335 replies to this topic

[KharnZor]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

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

Phoenix Arizona:


Rio De Janeiro:

GreyGriffin, on 20 June 2014 - 04:11 PM, said:

Real Geography does not necessarily make great gameplay

Thanks, saved me the trouble.

[Obelus]

Bigger maps, smaller maps, I don't care...we need more maps!

[Goose]

jaxjace, on 20 June 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

He is wrong we need bigger maps, it will increase viability of lights and tactics, might make electronic warfare mean something, and make it more than Mechstrike

ECMs' interactions with map size is …

[Exilyth]

Out of the current map rotation, I like Crimson Straight and Canyon Network the most.

Crimson Straight has an interesting mix of terrain features, with the parking deck/walkway providing some actual vertical gameplay. The multiple avenues of approch provide some cover for both teams, with flat kill zones dividing the lanes into a red/blue team side. Still, there's enough ways to maneuver around the kill zones and flank the enemy. Many buildings are high enough to serve as cover, but also low enough to be jumped upon, which gives playes the ability to weight risk/reward of staying in cover or exposing themselves and using them as sniping platforms. There are also some high buildings strewn in, which make for LRM cover.

Canyon Network is quite similar, while being more open, it provides multiple levels and ways to sneak around.

This is the reason alpine is so onesided: You just have to climb the highest hill and there's no place for the enemy to hide or flank unseen.

Of the current map rotation I like "large open body of water with a few buildingy by the side" (aka River City) the least, especially in assault. There's some cover on both sides at PPC range with no terrain inbetween, and the only way around leads over the bridge, which exposes you to most of the map. Of course, you could also traverse the large building in the middle of the river, but that only brings you right in front of the whole enemy team.


Now if you look at when "large open body of water with a few buildingy by the side" was made (during beta) and when Canyon Network/Crimson Straight were made (later)... and looking at how the map making improved from then 'till now and assuming a trend... then I'd say bigger maps would be great, as long as there are viable rat runs.


Ofc, we're all dreaming about the mother of all urban maps, but I'd rather see that one a bit later and well though out than rushed.

[Bhael Fire]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:

Yeah gotta love social media. Makes me glad the rest of the "real" does not operate this way.

To be fair, they are not required to notify you of their tentative design plans. They do this as a courtesy to those that follow NGNG and twitter and other social media outlets.

Anything that is pertinent to gameplay and is finalized always get posted on this site when it's about to go live.

[Hellcat420]

bigger maps are fine, when they are not boring snooze fests like alpine peaks. id like them to bring the big city map into this game.

Edited by Hellcat420, 20 June 2014 - 04:46 PM.

[Smitti]

I'm all for marching across the expanses. I'd prefer larger maps, so long as they're not badly designed. I do enjoy alpine regardless though.

[NeonKnight]

Bhael Fire, on 20 June 2014 - 04:39 PM, said:

To be fair, they are not required to notify you of their tentative design plans. They do this as a courtesy to those that follow NGNG and twitter and other social media outlets.

Anything that is pertinent to gameplay and is finalized always get posted on this site when it's about to go live.

to be fair, no they don't. But to be equally fair, to promise us one thing on this site, and then take it away but only tell us somewhere else is logical how?

[Bhael Fire]

NeonKnight, on 20 June 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

to be fair, no they don't. But to be equally fair, to promise us one thing on this site, and then take it away but only tell us somewhere else is logical how?

This is why they have been careful about posting design plans here unless production on said plans are actually in progress.

Many people on this forum simply have a hard time understanding that sometimes unforeseen complications can alter design plans. So they are cautious about revealing tentative ideas now.

[Sandpit]

Obelus, on 20 June 2014 - 04:36 PM, said:

Bigger maps, smaller maps, I don't care...we need more maps!

Ok but this thread is more for clarification.
Do you have anything AGAINST bigger maps. Russ said the community does. Consider this data collection as I have issues with the way pgi collects "data" so I want to see where all these players are that Russ is talking about because I feel he's geossly out of touch with the community if he honestly believes his statement

Guys on topic please. Plenty of threads to discuss pgi's development process

[Vassago Rain]

The problem isn't that alpine is big, but that there's absolutely nothing on it.

[Wolfways]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

Ok but this thread is more for clarification.
Do you have anything AGAINST bigger maps. Russ said the community does. Consider this data collection as I have issues with the way pgi collects "data" so I want to see where all these players are that Russ is talking about because I feel he's geossly out of touch with the community if he honestly believes his statement

Guys on topic please. Plenty of threads to discuss pgi's development process

I'm not sure Russ looks at data tbh. Wasn't it Russ who said, when combined arms was mentioned, that nobody would want to play in vehicles or as infantry when there are mechs?
Because nobody in MWLL plays infantry/vehicles/VTOLs/Flyers....
Nobody in the Battlefield games plays infantry because there are tanks/Helicopters/jets....

