335 replies to this topic

[Xarian]

I want bigger maps, but I also want stuff to go with those bigger maps.

Alpine isn't nearly as bad on Conquest, for example, but it's pretty awful on the other two modes for reasons stated above.

Imagine that you're playing Assault on a big map like Crimson, except that you have 2 "objective bases" in addition to your main base - one is on the island, and the other is on the opposite side of the map in that cluster of buildings that's on the other side of the parking garage. If the other team caps both bases you lose, just like if you lost your main base. I think that'd be cool.

[Sybreed]

for bigger maps to be fun, you need:

1- Possibly respawns. Travelling for 2-3 minutes only to get blown up in 10 seconds is not very interesting
2- Objectives. Have a base that has a shield or something. Set up a secondary power generator that you can blow up to make the attack easier. Forces the defenders to leave their base as well. Edit: Try to find a way for the attackers/defenders to split up their forces. I.E: Give them something to defend as well but is less mandatory. If you don't do that, they'll just blob from one place to the other.
3- Rebalance of the FLD issue and heat system. Bigger maps mean more open space. If it is too easy to put FLD weapons on all your mechs, all you'll get are long range sniping matches and that's boring

But yes, I'm in favor of having bigger maps. Hell, I'd go with maps the size of what we have in Arma 3. Just add many objectives and a respawn system (aka dropship mode)

Edited by Sybreed, 20 June 2014 - 03:38 PM.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

I love bigger maps!
Of course people who go to the same H8/9 on alpine EVERY SINGLE MATCH think the map is boring.

[NeonKnight]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2014 - 03:18 PM, said:

2- Objectives. Have a base that as a shield or something. Set up a secondary power generator that you can blow up to make the attack easier. Forces the defenders to leave their base as well.

No Shields in Battletech universe....BUT. Imagine there is some sort of Turret control, or turret power etc, that blowing that up shuts down defense turrets.

Or an Aircraft control Tower that destroying means enemy cannot use AIR STRIKES (similar sort of FOWARD OBSERVER for denying Artillery Strikes). Like this:




Now that would be interesting secondary objectives. Don't need to take them out to win, but taking them out is simialr to the Commander assets of BATTLEFIELD 2

Now suddenly them Bigger maps have more objectives, and the fight may not play out the same.

Edited by NeonKnight, 20 June 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[Suko]

Funkadelic Mayhem, on 20 June 2014 - 03:20 PM, said:

I love bigger maps!
Of course people who go to the same H8/9 on alpine EVERY SINGLE MATCH think the map is boring.

Out of curiosity, what do you do in those matches when the rest of your team goes there? Do you just walk off on your own?

[Pygar]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 20 June 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

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.

Yup, as others including myself have mentioned- it's not so much that the map is big...it's that the map is big for no real reason.

In the case of Alpine, they could chop off almost the whole southern 1/3 of the map and nobody would blink, because almost nobody ever fights down there....because there's not much reason too.

[Sephlock]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

No Shields in Battletech universe....BUT. Imagine there is some sort of Turret control, or turret power etc, that blowing that up shuts down defense turrets.

Or an Aircraft control Tower that destroying means enemy cannot use AIR STRIKES (similar sort of FOWARD OBSERVER for denying Artillery Strikes).

Now that would be interesting secondary objectives. Don't need to take them out to win, but taking them out is simialr to the Commander assets of BATTLEFIELD 2

Now suddenly them Bigger maps have more objectives.

http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper

And the ultimate blasphemy to the grognards:

[Suko]

I just checked out the grid sizes on the maps here and it's obvious that Alpine is BY FAR the largest MWO map.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...peaks&m=assault

In fact, it's amuusing to me, because (bad map design or not) the larger the map is, the more I dislike it. I think maps the size of Tourmaline and Therma are about as large as I want. More than that and all you have is mech hiking simulator 2014.

[Kell Commander]

Supposedly PGI is going to implement a feature that will let you select 4 mechs, then once you see the map take of of your 4 selected. This will solve a lot of the issues people currently have with Alpine. Yes it will turn that battle into nothing but a LRM/snipe fest, but would and smart military leader actually bring a brawler build mech to that location?

I for one want more maps like Crimson Straits. It doesn't seem too big because of all the details that went into the map. If anything since 12 vs 12 has been released, Forest colony and River city need to be expanded. Badly.

[JohnnyWayne]

Bigger maps would have to come with respawn and repair points.

[BLOOD WOLF]

Imagine the game with double or triple the amount of maps we have now, pure awesomeness.

