335 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Sephlock, on 20 June 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

Just another reason to let us veto maps, so we need never play on Alpine or Mordor ever again.

not the point of the thread and I disagree vehemently with players having the ability to just continuously avoid a map just because they don't "like" it. I didn't like the desert in Kuwait, I don't think the Marine Corps gave two shits though about my opinion of the "map" I had to drop in. But again, that's getting a bit off-topic. (Map voting I'm not against, being able to just continuously veto certain maps decreases strategy in builds. If everyone knew they'd never have to play on a hot map again they'd just build mechs accordingly, there MUST be some kind of randomness involved even if it's just a popular vote between two map choices in the lobby like black ops does)

[Sephlock]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

not the point of the thread and I disagree vehemently with players having the ability to just continuously avoid a map just because they don't "like" it. I didn't like the desert in Kuwait, I don't think the Marine Corps gave two shits though about my opinion of the "map" I had to drop in. But again, that's getting a bit off-topic. (Map voting I'm not against, being able to just continuously veto certain maps decreases strategy in builds. If everyone knew they'd never have to play on a hot map again they'd just build mechs accordingly, there MUST be some kind of randomness involved even if it's just a popular vote between two map choices in the lobby like black ops does)

What about randomness applied only to maps that aren't soul crushingly terrible ?

Or at least giving us a heads up so we know where we're going to drop.

I would imagine they didn't tell you to pack your woolen socks and forgo any sunscreen before they shipped you off to Kuwait .

Edited by Sephlock, 20 June 2014 - 08:54 PM.

[ChapeL]

I want bigger maps but bigger doesn't have to be a desert-like expanse of nothing, with kilometer long firing lanes where you see the enemy 30 seconds before they even get within advanced sensor range.

[Jaguar Prime]

Big maps with various terrains would be awesome. (Think River City in the middle of Alpine Peaks) Especially in competitive play. I would have loved to have seen the last tournament fought on some of the old expansive MW4 maps..............Now that's an idea, remaking some of the awesome MW4 maps for MWO.

Seriously, I prefer the bigger maps and wish they were bigger. But I can also see why some people like the smaller maps. (quicker time to engagement) Overall, I see bigger maps encouraging more team play. But for the average gamer or the target audience that PGI is after. Smaller maps are better. So in my opinion, Russ may not be too far off in his statement.

[NextGame]

the bigger maps in MWO are the ones that people always groan and moan about, so I can see where they are coming from.

[Scratx]

Bull Frog, on 20 June 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

I want bigger maps but bigger doesn't have to be a desert-like expanse of nothing, with kilometer long firing lanes where you see the enemy 30 seconds before they even get within advanced sensor range.

This would be bad, anyway, because it makes sniping the only game in town. Any brawler would be dead long before they got into range to fight.

And that's one of the reasons I don't like Alpine. Because it's so easy to spot the other team when you go onto the central mountain. But let's ignore Alpine discussion right now.

Flat terrain isn't bad. Well, flattish anyway. You do need to place obstacles to break lines of fire and sight, and provide tactical (and strategical) choices. Small towns, industrial complexes, even warehouses judiciously placed can build up a good matrix of line of fire breaks to give maneuvering mechs cover. Trees help this further. Well-placed low hills can help break up things further, providing both perches for spotting (and being spotted) and more cover. (and potentially useful to help keep people's framerates going high)

Lots that can be done, really.

[Dawnstealer]

I think Alpine's boring because of how it's made and laid out, not because of it's size. Could you imagine a city map the size of Alpine? That would be fun. A big bowl? A big mountain?

Alpine and Tourmaline aren't horrible maps, we've just been playing them for a while and, with the limited number of maps, they're getting a bit stale. Big maps aren't the problem: map design is.

