335 replies to this topic

[Bartholomew bartholomew]

I like bigger maps.

And alpine would be lots better for use if they had not changed conquest to brawl-fest in the middle. Then people would probably know there are far more viable places to fight than mount pug..

Edited by Bartholomew bartholomew, 21 June 2014 - 05:44 AM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

GreyGriffin, on 21 June 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Terra Therma really highlights what's wrong with PGI's map design. On paper, it seems fine. Almost quasi-urban, with multiple open battlefields separated by huge rocky mesas.

But it is so goddamn boring to look at. The black basalt terrain is so easy to get lost in, and the only thing that draws the eye is the volcano. I bet if the fields with the lava rivers had more visual landmarks that we would see way, way more action there.

You must either get lost easily, or not use your minimap at all.

Also, yeah, it's not pretty. but guess what, not every battlefield needs to be a spectical. let's not forget that Terra Therma is actually one of the best optimized maps in the game due to having very little particle effects and the like going on, it doesn't tank FPS like Forrest Colony Snow or some of the others.

Frankly it's an interesting map, you're just too hung up on the fact it doesn't look all that pretty. Not every map has to be pretty, what matters is how it plays, not looks.

[Trauglodyte]

Quote

I think we could go bigger but honestly I dont think people have shown to like them so far in MWO</p>— Russ Bullock (@russ_bullock)

So Russ is saying the community doesn't want or like bigger maps. Here's your chance to pipe up if you disagree with that statement.

Large maps are great for everythng. We don't need every map to be the size of Alpine or Tourmaline. But Caustic Valley and Terra Therma are great sizes. Even Crimson Straight is nice. The problem lies in maps where you go to one spot and only one spot because it is the only section of the map that only provides a direct firing line in brawling range and that is what happens on 3 of the 4 original maps plus HPG.

[Vassago Rain]

Flash Frame, on 21 June 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

You must either get lost easily, or not use your minimap at all.

Also, yeah, it's not pretty. but guess what, not every battlefield needs to be a spectical. let's not forget that Terra Therma is actually one of the best optimized maps in the game due to having very little particle effects and the like going on, it doesn't tank FPS like Forrest Colony Snow or some of the others.

Frankly it's an interesting map, you're just too hung up on the fact it doesn't look all that pretty. Not every map has to be pretty, what matters is how it plays, not looks.

But Mordor has awful gameplay.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Vassago Rain, on 21 June 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

But Mordor has awful gameplay.

Eh, I tend to have fun on it 9 times out of 10... and I've been having a ton more fights in the outskirts of the caldera than inside the middle these days.

Though I guess the map could benefit from being more like lava rivers and less about the big central caldera...

[GreyGriffin]

Flash Frame, on 21 June 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

You must either get lost easily, or not use your minimap at all.

...

Frankly it's an interesting map, you're just too hung up on the fact it doesn't look all that pretty. Not every map has to be pretty, what matters is how it plays, not looks.

Vassago Rain, on 21 June 2014 - 05:53 AM, said:

But Mordor has awful gameplay.

The fact that Terra Therma is visually uninteresting directly affects gameplay. Players are drawn to areas that are interesting and recognizable, and use visual landmarks to navigate. This element of gamer psychology is like level design 102. The places that are the best fights should also be the best places to just be. It heightens the experience, and by highlighting the experience in an easily recognizable, visual way, you encourage the best experience.

Also, Terra Therma Conquest needs objective repositioning way more than Alpine. By bringing the incredibly distant 4 corner conquest markers in, you would actually encourage 'mechs under 100 kph to make a stab at the corner objectives and encourage the battles where they are actually interesting rather than making a mad rush for Theta and then just milling around.

[Abivard]

I absolutely detest the small cramped maps!

But to be honest, it is more PGI's map design failure rather than the map size that is so often at fault, spawn placement, base placement and the map layout itself are often found wanting.

Too many players simply rush to the center of the map as the shortest distance to the enemy, these are also the players who seem to hate anything but 'brawling' builds, which is not a real surprise when you think about it, so the smaller the map the better they think.

Alpine is a very interesting map, but for whatever reason PGI has the spawns and bases set in such a matter that better than 50% of the map is excluded from the area of operations. Alpine map usage is confined mostly to within 2000M of the I9/I10 Mountaintop or the area between the two base locations.

River city is so small that it is possible to fire on enemy mechs from the spawn points, the bases for assault and conquest are so close to the maps edges that it is easy to run out of bounds while fighting over them!
Let us not forget that rivercity is the type of terrain that no one but an idiotic, suicidal, fool would deploy mechs into in the first place!

terra therma, this map has the spawns and bases at the edges of the map, but the whole map focus' and forces the flow to the crater or a circular pattern around the immediate outside of the crater.

Caustic however seems to work well, the bases and spawns are on the edges which is good, but the caldera isn't an overwhelming attraction nor does the terrain channel all flow to the center. The vast majority of Caustic's map is utilized on a regular basis. Caustic however is a medium size map, but in my view one of the best all around maps.

