335 replies to this topic

[Thermal Scorpion]

I definitely want bigger maps like Alpine but with things like savanah, desert, etc.

That said I also think they need to be used in a game mode where there are multiple objectives to capture and hold because you have to make players get out of their mechballs and do something besides horde around together.

I suspect that such a game mode would work best in CW so that if you capture X Factory or X communications station that a bonus gets transmitted to the unit/side who has them at the end of a battle.

[Koniving]

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.

I agree, but want to know why people are saying large maps are boring? The game gives no rewards for using said maps.
For example the guy that said Alpine is boring. Here's why...
Skirmish. Get on the hill in J9. Win.
Assault. Get on the hill in J9. Win.
Conquest. Get on the hill in J9. Win.

One area of the map for all 3 modes gives you the win. Why do anything else?

What it boils down to is the game modes MUST matter in order for a big map to be worth anything at all.
Bring back Tactical Gameplay.

The game does not reward you for actually playing the objectives.
What if Assault Mode actually gave you a significant or worthwhile reward for taking the base?
Then you have to have one or two mechs on defense, a few mechs on a front line, a couple scouting for enemies sneaking in, and some mechs to go out and steal the other base. Everyone spreads out. Bigger map gets used.

Currently?
Everyone goes into one spot and fights. Map may as well be 500 meters by 500 meters.

What if Conquest was fun to play?
If bases were captured fast; you could run there, cap and move on. Everyone is on the move. But, double or triple the amount of resources that must be collected, and increase their value. Now you have a game mode where lights are common, mediums are needed to hunt the lights, and heavies and assaults are now playing zone defense. Again, we're at more consumption and usage of the maps. Having the bases be so easily taken is also an anti-train, as assaults in a train can never outdo lights on the move.

But wait, what about instant capture trains? You can also make it so that each additional mech on the capture point isn't quite as effective. If one mech can capture in 10 seconds, then 2 might capture in 8, 3 might capture in 7, 4 might capture in 6, 5 would still be in 6 seconds, thus making the train worthless and increasing player spread.

TL;DR: We can't make use of large maps unless the game design warrants it. The game must be intelligently designed, with game modes that have meaning and purpose with a developer that encourages gameplay by the objective instead of referring to it as "Trolling."

Seriously what other game developer has ever, EVER referred to playing the objective as "trolling"?

Edited by Koniving, 21 June 2014 - 06:11 PM.

[Sandpit]

Anjian, on 21 June 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

Maps in this game are just horrid.

The best maps I ever played in a game where in Chromehounds. They were huge, and provided many tactical opportunities for maneuver, sniping and long range bombardment. They are also quite varied, depending on the region that your faction is based on, and reflects the state of the conflict.

The next best maps I see are in World of Tanks but not always. Many WoT maps actually stink, but I like the attitude of the developers best. They take notice and bad maps are either taken out of the game or out of rotation. Other maps are remapped and improved to allow for more lines of attack. And they are always constantly introducing new maps. They just had a patch the same day PGI did with on the clans, and their 9.1 patch took over a gig, mostly on maps. Their best maps are particularly the city maps, like Himmelsdorf, that manage to convey European architecture in varying states of destruction.

War Thunder also constantly introduces new maps and their last patch, few days ago, revised some of their existing ones. Heck, I really wish one of their maps, Kuban for Ground Forces, were MWO maps.

I like this attitude that admits that your maps stink and work to revise them or take them out of rotation. PGI needs to learn from them.

one thing I like abotu WoT maps is they're so varied. Elevation, cover, choke points, etc. They offer a lot of variety. That's what I'd like more of for maps here.

[Hawk819]

Well, this makes little difference to me. I only care about a map if it has some kind of objective, or something to with that objective in general. If I had a choice, I would choose maps that are somewhat in-between small and larger maps.

I love Canyon and Crimson City, but think we need a good Swamp/Marshland map. Something with an airfield/base.

[NRP]

Bigger maps are fine. What we don't want are crappy maps (big or small) that are hot, dark, and well . . . crappy (like Terra Therma).

So it's simple, Russ and Co. Don't make crappy maps.

[Sandpit]

Koniving, on 21 June 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

I agree, but want to know why people are saying large maps are boring? The game gives no rewards for using said maps.
For example the guy that said Alpine is boring. Here's why...
Skirmish. Get on the hill in J9. Win.
Assault. Get on the hill in J9. Win.
Conquest. Get on the hill in J9. Win.

