335 replies to this topic

[Viges]

Sybreed, on 23 June 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

edit: Or I could be wrong and the guy could explain his point further.

You are right, thank you - I dont like to write long posts

[ogy]

What he said

[CDLord HHGD]

My two cents:

We need 20ish maps (twice what we have now) of ALL size ranges (small, medium, and large) with 1 or 2 variants of each map.

I'm also of a mind that there could be ~4 absolutely HUGE maps constantly in play with several combat theaters (think Planetside).

[Marj]

+1 for bigger maps. As has been said, bigger maps = more options which makes battles more interesting. They should be big enough to ensure you don't automatically know where the enemy is going to be. Scouting should be a role.

[anonymous161]

Biglead, on 20 June 2014 - 01:44 PM, said:

Bigger maps
More structures
More caves
Less hills.


Destructible...Enviroment.


Yes.

This

[Rebas Kradd]

Vaskadar, on 23 June 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

Bigger maps will just lead to more sniping.

It's not as if sniping and long-range combat are invalid styles. The problem right now is with the weapons and jump jets making sniping and long-range weapons viable in almost any situation. Remove poptarting and PPC/AC/Gauss would go back to being the ideal option for long-range sight lines, as they should be, not the optimal choice for any and all scenarios.

Again, it's about making map size a tactical consideration. Are you dropping on a small map? Brawlers would probably be a better choice. Are you dropping on a large map? Bring some PPC/Gauss. BUT, tweak the map so that there are still ways to sneak up on a sniper and engage him at close range where his weapons suck and yours don't.

Of course, that all requires being able to see the map before you choose the mech. But we ARE getting that feature in the lobby. We're also getting destructible environment at some point; it's been glimpsed in VLOGs.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 23 June 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[Sandpit]

Sybreed, on 23 June 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

he means that as long as we only have assault/skirmish/conquest/no respawn there's no point of having big maps. In big conquest maps, only the smaller mechs will get to the further cap points because the assaults want to be at the usual "confrontation spots". If you add diversity to game modes and whatnot and give reasons to go elsewhere on maps, then having bigger map would make sense.

In short, having an actual "warfare" scenario would make big maps shine. Our arcadey game modes don't require bigger maps.

edit: Or I could be wrong and the guy could explain his point further.

I think you're right but I still dont' agree entirely and here's why

When it comes to what he's talking about it has a LOT more to do with things like map design, communication tools, teamwork, etc.

For years the standardized advice given to new players is "stick with the blob" because the lack of communication tools makes it extremely difficult to communicate complex strategies in the middle of a firefight with only text based communication to use. This is where premades "cater" to pugs. It's one of the simplest ways to communicate sticking with the team and not just going full rambo to die in the first 60 seconds so this is where that strategy and term originated.
This is especially true when you've got 8 teammates that you want to try and coordinate. Now after years of this "strategy" and it becoming the standardized way to get new players to stick with the majority of the team. That has a lot more to do with teams constantly using the same areas, tactics, firing positions etc. than map size.

Design also plays into this as well. If certain areas are simply "better" at holding or attacking from then they will become the "standard" and be used more often than not. The top tier players usually set the tone for this type of thing. They explore, practice, and strategize in very coordinated teams. Thus they tend to find the "optimal" locations on the map. Since they're top tier players many begin to emulate their strategies and tactics in order to improve their own chances of winning. Battlefield has HUGE maps. They're also exceptionally well varied in locations and strategies. Sure there's always going to be "standard" locations but with a good map design that's balanced, it becomes easier to utilize more than just those standards.

I'll give an example:

Mordor AKA Terra Therma:
One of the most common things said at the start of that map is "Don't go into the volcano"
Why is this?
Well, going into the volcano and holding that area is actualyl a very GOOD strategy. It becomes a "bad" strategy when you have 3-4 teammates who want to crawl up into the entrance and
stop
in the entrance
blocking everyone of their teammates behind them from entering and returning fire on enemy mechs and bottlenecking themselves in the entrance to get picked off 2-3 at a time. That's because it's much harder to explain this to teammates due to the communication tools. It's much easier to just go left or right and avoid it altogether. Now if it was easier to communicate with teammates things like this would not ever go away but they WOULD be less frequent.

This is why I say things that were mentioned earlier have a lot less to do with size than other underlying factors.

Also, remember, I'm not suggesting or implying that small(er) maps should be done away with, just that big(ger) maps should be included. Options, not restrictions. If they follow through and implement some sort of voting system that also gives players the opportunity to play maps more to their liking more often (although not exclusively which is a good thing in my opinion)

[Exilyth]

So far, the consensus seems to be primarily that we need more maps and secondarily that bigger maps could work if the terrain was varied (e.g. not like alpine with a prominent terrain feature and nothing around) and we had meaningfull objectives.

[Sandpit]

Exilyth, on 23 June 2014 - 01:15 PM, said:

So far, the consensus seems to be primarily that we need more maps and secondarily that bigger maps could work if the terrain was varied (e.g. not like alpine with a prominent terrain feature and nothing around) and we had meaningfull objectives.

I agree although I also think the consensus is stating the opposite of "players don't want big maps". Hopefully this will catch Russ' attention. (Feel free to bug him about it everyone lol)

[Sandpit]

So has anyone heard anything from the dev team regarding this particular issue?

[CeeKay Boques]

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 11:58 AM, said:

So has anyone heard anything from the dev team regarding this particular issue?