[Vassago Rain]

Sandpit, on 20 June 2014 - 08:46 PM, said:

not the point of the thread and I disagree vehemently with players having the ability to just continuously avoid a map just because they don't "like" it. I didn't like the desert in Kuwait, I don't think the Marine Corps gave two shits though about my opinion of the "map" I had to drop in. But again, that's getting a bit off-topic. (Map voting I'm not against, being able to just continuously veto certain maps decreases strategy in builds. If everyone knew they'd never have to play on a hot map again they'd just build mechs accordingly, there MUST be some kind of randomness involved even if it's just a popular vote between two map choices in the lobby like black ops does)

>my real life obligation to fight in sandy countries means no one should ever be allowed to skip bad maps in a shooting game.
>this makes sense to me.

[Prezimonto]

Mister Blastman, on 20 June 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

I want bigger and likewise want MWO to copy MW:LLs style of capture the point system of gameplay which will lead to a dynamic, ever-changing and shifting battlefield. This of course would mean thirty minute to hour long matches with respawns allowed during them.

If you never played MW:LL, you won't understand--so think Battlefield 1942. It is truly far more entertaining than the usual deathball to point b and engage in the same spot every time with the same number of 'mechs.

I'd love a limited respawn mode, where you can pack 4 of your mechs onto a drop ship and choose what to bring each respawn.

My general feeling is that Alpine, Tourmaline, and Mordor are the only really huge maps we have. HPG might be big, but doesn't actually feel as large as it is, because the box is natural focal point.

Alpine is very, very open. Too open for a lot of types of combat. It'd be perfectly fine, IF we could select mechs or loadouts after seeing the map.

Tourmaline is a good mix of open and tight and winding. It's a hot map though, which makes combat also slower paced. So you trudge to meet up (or spawn in line of sight of each other and once lance get's eaten alive), and then hack away between cover points at each other. My biggest beef with the map was the release month when we were forced to play 50% Tourmaline desert. I'm still a bit burnt out on it.

Mordor is again a fine map, IF you could tweak your mech for the map. But it sucks taking an LRM boat or hot mech on that map.

So, are big maps problematic? Yes. Is it the map's fault? Not really.

I'd love some maps 3x the size of Alpine. They would foster some seriously amazing asymmetric game modes.

But they would be bad news for a mode like conquest, unless lances spawned on cap sights and had one or two in the middle to fight over.

What I'd LOVE to see before large maps are added is a pre-match lobby/mission board instead of the "launch" button.

Open that tab and see a selection of possible missions with a timer on them... 4 minutes to drop on Mordor, with a conquest goal... I'd want a faster mech, than runs fairly cool, maybe ECM. 3 minutes to drop on Mordor with a skirmish goal, maybe a heavy mech with dual gauss. 5 minutes to drop on Frozen City with Assault as the goal... go pickup that 4 PPC warhawk or stalker and have some fun.

Oh an Alpine mission, maybe I'll dust off an LRM boat, or better yet not many light's queued... I'll take a spotter.

Big maps need some additional focus. Random drops don't work very well, but for the same reasons coordinated game play is very stifling on the current iteration of River city Assault.

Edited by Prezimonto, 20 June 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

NextGame, on 20 June 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

the bigger maps in MWO are the ones that people always groan and moan about, so I can see where they are coming from.

Agreed, but here's the thing...those people already have their "Instant Action" small maps. The rest of us want our four pillars.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 20 June 2014 - 09:44 PM.

[and zero]

Mister Blastman, on 20 June 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

I want bigger and likewise want MWO to copy MW:LLs style of capture the point system of gameplay which will lead to a dynamic, ever-changing and shifting battlefield. This of course would mean thirty minute to hour long matches with respawns allowed during them.

You mean you want gamemodes that are not basic and boring as all hell???

How dare you.

[Kassatsu]

"new" maps are too big, "old" maps are too small... We could easily do larger maps. We just need better game types for it. Shoot the turrets then stand in the square for 100 EXP (is it even that high?) isn't a good game mode for anything. Stand in the five squares is equally bad. Team last man standing is terrible for anything larger than what we have now, even some of the current maps are terrible for it.