One area of the map for all 3 modes gives you the win. Why do anything else?

What it boils down to is the game modes MUST matter in order for a big map to be worth anything at all.
Bring back Tactical Gameplay.

The game does not reward you for actually playing the objectives.
What if Assault Mode actually gave you a significant or worthwhile reward for taking the base?
Then you have to have one or two mechs on defense, a few mechs on a front line, a couple scouting for enemies sneaking in, and some mechs to go out and steal the other base. Everyone spreads out. Bigger map gets used.

Currently?
Everyone goes into one spot and fights. Map may as well be 500 meters by 500 meters.

What if Conquest was fun to play?
If bases were captured fast; you could run there, cap and move on. Everyone is on the move. But, double or triple the amount of resources that must be collected, and increase their value. Now you have a game mode where lights are common, mediums are needed to hunt the lights, and heavies and assaults are now playing zone defense. Again, we're at more consumption and usage of the maps. Having the bases be so easily taken is also an anti-train, as assaults in a train can never outdo lights on the move.

But wait, what about instant capture trains? You can also make it so that each additional mech on the capture point isn't quite as effective. If one mech can capture in 10 seconds, then 2 might capture in 8, 3 might capture in 7, 4 might capture in 6, 5 would still be in 6 seconds, thus making the train worthless and increasing player spread.

TL;DR: We can't make use of large maps unless the game design warrants it. The game must be intelligently designed, with game modes that have meaning and purpose with a developer that encourages gameplay by the objective instead of referring to it as "Trolling."

Seriously what other game developer has ever, EVER referred to playing the objective as "trolling"?

I agree with you but that has nothing to do with map size really. That's game and map design.
Remember, this thread was started because Russ tweeted that players don't want bigger maps. I'm not going to let him say that without a rebuttal. If he's going to stick with that tagline it's going to be in the face of proof that his statement was false. In other words I'm trying to help make players aware that this is some of the stuff that gets says by the devs. most players here have zero idea that he made that statement because they don't follow twitter.

So I posted his tweet and asked the community to help me prove him wrong basically. Judging from the responses thus far I'd say the majority disagrees with his statement. So if he continues on with that it will be in direct contradiction of what the community is ACTUALLY saying they want.

I'm going to be doing this more periodically on other subjects he and other devs tweet about. Too many times they've done things like this and by opening the subject up to the rest of the community it gives PGI far less wiggle room to say things along the lines of "Well we did it because that's what the players wanted" or "We didn't realize the community wanted this". It's more or less about giving a wider avenue of feedback so they CAN'T say that and to hold them more accountable overall

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I agree with you but that has nothing to do with map size really. That's game and map design.
Remember, this thread was started because Russ tweeted that players don't want bigger maps. I'm not going to let him say that without a rebuttal. If he's going to stick with that tagline it's going to be in the face of proof that his statement was false. In other words I'm trying to help make players aware that this is some of the stuff that gets says by the devs. most players here have zero idea that he made that statement because they don't follow twitter.

So I posted his tweet and asked the community to help me prove him wrong basically. Judging from the responses thus far I'd say the majority disagrees with his statement. So if he continues on with that it will be in direct contradiction of what the community is ACTUALLY saying they want.

I'm going to be doing this more periodically on other subjects he and other devs tweet about. Too many times they've done things like this and by opening the subject up to the rest of the community it gives PGI far less wiggle room to say things along the lines of "Well we did it because that's what the players wanted" or "We didn't realize the community wanted this". It's more or less about giving a wider avenue of feedback so they CAN'T say that and to hold them more accountable overall

What is this thing called "accountability"? Is it why the Pheonix Pack loyalty bonus is MIA?

[Sandpit]

I'm just curious as to who "they" are that he's referring to that don't want bigger maps?
or the "they" that would rather have other stuff developed before CW?

"WE" can prove him wrong in his assumptions (if my thought is correct and more people do want bigger maps)

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

I'm just curious as to who "they" are that he's referring to that don't want bigger maps?
or the "they" that would rather have other stuff developed before CW?

"WE" can prove him wrong in his assumptions (if my thought is correct and more people do want bigger maps)

I always tend to think they get their "cues" from NGNG, but I don't think it's entirely fair to blame one group for some of said cues. It's selective "choosing" of said ideas...

