335 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Belorion, on 20 June 2014 - 02:17 PM, said:

I like the bigger maps, but I think Russ is right, I have heard nothing but complaints about the bigger maps being... big.
s.

see above

the complaints are from the same players that had a literal meltdown over a 60 second timer for everyone to ready up at the beginning of a match. If all you want is a quick arena deathmatch then yes, smaller maps are great. Unfortunately that's never ever, EVER been what MWO was marketed as. (Although that seems to be what it's transitioning to)

[Deathlike]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

I still say have two versions of the maps.

Imagine Alpine with the following two options. GREEN bases are as we currently have them. But imagine dropping and sometimes getting the RED bases as the objectives. Certainly not saying the map would be different, but it IS a start.

Asking for randomized spawns and bases were requested a while ago.

The thing is, it is apparently not within their power to address it.. because "reasons".

[MonkeyCheese]

Large dense city map

[Sandpit]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

I still say have two versions of the maps.

Imagine Alpine with the following two options. GREEN bases are as we currently have them. But imagine dropping and sometimes getting the RED bases as the objectives. Certainly not saying the map would be different, but it IS a start.

This would be more in line with what MANY of us have asked for. Battlefield does this. They take their big maps and break them into sections that are smaller for smaller game modes. Also asking for maps that "open up" as you advance into an enemy's territory.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Just gave Russ a hard time about that comment. It's not that we don't like big maps. We don't like bad maps. Half the maps they release are bad.

And for God's sake add dynamic spawns, objectives and resources. It's 2014. Get with the program.

[Bhael Fire]

Honestly I'm tired of generic all-purpose maps and interchangeable game modes. I'd like to get some unique game modes that have their own maps from here on out.

Maps and game modes should be one in the same. That is, each map should have a specific game mode tailor made to it. This would allow large maps to actually have a reason for being large.

Assault, Conquest, and Skirmish are fine for "Arcade" mode and instant action type games in Public play...but I'm hoping Faction play will have unique maps and game modes specifically made for those maps. We have enough Arcade/Arena style maps...time to make something different.

For example, a game mode called Escort Mission might have one of several long and narrow maps specifically designed for that game mode. Another example, Attack/Defend might have a variety of maps designed for this mode.

[NeonKnight]

Deathlike, on 20 June 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:

Asking for randomized spawns and bases were requested a while ago.

The thing is, it is apparently not within their power to address it.. because "reasons".

I know, I've been saying it since closed beta when Caustic had different start locations.

[CtrlAltWheee]

Love Caustic. Canyon Network is pretty big and love that.

Alpine is only strange because the i9 area is so dominant. Change that and it's great. Conquest on Alpine is fantastic. Plus there's a whole area of the map in the south that we almost never see. That little outpost. With different spawns or conquest points that map is totally fresh.

Terra Therma is hated but not because it's huge.

All for large maps with multiple paths that make scouting important. All for large maps and then changing around spawn and conquest points to keep variety using existing assets. Large maps that allow for random placement of dropships ( ! )

[Sandpit]

well I started this thread because I know for a fact that a lot of his comments (along with Paul and other devs) go completely unnoticed by the majority of the community because they don't follow twitter. I also think this is where we get a lot of division within the player base here on the forums. Players read a CC post and take that as gospel. Meanwhile in the minutes, hours, days, and weeks that follow it is a VERY rare occurence that they don't tweet contradicting information or stuff that just creates more confusion. (Just like the whole "clarification" on units and mixed tech matches) So I'm hoping I can do something a bit more than just a twitter tracker post. I'm going to be posting their comments like this so they are heard by more of the players.

[GreyGriffin]

Ahem.

I don't think the size of the maps is the problem at all. It's that they all converge on single points of access, or dominant positions with commanding fields of view that a brace of PPCs can defend for an eternity. (*COUGH* Alpine *COUGH*)

Also, the visual design is really lacking. HPG is a nightmare to navigate and a snore to look at, despite all of its gray visual noise. Why are there not more elements like the 'mech loading tubes? Why is so visual bandwidth wasted on the "machinery" texture while the potential for great visual landmarks (the cooling grilles, the ramps and shield walls, and other setpieces) is completely wasted?

The other problems with large maps are rooted in gameplay. The lack of compelling game modes and the inability of medium speed 'mechs to disengage highly discourages teams from splitting up for any real strategic reason. If you break into 3 lances and the enemy team stays in a death ball, you just die in 3 waves. Unless you split into "Lights" and "everyone else," you really can't back away from the enemy team, and since they kill you so fast you can't even sell yourself dearly, and because of the low TTK, the inability to disengage, and the generally either over-obstructed or extremely exposed nature of the large maps, it is very difficult for slower 'mechs to reposition in time to make a difference.

[blackicmenace]

We could use more Large maps but they need to balance the number of large and small maps since too many Large maps could give an advantage to using Clan mechs.