Canyon is also a medium sized map but is highly channeled. yet it is rather balanced as far as base advantage and starting spawns go.

frozen and forest are small, cramped maps, they suxors


HPG .......Well, on second thought, let's not go to HPG. It is a silly place.

Base, spawn placement and movement flows are as important to a map as is the terrain. [/color]

But for maps, yes, bigger is better!

Edited by Abivard, 21 June 2014 - 06:30 AM.

[StandingInFire]

Bigger =/= Better

I play mainly the big assaults so going 50kph it takes ~5 minutes to get in a fight on alpine, even if alpine would be a good map I don't want to walk for 5 minutes to get to do anything. I actually feel the game had better matches when it was 8v8 as well far fewer stomps imo and more brawling.

Part of what makes the current maps feel so small for faster mechs is the current radar detection system, if you get within 800m+ of anyone you get spotted unless you have ecm.

Out of the current maps I find I have the best games on (size in squares via http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/map):
1) Crimson Strait (7x7) = Many close matches, lots of places to fight
2) Caustic Valley (6x7) = Surprisingly equal amount of both snipping/lrms and brawling
3) Tourmaline Desert (8x8) = as Caustic but takes longer to get in a fight
4) Forest Colony (5x5) = Despite its size I see many close matches where both lrms, sniping and brawling have success
5) Terra Therma (8x7) = Used to hate it, now I avoid the center like the plague and am starting to like it.
6) Canyon Network (5x5) = Similar to forest colony but is a pain to maneuver around without jumps as a an assault, so while I hate the terrain there are decent matches on there.
7) Forest Colony Snow = The avalanche blocking the one path next to the cave constricts movement to much.
8) River City Day/Night (4x4), Frozen City (5x5) = Doesn't work in 12v12 but was good in 8v8
9) HPG Manifold (7x7) = I find almost every match is a stomp 1 way or the other often decided by which side has better ecm coverage and it can be hard to tell some mechs out from the background cause ppl use lame grey paints.
10) Alpine Peaks (13x13) = Its decent in conquest as people don't just sit and snipe, that's the only good thing I can say about the map.

So I don't think there is any benefit going larger than 8x8 squares (Tourmaline Desert Size) but scouts can be made a lot more important simply by having actual information warfare rather then 800+m auto detect ecm or bust as we have now.

Edit: Forgot Frozen City

Edited by StandingInFire, 21 June 2014 - 06:38 AM.

[TheMadTypist]

I hope PGI pays attention to the sentiment here- it's not the size, it's what occurs inside those boundaries.

A bad example: Alpine- big, open expanses with huge sight lines that creates a no-man's land in front of the ridgelines that teams set up on. A map that is both large enough to take time to cross, while simultaneously discouraging the rapid changing of position.

Another bad example: Terra Therma - Narrow corridors that limit the feel of the map's size, while forcing the players to march in clumps along paths with little or no proper cover, often all trying to hide behind one another and incredibly wary of being the first to turn a corner. Naturally channels uncoordinated teams into the caldera, which results in relatively static gameplay. Again, a large map that limits overall team mobility.

A good example: Tormaline Desert - lots of cover, lots of angles of attack to flank those covered positions. The large climbable crystals add a limited third dimension to the map and gameplay tends to reward repositioning and general team maneuvering. The only criticism I can think of is the ghost walls that block visibly open shots.

A decent example: Crimson strait - lots of cover, multiple viable paths of navigation around the map, a limited third dimension near the roofed off location, multiple angles of attack on sheltered positions. Has a bit of an issue in that only a portion of the map is actually utilized, with about a third going over to open ocean or a mountain, and the team that starts on the lake side is incentivized to remain static around the overhang area.

The good maps encourage fluidity and maneuvering, with aspects that cater to all of the roles - from light skirmisher to long range sniper. The bad maps encourage static gameplay that is largely decided by which team brought more of the build whose role is favored by the map, often breaking down into trench-warfare style battles of attrition.

[Davers]

Rebas Kradd, on 20 June 2014 - 07:23 PM, said:

Large maps would also dramatically increase time-to-kill.

I am not sure that when people say they want to increase TTK they mean by adding more walking.

Otherwise, an excellent post with many great points.

[Rebas Kradd]

StandingInFire, on 21 June 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

I play mainly the big assaults so going 50kph it takes ~5 minutes to get in a fight on alpine, even if alpine would be a good map I don't want to walk for 5 minutes to get to do anything.

So bring a faster mech.

Many people complain that larger maps would be the bane of their slow, short-range brawler builds...well, they're right!!! You would typically not see such Battlemechs in a wide-open theater where the parties had to cover large distances. The size of the map should become a tactical consideration, just like its temperature. You see a hot map? Better not bring your energy boat. You see a large map? Better not bring your Atlas. This is a GOOD thing.

This could be addressed, however, by varied terrain. If a large grasslands map had a close-in portion, say a cluttered base with large hangars to navigate towards a central prize, then your Atlas a role. The job of his team, then, is to escort him safely to his limelight so he can get to work. It might be tough to instill an escort mentality into this deathmatch-conditioned player base, but it sure ain't gonna happen on smaller maps.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 21 June 2014 - 08:09 AM.