Edited by Deathlike, 21 June 2014 - 06:27 PM.

[Koniving]

Oh trust me, many of us want bigger maps. You seen the living legends maps? They're goddamn huge! And soooooooooooooooo much fun!

But there, that fun is tangible in the form of respawn, in the form of aerotech fighters and tanks and masked approaches and so on and so forth. When you lack actual objectives on a map design, it helps to have a great game design.

Here, we lack objectives because of bad reward design. And without respawn or diversity, in the face of maps where the objectives have no meaning, then big maps aren't really going to excite more than the hardcore Battletech fans.

What I'm saying is if we had the good game design, the good objective and reward design that this game desperately needs, the calls for bigger maps would be unanimous. Russ wouldn't be able to say otherwise.

Good game/objective/reward design are not independent of map design; even if you have the biggest or smallest maps, it won't mean a thing unless the game agrees with it. To rally up significant desire for large maps across all the players, the game must support reasons to explore it. If there's a straight path to the enemy, 90% of the map has been rendered useless. If there's a strategic point of higher value than the others, then without meaningful objectives, the map has just become about that one point and nothing else.

Here's an example.
Terra Therma is larger than Tourmaline Desert. Would you believe it? No. Is it true? Yes.
What's the difference? Tourmaline does not have a clear cut path to the enemy base. Terra Therma does; the center of the map.

Here's another one.
Alpine and Tourmaline are the same size. Would you believe it? Probably not. Is it true? Very close, Tourmaline is a little bigger length-wise.

Why does this matter? People say Alpine is boring, but Tourmaline is not. Why? Alpine has only one point of interest; take the hill at J9 and you win. Tourmaline is not so clear cut.
Alpine wasn't boring in the past...when capturing the base gave a 100,000 cbill victory reward.
Alpine wasn't boring in the past (except for assaults; but they couldn't opt out of conquest mode) when the conquest first started because base capture took no more than 12 seconds (now it takes and I timed it, 20 to 45 seconds to capture a base depending on Neutral [20] and enemy-owned [45]).

With meaningful objectives that give actual rewards for completing them, the tactics, diversity, complexity, depth, reasons to explore, usage of map surface area, etc. all sky-rocket as completing that objective becomes more important than killing all the enemies.

And if the objective were dynamic instead of stagnant... Different 'base' locations for example, different 'destroy this' targets, side objectives, etc... it'd become that much more encouraging for all players to want bigger maps.

Yes. I want bigger maps. But will people actually use them? Not unless something changes to encourage it.

Edited by Koniving, 21 June 2014 - 06:37 PM.

[Deathlike]

Koniving, on 21 June 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Here's an example.
Terra Therma is larger than Tourmaline Desert. Would you believe it? No. Is it true? Yes.
What's the difference? Tourmaline does not have a clear cut path to the enemy base. Terra Therma does; the center of the map.

To some degree, Mordor played very differently in 8v8 than in 12v12. The smaller group tend to pick one of three routes (center, go clockwise, or counterclockwise around the center). That's how I remembered it.

The thing is, it's just easier in 12v12 to force the blob into the center, and then scatter to either side as needed, due to the # of bodies in the center.

That ironically would be the posterchild map for why 8v8 on some maps is a good thing...

[Sandpit]

Deathlike, on 21 June 2014 - 06:26 PM, said:

I always tend to think they get their "cues" from NGNG, but I don't think it's entirely fair to blame one group for some of said cues. It's selective "choosing" of said ideas...

I meant more in the way of "they" say a lot of things, yet whenever I'm in a situation (even at work) when "They" said something, the first thing I always ask is who is "they"? The vast majority of the time the response is "Uhm, I don't remember" In other words there was no "they", it was just something they heard from a friend of a friend who had an aunt that worked somewhere else a few years ago who knew someone that said it once.

So instead of letting "they" dictate development for this game I'm going to start asking who "they" are because "they" are giving Russ some really piss poor data.

Koniving, on 21 June 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

Yes. I want bigger maps. But will people actually use them? Not unless something changes to encourage it.

people will use whatever maps comes up in the rotation lol

I agree with you 100%, but that just has to do with design, as you pointed out, not size. I just want it crystal clear to russ that he's wrong on this one.