They actually called me on my way to work remind me that maps are a low priority because Community Warfare. I tried to tell them it was an important part of CW, but they had already hung up, with their typical "Take off, Hoser!" *click*!

[Sandpit]

Technoviking, on 25 June 2014 - 12:02 PM, said:

They actually called me on my way to work remind me that maps are a low priority because Community Warfare. I tried to tell them it was an important part of CW, but they had already hung up, with their typical "Take off, Hoser!" *click*!

i hate you lol

[Scendore]

Wow without sounding too much like some of the other posts.

It' not only a size issue but a lack of creativity in terms of what the teams objectives are... Meaning each map is played different depend on the game mode and to be honest the game modes are well pretty simple.

If you look at the maps we have now they are very basic in nature. Side A and Side B with conquest adding a few extra spots on the map. This makes for some repetitive play.

Some thought needs to be put into how the layout could influence the outcome. Sure we have choke points but there are other options. There isn't enough space to provide a lot of surprises. Also lacking anything destructible is a problem too. Being able to remove cover would be a nice thing. Changing Weather and or time would be interesting though I have my doubts about the Crytek engine.

[Sandpit]

Scendore, on 25 June 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Wow without sounding too much like some of the other posts.

It' not only a size issue but a lack of creativity in terms of what the teams objectives are... Meaning each map is played different depend on the game mode and to be honest the game modes are well pretty simple.

If you look at the maps we have now they are very basic in nature. Side A and Side B with conquest adding a few extra spots on the map. This makes for some repetitive play.

Some thought needs to be put into how the layout could influence the outcome. Sure we have choke points but there are other options. There isn't enough space to provide a lot of surprises. Also lacking anything destructible is a problem too. Being able to remove cover would be a nice thing. Changing Weather and or time would be interesting though I have my doubts about the Crytek engine.

I understand but remember, the entire basis of this thread is Russ stating players don't want big)ger) maps so I'd like your opinion on that. Do you want PGI to NOT produce big)ger) maps? We're not talking design of the map itself, just the size. Do you have any objections that would dissuade PGI from making big(ger) maps?

Remember, this is what I'm getting at with this thread. I just want to know if Russ was right about his assertion that players don't want or like big maps.

[ztac]

Its not bigger that's the problem , the problem is PGI's need to make maps with countless obstacles , hills ,mountains or force you down certain routes. Whatever happened to rolling terrain , or flat terrain ? What happened to the iconic city block layout?

The real problem I think is the maps themselves , they may look different but at the end of the day they all have the same type of features. Due to the nature of the larger maps I guess that on some people just feel like they are trudging around forever to get a fight.(all the fights seem to end up in the same spot on these maps).Maybe they need random objectives on the maps, i.e. installations to destroy (first team to complete wins or destroying all the enemy, basically something to get the teams moving around the map or even splitting the team up!).

Flatter is certainly easier to make , but then the pop tarts and LRM monkeys probably wont be so keen will they!

Edited by ztac, 25 June 2014 - 12:46 PM.

[Sandpit]

I agree but again, I just want to show Russ that he is wrong in his assertion so that we will get bigger maps. I don't know where he's getting his data from but I really think it's faulty and given PGI's history with data collection..... well let's just say I don't have a lot of confidence that they can extrapolate accurate information from a data set because their data collection is suspect at best, but that's neither here nor there either. Just trying to show that in this particular case he's wrong and they need to reevaluate producing big maps

[Torgun]

An urban map with lots of buildings and lots of routes between them totally needs to happen. Think the area with buildings just below upper base of river city, and multiply it by 15-20. Fighting there often leads to the most fun shootouts where you run criss-cross between buildings and always on the lookout of running into the enemy at the next intersection. Could it be to the right, or should I turn left? So many decisions, so many outcomes.

As for Russ thinking small maps are the most wanted ones, well it would make sense for the devs since small maps should take less time and resources to make. And when they're done, they can put all hands on doing clan pack 2.

Edited by Torgun, 25 June 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[The Lonegopher]

Bigger maps would be awesome flat out. When the rule of 3 hits if it ever works it'll support this. As it stands now, it would be bad because everyone takes as many land pigs as possible. Also you never know what map your gonna get. They need to have it set up like a map choice or game type like Halo does with big team battle. Bigger yes please.

What these guys need to do is think out of the box with map creation, and also put more effort on it. I want more maps, I want it to be unpredictable and fun when I pick a mech I know will succeed in a huge map and small map. I'd never use an assault again.

Edited by The Lonegopher, 25 June 2014 - 01:25 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

People don't like alpine because it is bad, not because it is big.

This.

1) Hillclimbing penalties are WAY too punitive and Alpine is a constant reminder of that.
2) Alpine revolves around the H9 hill which doesnt allow for any kindve strategic variation whatsoever
3) Alpine is completely lopsided and the team starting on the low side is at a huge disadvantage.

[Jerrard Cranston]

Dakkath, on 20 June 2014 - 01:42 PM, said:

Well, IMO, bigger maps would be awesome, but they first need to spread out lances, and second, need to add in-game VOIP, third they need to open up the dang terrain (I always feel like I am fighting in a tunnel), fourth they need to add objectives with real incentive (not just some boring oil refinery to babysit.)

Agree to your third point here. Even on Alpine the fight is always around 2 main landmarks (except in conquest). The landscape doesn't need to channel mechs together so much, let lances use that space in imaginative ways.