'safe' location for the Mech's 'outside the wire'.

Back on topic:
- Some of the issues we are seeing with the reasonably large maps not being fully used to there potential,
~ there are no reasons to be in the outer boundaries of the map,
~ most all gameplay lead to find all the enemy Mech's and kill/destroy them.
~ Not because this is the only method of winning that mode of play but because there is not much else that can be done.
(even on conquest it sometimes just ends in destroying all the enemy.)

- If the map designers created a few local defence structures through out all the maps,
~ even the Lore states that the original SLDF garrisoned almost every populated Planet in the IS, these are now very old but should still be in place and were normally taken over by the holding Factions.
~ and as this is the Inner Sphere and almost any Planet with something valuable could be and was attacked by it's neighbour Faction at one time or another, there should be some form of built in defences for resisting these 'sudden changing of interests'.
[Alpine is a perfect candidate for this type of feature as it already has multiple small locations that can be used for defensive structures. And they are spread out all over the map.]

A small example of something that these could look like:


- They don't need to be large but offer some protection and defence.
- If we want large maps we need a reason for them to be this large.



** Yes they are from 'that other game', but you get the idea. Mounds of dirt do not make the best defensive position. **

- An example: Tourmaline Desert has a small damaged dropship way back in one corner that's hardly ever visited, turn on a similar 'capture bonus' element that conquest has for that ship and it's surrounding area, place some hastily constructed defenses, and make it a reason to fight over there.

So, yes larger maps would be good, and allow for future ideas for gameplay. Even if PGI could 'stitch' two current small maps together, blend the few irregularities between them, and produce the new large map.
- River city stitched to Forest colony as a example. Both have a large body of water that can be matched.
- Even mirroring half or all the map and stitch it back in, but this does take some art, rendering, matching to do a good job. But everything is already built which reduces quite a bit of work.

Our next map, Jungle, has had little information released about it, what is it's size in relation to the other maps? Does it have the capability to be expanded for new and future modes or gameplay ideas? If we are within a few months of a release date for this map PGI should open some concept art image sneak peaks. (PGI, you know, teasing first, gets a whole different reaction than just springing the final item. Ask anybody's wife, it really does work for the better.)

Just some thoughts,
9erRed

[Rebas Kradd]

I know that the Mech Factory map is specifically designed for the new Attack and Defend mode.

I dunno, we'll see. We're looking for reasons to prompt lights and mediums into scouting AND for reasons to split up the lances, force them to operate independently and choose loadouts to compensate.

[Sandpit]

Rebas Kradd, on 21 June 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

I know that the Mech Factory map is specifically designed for the new Attack and Defend mode.

I dunno, we'll see. We're looking for reasons to prompt lights and mediums into scouting AND for reasons to split up the lances, force them to operate independently and choose loadouts to compensate.

that simply cannot happen without bigger maps though

[Rebas Kradd]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

that simply cannot happen without bigger maps though

No, really? I totally have not been posting that same refrain for 24 hours now.

But it's worth discussing what ELSE would be needed. Larger maps alone admittedly won't compensate for the "hiking" factor.

[Anjian]

Maps in this game are just horrid.

The best maps I ever played in a game where in Chromehounds. They were huge, and provided many tactical opportunities for maneuver, sniping and long range bombardment. They are also quite varied, depending on the region that your faction is based on, and reflects the state of the conflict.

The next best maps I see are in World of Tanks but not always. Many WoT maps actually stink, but I like the attitude of the developers best. They take notice and bad maps are either taken out of the game or out of rotation. Other maps are remapped and improved to allow for more lines of attack. And they are always constantly introducing new maps. They just had a patch the same day PGI did with on the clans, and their 9.1 patch took over a gig, mostly on maps. Their best maps are particularly the city maps, like Himmelsdorf, that manage to convey European architecture in varying states of destruction.

War Thunder also constantly introduces new maps and their last patch, few days ago, revised some of their existing ones. Heck, I really wish one of their maps, Kuban for Ground Forces, were MWO maps.

I like this attitude that admits that your maps stink and work to revise them or take them out of rotation. PGI needs to learn from them.