[By Dysentery]

As usual, Russ looks at the reasons only superficially.

Alpine Peaks is not loved. Yes.

It is not loved because
1) it all looks the same.
2) a single dominating terrain feature where every game takes place i.e. the plateau
3) no tactical diversity

Terra Therma is not that big and also unloved.
1) it all looks the same
2) a single dominating terrain feature
3) no tactical diversity
4) heat of course


The players I know like big maps. They keep asking for bigger maps. Crimson is pretty big and popular. Because it has alot of different terrain. Open spaces, rolling hills, multi-level areas, dense terrain areas/buildings. Regardless of what kind of Mech you drive, you are going to find a place where you can play your strenghts or you can be stranded where you are at a disadvantage. You can make tactical decisions based on that.

If you are going to do big maps you have a lot of stuff to consider to make it interesting and tactically challenging.

The biggest map we have, namely Alpine is unloved because it is done poorly, not because it is big.

Edited by By Dysentery, 20 June 2014 - 02:53 PM.

[Deathlike]

For the record, the current maps have not be updated with fixed/improved geometry since Feb 2014.

Ponder that for a moment while that should blow your mind.

[hurleybird]

I think the biggest issue is that poor design shows itself more strongly the bigger the map is.

What I'd eventually like to see, especially for CW, is some kind of procedural generation for maps. The maps wouldn't be as well designed as those made by hand, but every map would be fresh and unique. Scouting and positioning become much more important, more about quick thinking and intelligence than mere learned behavior. Also, you could theoretically make every planet in the inner sphere available to play on. Even if two desert worlds use similar building blocks to construct their levels you can still vary things like heat, gravity, weather, hilliness, apply various post process effects, etc.

[Wolfways]

If the only objective is "kill the enemy" then the majority of fights are going to take place as close as possible to the center of the map where the most cover is available. You can see that on the heat maps.
Make big maps for Conquest, and make it worth taking the bases more than just killing the enemy.

[Mystere]

xhrit, on 20 June 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

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

Alpine is a huge map with very little cover, and very little varity in terrain. There are open snow fields, rocky snowfields, gentley rolling hilly snowfields, and steep mountainous snow fields.

I like Alpine. I don't understand why people claim there is very little cover. I am still very much able to surprise unwary players by stabbing them from behind and creating mayhem within their ranks while my team moves in for the kill. And I can do that using non-ECM mechs.

Of course, if you're running a big slow fattie ...

[Sandpit]

guys please remember, this thread is for the purposes of discussing size of maps. I don't want it getting off-topic and the actual topic itself getting diluted.

[Mystere]

I want at least one big urban map the size and structure of Manhattan or Macau.

I was originally going to say Hong Kong but that might just be too big.

[Suko]

Deathlike, on 20 June 2014 - 02:23 PM, said:

Alpine is boring.

Think about it for a second.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...peaks&m=assault

Turn on the heatmaps on that map. Turn on movement, as this highlights a problem.

I would hazard a guess to say that AT LEAST 20% of the map goes unexplored (it's closer to 30% IMO). Of the routes generally taken on that map, I would say 20% of the movement is RELATIVELY UNCOMMON.

This suggests that the map design is not where it needs to be. Whether it be Conquest, Assault, or Skirmish... it has little to no variety in the routes taken. If there were multiple valid routes, there would be more action in the areas of interest. Instead, we know that H9-I10 is where the action is at most of the time on Assault/Skirmish with the occasional tower route assault route.

That's a problem with mapmaking not size.

I hear ya. Alpine is bad. However, I don't really like any of the other larger maps either. Crimson Straight is pretty good, but Tourmaline is meh. It's not as bad as Alpine, but it's still a bit too big for my tastes. Tourmaline also has horrific collision geometry for mechs and weapons. Tera Therma....ugh. I really don't like that map. It always goes the same way. Dance around the Volcano God's blowhole until one team gets flanked or pwned enough to get rolled. Again, most of the map is useless unless you're a fast scout mech trying to completely avoid contact with the enemy team. Oh, and HPG. Good map, but the outer ring is absolutely worthless. No one ever uses it, so it's wasted space.

Now, all of this could very well be PGI's fault and poor map design. You're totally right about that. However, if I have the chance to ask PGI to make more maps, I would NOT ask them to keep making the large, metiocre maps they have pushed out so far. I feel there medium-sized maps play best and so I'd like to see more of those.

Edit: This sums up my POV on the subject quite well:

Sephlock, on 20 June 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

Let me tell you how PGI does large maps:

As you described.

Let me tell you how PGI does not do large maps:

Well.

Unless that changes, we are right in rejecting the idea of large maps from PGI.

Edited by ShadowVFX, 20 June 2014 - 03:24 PM.

[KharnZor]

An urban map around the size of Crimson would be great. With no mountains in odd places.

What really gets me is the time and cost associated with the way PGI builds their maps, makes no sense.