[Kharax]

LOL, now talking about bigger maps???

sry but please dont let them take over 6 months to make one of these, better make more maps arround the size of the existing ones, these sizes are are absolute ok, but in an accepteable release cycle lets say minimal 1 map per month seriusly.

Edited by Kharax, 20 June 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[Deathlike]

Russ is pro-esport.

Alpine is a poor E-Sport map.

Thus, his comments.

Then again...

[Wildstreak]

Maps

First problem is they should modify the maps they have. Older maps feel small because they were designed from the days of 8 vs 8. Overhaul River City (both), Forest Colony (both), Frozen City (both) expanding & possibly tweaking them. Compare them on Smufy's site, they have a lot of room around them unused that can be modified compared to, say, Crimson Strait that has two sides going right up to the edge. Condense anything that seems too big like Alpine Peaks.

Second, I believe the community is divided on more & bigger maps. One side wants more large maps so they can run teams and possibly engage in Lance vs Lance battles. Other side is the PUG Queue where no matter what you put out, usually the Blob forms and gameplay kinda stagnates unless someone gets creative in taking charge and doing things different.
Example, the amount of time people go center on Terra Therma or Caustic Valley.
What is the point of making new & bigger maps if the Blob just stagnates gameplay? To please a certain portion of players while the others just muck up all the work and make it useless?
It is better from a design standpoint to find a way to please the portion that wants and will use new maps creatively while eliminating the other part of the community.

So the question is how to make maps available to those who want them and will use them correctly.

I believe two methods are needed.

For the PUGs, the largest maps available already are the limit of what the Blob can deal with. Any new maps cannot be made beyond that. Lance vs Lance combat escapes the Blob and trying to encourage it will only fail and result is mass outcry. PGI tried once to do this with the creation of separate drop points by Lance, it worked for a while but the Blob just crept back into PUG play. So new PUG maps cannot be bigger than what exists now.

Private Match will, IMO, need to allow maps for selection (with Premium time) or in Private rotation (for Free) that PUGs cannot access. Yep, exclusive Private Match maps with larger areas for those of a more team oriented bent. This is roughly similar to how some MMOs allow you access to certain areas if you pay for it.

I do understand some want bigger maps but I also know there are people who complain about them. Look at a couple now, Tourmaline Desert still sees PUG combat go to the Ring when I play like it was Sauron's personal one. Alpine Peaks, people have changed the combat location a couple of times but areas still go unused.

Also, Lance vs Lance would need some kind of balance in PUG matchmaking also, even if 4x3 comes out, there is nothing to stop MM from putting 3 Lights & 1 Medium against 4 Heavies. This is another reason bigger maps would belong in Private Matches where players can agree to balance out Lance vs Lance combat similar to how some TT scenarios are done.

[Sug]

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

Ok for my two cents

bigger maps = longer matches
more tactics
more strategy
more use for things like scouting and light mechs

Or you just rush to H9 (Alpine), B4 (Crimson), or the circle (TT), 9 times out of ten.

[CHH Badkarma]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 02:09 PM, said:

We played hour long battles in Mechwarrior 4 that would have been impossible with maps that were as small as MWO's.

Until you have dramatically bigger maps, scouts will essentially be useless.

In mechwarrior 4, our scouts actually scouted.. you needed them to find the enemy.

You nailed it here. Sadly it seems a large portion of this crowd just see it as a re skined fps. Even more so people just want to rush in a brawl. Military tactics rarely seem to factor in alot of the time.
Personally larger maps that force you to scout and support advancing brawlers would be a good thing. Down side to that is that it requires patience. That is something lacking here IMHO

Edited by CHH Badkarma, 20 June 2014 - 06:29 PM.

[Sky Legacy]

why not just hold a poll and find out the ranking that players give to all the maps and then put more maps similar to the ones that are at the top. I'd be willing to bet the top 2 favorite maps would be:

1. crimson strait
2. hpg mainfold

[Xenois Shalashaska]

To me all the maps feel small. What the new maps need are more density of buildings and walls and turret perimeters for base. An actual base. Not some little settlement with weak turrents. Maybe a real military map with two bases far as the Alpine map with walls and bridges, pluss heavy turrets. I mean turrets should be placed out on perimeter wall. Actual gates that raise and lower when you enter the compound. maybe even repair bay. Money for repair. why the hell not.

[Wolfways]

Sky Legacy, on 20 June 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

why not just hold a poll and find out the ranking that players give to all the maps and then put more maps similar to the ones that are at the top. I'd be willing to bet the top 2 favorite maps would be:

1. crimson strait
2. hpg mainfold

1 is a nice battlefield (and my favourite map).
2 is a small arena (and i hate it the most).