A proper attack/defend mode where the attackers can select their spawn points (to some extent anyway), and the defenders don't know precisely when or where they'll show up could work for it. This would make fast scout lights extremely important as well - Heck, we might even be able to give fast lights a bonus for performing some specific task, as if it was their intended function, a... role, if you will.

But what do I know, this island isn't exactly in the middle of the civilized world.

[Sandpit]

Jaguar Prime, on 20 June 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:

So in my opinion, Russ may not be too far off in his statement.

That's kinda the point though. I don't think he's right on this. Judging from the responses thus far I'm feeling even more strongly that he is.

[Roland]

It costs PGI $38923874993048302048389203482 per map.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 20 June 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

It costs PGI $38923874993048302048389203482 per map.

It costs them $400,000 to develop this map for twelve seconds.

[Roland]

It costs PGI Forty Two Thousand Million Hundred Trillion dollars per square foot of map space, because the mesh under the texture is made of the same priceless material used to make gold clan mechs.

[Waelsleaht]

I want objective based gameplay on maps that take 20 min to cross. Then if you ball up your forces in one spot you lose and proper allocation of mechs in lances mixed with player skill is what determins victory.

Matches that require drop ships to transport lances from objective to objective. Targeting supply depos and infrastructure. Where we actually control territory.

But then agin I also just want dropship mode so we can bring multiple mechs and respaun. Heck even on the big maps I want. Lol. But that will never happen.

[Sandpit]

guys please stop and keep it on-topic. pretty please?

[Marmon Rzohr]

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

no I was hoping someone could actually clean up the embed code to make it look prettier and actually link it to the actual twitter post if at all possible.

Ok for my two cents

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

I mean when you spawn and you're automatically within LRM range of the enemy team before you even move, that's kinda ridiculous in my opinion.

That is a good point, but:

If you make an open map, it's too easy to control from a good position, so people fight over the good position and most of the map is wasted. If the map has no good position or has two equally good ones it's just going to be camp fest with anyone trying to cross the map getting killed.

If you make a map with lots of cover and pathways then, due to the size of the map most of those paths will simply be too long to actually use - Terra Therma for example.

This is why medium sized maps are best for good gameplay and variety.

However, I could see several ways one could make a big map work (none of them very rewarding though).
Idea:

Spoiler

BIG CITY:
You could make a really cover heavy map that is riddled with easy pathways. Like a big city. And I mean big. No open ground (maybe smallish a park in the middle). Most of the buildings a lot taller than mechs (too high to poptart over so taller than River City). Semicircular or circular street layout that's uniform over 90% of the map. Circular is better than rectangular because it prevents long firing lanes and makes enemy pushes less predictable. You could snipe down streets or dash through them to get to the enemy. Since there is no dominant position due to the uniform structure and no one way to get to the enemy (the open park or rubble would discourage a straight dash through the middle), you have to move and find the enemy. Lights could use the very sides of the map or rooftops of smaller buildings to scout if they have JJs. Think Mechwarrior 5's (MWO's) first trailer.

[Sky Legacy]

I think alot of people agree not only that Crimson is the best map but also agree on the same reasons for WHY it is so. Not just because it's large but because of the variety it offers as opposed to something like Terra Therma which is huge but forces and funnels the teams into small pre designated pockets and Alpine which is huge but terrible with 0 variety just giant open spaces and stupid mountain peaks that force assault mechs to unrealistically climb them to not be at a disadvantage.
Even during the recent tournament I remember the commentators speaking about Crimson for the same reasons and that they agreed it was the best map due to the size AND variety where you can choose alot of different locations to fight and each location has variety and offers unique environments like the above/below parking garage looking thing, the tunnel, the city on the other side, etc. We need more asymmetrical maps like that with cool variety