[Sephlock]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 06:54 PM, said:

I meant more in the way of "they" say a lot of things, yet whenever I'm in a situation (even at work) when "They" said something, the first thing I always ask is who is "they"? The vast majority of the time the response is "Uhm, I don't remember" In other words there was no "they", it was just something they heard from a friend of a friend who had an aunt that worked somewhere else a few years ago who knew someone that said it once.

So instead of letting "they" dictate development for this game I'm going to start asking who "they" are because "they" are giving Russ some really piss poor data.

What we need is for SA to infiltrate NGNG and feed them good ideas.

... and hilarious ones.

Like "dunk the developer day", where they'd re-implement knockdown and have all the devs play all day, with any player who knocks them down in water (any liquid would do- lava should count) gets a special achievement and 50000 MC.

[Deathlike]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

I meant more in the way of "they" say a lot of things, yet whenever I'm in a situation (even at work) when "They" said something, the first thing I always ask is who is "they"? The vast majority of the time the response is "Uhm, I don't remember" In other words there was no "they", it was just something they heard from a friend of a friend who had an aunt that worked somewhere else a few years ago who knew someone that said it once.

So instead of letting "they" dictate development for this game I'm going to start asking who "they" are because "they" are giving Russ some really piss poor data.

Multiple personalities? It would explain everything!

[GunnyKintaro 01]

Bigger for sure !

[Randodan]

The bigger the better. Think ARMA style for MWO.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sandpit, on 21 June 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

I agree with you but that has nothing to do with map size really. That's game and map design.
Remember, this thread was started because Russ tweeted that players don't want bigger maps. I'm not going to let him say that without a rebuttal. If he's going to stick with that tagline it's going to be in the face of proof that his statement was false. In other words I'm trying to help make players aware that this is some of the stuff that gets says by the devs. most players here have zero idea that he made that statement because they don't follow twitter.

So I posted his tweet and asked the community to help me prove him wrong basically. Judging from the responses thus far I'd say the majority disagrees with his statement. So if he continues on with that it will be in direct contradiction of what the community is ACTUALLY saying they want.

I'm going to be doing this more periodically on other subjects he and other devs tweet about. Too many times they've done things like this and by opening the subject up to the rest of the community it gives PGI far less wiggle room to say things along the lines of "Well we did it because that's what the players wanted" or "We didn't realize the community wanted this". It's more or less about giving a wider avenue of feedback so they CAN'T say that and to hold them more accountable overall

He's probably regretting saying anything at all now.

I know the armed forces don't always offer classes on diplomacy, but yeesh...

[Dirus Nigh]

I really like the bigger maps. The number one problem with PGI's map design is that they allow players to just use one direction to attack. every thing is a simple king of the hill fight. They need to make it so maps have different but equal places on a map to defend or attack from.

Terra therma is horrible because of the giant volcano in the center. Every one just pug trains right to it then either fights in the middle, or jokes and dies in an entry way. IF they made the volcano smaller and out it off center with other terrain to navigate it would be a much more interesting map.

I think PGI needs to look at other tactical games like Arma, or battlefield and see how they made their maps. Those maps did have natural avenues of travel, but they also were constructed so players can find very different ways to advance.

Giant hills or structures like in HPG should not be an over whelming feature on the map. If PGI made the HPG station the size of the base on Alpine, then put in ridges, craters, hills, around to navigate it would have been better. They could have put in a drop ship port, and other utilitarian areas around the map to make it look like a small colony.

[Sandpit]

Rebas Kradd, on 21 June 2014 - 07:29 PM, said:

He's probably regretting saying anything at all now.

I know the armed forces don't always offer classes on diplomacy, but yeesh...

Well for those that don't follow twitter, that's just a minor example of what causes so much frustration to some of us. Trust me, twitter is a whole nother world. lol

I'd encourage everyone to follow Russ and Paul on twitter (along with Niko) but I'm partially doing this to benefit those who don't follow twitter. If I hadn't posted this, the majority of people posting, especially those contradicting Russ, would never have even known he made that statement. It's time to hold PGI more accountable for their decisions.

[Lightfoot]

You can go bigger if you vary the terrain. Say put a Mech Factory in a rolling plain with dunes on one side and canyons on the other. Then let players form there own tactics for it. That way there are like three small maps connected.