[BatWing]

dekker lentz, on 20 June 2014 - 01:37 PM, said:

If we get more bigger maps, I kinda want the lances spread out more. So you can have 4 x 4 on a part of the map and 8 vs 8 on another. Or something similar, to spread out the balling up of groups or add tactics to it.

You see.. this is just an example, i quote this post just because i saw many of these comments.

If this is what the majority of players wants, obviously this is what Russ feels is good for the future of the game.

However these comments are the pure opinion of people that does NOT play this game as it should be. This people play as PUGs, "spreading" lances makes no sense whatsoever.

You are dropping in a drop of 12, for what ******** reason youor team should drop "spread out" ??

That is just because you DO NOT CARE ABOUT TEAMPLAY, in which case, obviously you do not care about larger maps involving more tactical approach, because that equals BORING in your restricted concept of playing this game.

On the other end, i cannot crucify this people either, because they have the total right to express their preferences.

This way to play MWO, as a melee FPS with stompy big robots is a such reductive way to enjoy this game, but... why PGI should really invest in larger maps if the majority of players want only get in a fight, possibly spawn face to face so you can shoot each other right away and get done with it?

When PGI applies this kind of judgement, although I do not agree, I cannot blame them too much.

it is not their fault if the majority of people approaching this game just sucks in their concept of warfare.

[Coolant]

I don't care whether they are small, medium, large or arena (which I love), just a new map...please!! 7 months!! That's the last map...really?

[Wolfways]

So what i'm seeing here is, bigger might be better but it's what you do with it that matters

[Sandpit]

Ulketulke, on 21 June 2014 - 05:07 AM, said:

Slow Mechs are already complaining all day about, "Being left alone",

that's just it though, I ride around in slow mechs. I don't complain about that though. I sacrificed that speed for armor, or weapons, or heat, or whatever. You can't dictate map size because some want to build mechs liek that. If you don't want to be left like that you adjust your builds or ask your team to slow down a bit.

I take issue with things like this. Players want to run around in one or two exclusive builds that they enjoy and expect the game and everyone else in the game to cater to that particular build and design. That's not how it should be, unfortunately that's exactly what has happened several times.

I don't think anyone is saying "never have small maps again", we're just saying that Russ' belief that players want bigger maps as well is false. Just because you have one doesn't mean you have to exclude the other

KGB GRU, on 21 June 2014 - 05:14 AM, said:

Also larger maps present too many options and confuses people.

More options are exactly what most players want though...

[Sandpit]

StandingInFire, on 21 June 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

Bigger =/= Better

I play mainly the big assaults so going 50kph it takes ~5 minutes to get in a fight on alpine,

Then use a bigger engine or faster mech on the bigger maps.

This is what I mean, you can't dictate game design around specific builds. I run around in mechs like that as well. I dont' expect every map designed to be designed to specifically ease the use of thsoe builds. You're completely discounting that while YOU are in a slow mech, your teammate running around at 120/kph isn't and therefore is already sitting on the enemy base within 20 seconds of starting the match.

[pbiggz]

I get what they mean by making maps even bigger than alpine, it'd get a bit boring, and Iv mentioned on twitter that without game modes to support, a ton of real estate on those maps is wasted. That being said, id support maps slightly smaller than alpine, but no smaller than crimson straits.

My dream is to have a REAL dense urban map, where some buildings are so tall you cant jump over them, streets are narrow, sight lines are limited, there are multiple layers and brawling is king.

[Reitrix]

All of our maps at this time are basically big arenas with cover to the sides, but big open killing grounds in the middle. Or a terrain feature in the middle that serves as a "Get here first, win match" position.

What we truly need are large maps with highly irregular features and limited sight lines. Canyon is a good example, but falls down due to extremely limited ways in and out of the 'canyon' part. Essentially bring JJs or walk halfway round the entire map to get anywhere.
Canyon would be my most favorite map in the game if the canyon parts had more ramps in odd places, allowing for more tactical movements rather than "We wanna get over there, but we either go through a zero cover topside area, or trudge most of the way around the map in order to get to the next exit point by which time the enemy will have flanked us and will be raining fire from above as we helplessly flail around". Alpine has this also.

[Screech]

Sadly Russ is right on this one. People don't like larger maps. Caustic is easily the worse map but people complain 10x more about TT and Alpine. It is a symptom of 60-70% of the population driving heavies or assaults.

[Rebas Kradd]

Screech, on 21 June 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Sadly Russ is right on this one. People don't like larger maps.

Some people don't like larger maps. Their preferences are quite valid, but the thing is, they already have their maps. Anything demanding tactics or patience is completely absent. If even a modest portion of the player base wants larger maps (does it even need to be a majority?), PGI has something to gain. We'll never prove what the "majority" wants.

I'm hoping that since PGI has put all their resources so far into creating a foundational arena shooter, that they'll now start layering the game with more depth. CW falls into that category. I'm hoping that larger map size with dynamic objectives will follow, helping dictate loadouts and encourage diversity. The small maps encourage only sniping and brawling, nothing in between.