[NeonKnight]

Sephlock, on 20 June 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

http://www.sarna.net...le_Field_Damper

And the ultimate blasphemy to the grognards:

AAAaaaaaaaaaaaaand Prototype was produced in 3051....we are (once again) in 3049.


And PPC only, not Lasers, Not Missiles, not Ballistics.

Edited by NeonKnight, 20 June 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[Scratx]

Well, I think there are a few things to consider here.

Big maps that have little to do is not good. Big maps that have a lot to do is good. So big for the sake of being big is not an attractive feature.

But there's something that I recall from Supreme Commander that might help.

In campaign mode, Supreme Commander (RTS) starts with small maps, apparently, until you attain a goal, at which point the "Operational Area" is expanded... and suddenly, the map is much bigger. This gave me an idea that may be worth considering.

Why not make a BIG map for a certain environment, then "break it up" in a few different operational areas? Some of those areas could overlap with each other, giving a sense of fighting over a bigger world, and in Community Warfare "mode", winning in the smaller op areas could give you control over that area and let you choose where to attack next, for example.

And if the BIG map exists, it's trivially easy to add support for "Super-huge Hour-long Kill Each Other Dead" mode for Private/Tournament/Community Warfare matches.

Something to think about...

[Eddrick]

Much bigger maps, please

[GreyGriffin]

KharnZor, on 20 June 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

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

Crimson Strait would be pretty amazing if there weren't two huge mountains in the middle, instead maybe industrial parks with tall enough buildings to break up the map but still be navigable.

[Deathlike]

ShadowVFX, on 20 June 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

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.

Well, I like Tourmaline. Here's a few reasons:

1) There are actual hills and crevasses. Nothing of the sort exists on Alpine. You can get cover... occasionally at your own peril (on Tourmaline).

2) There is no "dominant spot" on Tourmaline. While most battles are usually in F6-F5-E6, people take actual alternative paths and routes to meet their enemy (occasionally the base). Alpine has "easily counterable" locations on the upper base and generally those that spawn @ upper often don't go for the lower base.

3) I will grant you geometry problems in Tourmaline... but consider Alpine for a moment. Most of the trek areas are mostly flat ground. The only major areas where fighting is "uneven" is when they occur near the tower and/or the climbing path for the upper base spawn to H9-I9.

I'm biased for liking Tourmaline, but it shares ALL of the qualities that a large/hilly map SHOULD have. Very little of that exists on Alpine. Even Mordor (which I hate with a passion) does have some variation despite everyone storming into the Thunderdome/Pug Zapper. It's still a bad map, but compared to Alpine... it causes great rage/emotional response... Alpine does nothing for me other than "get bored".

I mean, take a look at the heatmaps of Mordor and Tourmaline. You'd be surprised at the results.

Edited by Deathlike, 20 June 2014 - 03:42 PM.

[Wolfways]

ShadowVFX, on 20 June 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what do you do in those matches when the rest of your team goes there? Do you just walk off on your own?

I do. It's amazing how many teams never watch their flanks. There have been a couple of times i've taken out a lance by myself. Not long ago i was on HPG manifold in my JM6-S and i wandered around to behind the enemy team to find a full lance sitting back supporting their LRM boats. I took out the Catapult and Highlander before they even noticed i was there, then a couple of my teammates turned up and killed the Victor while i took out the Atlas.
The enemy team lost a lance while my team took a tiny amount of damage.

[GreyGriffin]

Alpine has a bevy of sins, but it drives me particularly crazy for one particular reason.

Why is the most interesting, cool area of terrain, the base with hangars, overlooked by not 1, not 2, but 3 sniper hills that can rain down on it with utter impunity? If that base was plunked in the middle at about the same altitude as the ridges between theta and sigma instead of Mount Newb, the map would be improved a thousand percent.

[Silverlance]

I'm all for bigger maps. But definitely increase the timers, add some respawns or even REPAIR depots in the game and increase the range and variety of spawn points.

I don't know how many times in Alpine Peaks my lance, usually Charlie when it happens, gets thrown out wayyyyyy by the Comms Tower all by our lonesomes and have two lances descend on us leaving us cut off, outgunned and outnumbered with no real help anywhere close by. If it were just 4 vs 4, then that wouldn't be an issue at all.

So like I said. I'm all for big maps and bigger maps. But they definitely need more varying terrain, better structure, improved spawn points, increased game timer for them and respawns and/or repair depots.

[NeonKnight]

KharnZor, on 20 June 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

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.

yeah, because the REAL world NEVER has cities like that!

Phoenix Arizona:



Rio De Janeiro: