335 replies to this topic

[Angel of Annihilation]

Bigger Map with multiple objectives that have to be captured and held so that not all mechs can blob the same direction and win.

[and zero]

Some of you guys should also consider the possibility that Alpine may be a **** map, not because it is in itself a **** map, but because the [terrible] "gamemodes" that we have all suit it rather poorly.

[Exilyth]

There's a certain split in the player base: one part only wants stompy robot action, the other wants a slice of tactics and strategy with their heavy metal mayhem. Culling the action junkies from the 12 on 12 queue would allow making the 12 on 12 queue more tactical without driving away players.

So, I went and opened a topic in suggestions about a lance on lance game mode:
http://mwomercs.com/...-lance-battles/


Hopefully we'll get more meaningfull objectives with community warfare. It would also be nice if the maps were adapted to the culture of the faction holding the planet by exchanging certain assets, e.g. a kurian planet could have a small park with cherry trees while the same place would contain a place with a statue of Hanse Davion on a davion held world.

[RustyBolts]

Maybe not bigger. But I really want more.

[Ghogiel]

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

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

Those struck throughs don't actually follow from simply having bigger maps.

Alpine... :<

Edited by Ghogiel, 22 June 2014 - 01:17 PM.

[Exilyth]

Ghogiel, on 22 June 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Those struck throughs don't actually follow from simply having bigger maps.

Alpine... :<

Alpine is flatlands.map with a large bump in the middle and a few dents here and there... aside from that, it's completely empty. A large part of Alpine isn't even used because there's no terrain to obfuscate flanking movement. Just look at http://mwo.smurfy-ne...peaks&m=assault and turn on movement heatmaps. Almost all movement happens on and around the mountain in the middle.

[Viges]

I care much much much more for new game modes...

[TOGSolid]

The problem with the bigger maps in this game isn't that they're big, it's that they're full of wasted space and are generally not built very well. Since there's no reason to go anywhere else on the map everyone just focuses on specific battlegrounds. The only gamemode to even justify hitting those other points in Conquest and even then people tend to just cap those points and then GTFO back to the blob.

A bigger map with solid cover and paths to maneuver around on that didn't have a definitive central point to run towards would be great. The question is whether PGI can make something like that. Tourmaline is at least a step in the right direction but could still use some work. Alpine and Terra Therma are just abominations that need to get redone completely.

EDIT: I will at least say that Mordor on Conquest isn't too awful since everyone is forced to spread out to work the objectives.

Edited by TOGSolid, 22 June 2014 - 03:35 PM.

[Sandpit]

Ghogiel, on 22 June 2014 - 01:17 PM, said:

Those struck throughs don't actually follow from simply having bigger maps.

Alpine... :<

you cannot have those on smaller maps period. Of course size doesn't automatically include those. This thread was based on the fact that Russ stated players don't like big maps. That's the whole basis of this. I felt he was wrong in that assertion so I started this thread. That's HIS statement, I feel it was inaccurate. This thread isn't really about map design itself (although as with all threads on a forum it tends to branch out a bit into other areas of the map discussion which is fine and helps get new ideas out there) but the original intent and purpose was to refute Russ' statement about players not wanting big maps.

TOGSolid, on 22 June 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

The problem with the bigger maps in this game isn't that they're big, it's that they're full of wasted space and are generally not built very well. Since there's no reason to go anywhere else on the map everyone just focuses on specific battlegrounds. The only gamemode to even justify hitting those other points in Conquest and even then people tend to just cap those points and then GTFO back to the blob.

A bigger map with solid cover and paths to maneuver around on that didn't have a definitive central point to run towards would be great. The question is whether PGI can make something like that. Tourmaline is at least a step in the right direction but could still use some work. Alpine and Terra Therma are just abominations that need to get redone completely.

again, I understand where everyone is coming from on actual map design but this thread's purpose was to refute a statement made by the head of the company that players don't like big maps.

I think it's great that people are also giving reasons why playerrs don't like the current big maps. It isn't size, it's design. I just want Russ and the rest of the PGI crew to know that statements like "Players don't like big maps" is a very blanket and inaccurate statement when it comes to representing his player base.

Viges, on 22 June 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

I care much much much more for new game modes...

It's not a matter of which is a higher priority. Again, this is about the company stating players don't like big maps. It's not about "I'd rather see (insert feature here) first because maps are going to get designed regardless. It's about informing the company that their thoughts behind the maps "players don't like big maps" isn't correct so that they will include big maps.

[Armored Yokai]

I Love Big maps because you don't feel cramped and insecure like a prison shower
i'd love a huge City map.

[Rebas Kradd]

Exilyth, on 22 June 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

Alpine is flatlands.map with a large bump in the middle and a few dents here and there... aside from that, it's completely empty. A large part of Alpine isn't even used because there's no terrain to obfuscate flanking movement. Just look at http://mwo.smurfy-ne...peaks&m=assault and turn on movement heatmaps. Almost all movement happens on and around the mountain in the middle.

The real problem with Alpine is that you can see across most of the map. Any Trebuchet with simple zoom can spot the enemy's position because it's built on a sloping glacier. I guarantee you that if you take that incline away, as well as the central ridge, and force lights to actually HUNT for the enemy, it gets more interesting.

[xhrit]

What I think the community wants, is a drop in drop out style game mode on a 100km2 map.

Open world MWO.

Make it so.

[TOGSolid]

Sandpit, on 22 June 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

you cannot have those on smaller maps period. Of course size doesn't automatically include those. This thread was based on the fact that Russ stated players don't like big maps. That's the whole basis of this. I felt he was wrong in that assertion so I started this thread. That's HIS statement, I feel it was inaccurate. This thread isn't really about map design itself (although as with all threads on a forum it tends to branch out a bit into other areas of the map discussion which is fine and helps get new ideas out there) but the original intent and purpose was to refute Russ' statement about players not wanting big maps.



again, I understand where everyone is coming from on actual map design but this thread's purpose was to refute a statement made by the head of the company that players don't like big maps.

I think it's great that people are also giving reasons why playerrs don't like the current big maps. It isn't size, it's design. I just want Russ and the rest of the PGI crew to know that statements like "Players don't like big maps" is a very blanket and inaccurate statement when it comes to representing his player base.


It's not a matter of which is a higher priority. Again, this is about the company stating players don't like big maps. It's not about "I'd rather see (insert feature here) first because maps are going to get designed regardless. It's about informing the company that their thoughts behind the maps "players don't like big maps" isn't correct so that they will include big maps.

Yeah, I'm mostly just adding fuel to the "players like big maps, what we don't like is ****** maps" fire.

[Sandpit]

TOGSolid, on 22 June 2014 - 07:41 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm mostly just adding fuel to the "players like big maps, what we don't like is ****** maps" fire.

I understand but the thing is, based on track records, PGI will take statements like that and try to tout it as "See? Players want this instead!" I'm trying to leave as little wiggle room here as I can because PGI is notorious for politician speak

[TheSteelRhino]

I want bigger maps with more dynamic gameplay. Mechwarrior 4 had some great maps for instance and MANEUVER became a key factor. Therefore the biggest mechs could be a disadvantage due to their slow speeds and issues negotiating terrain.

[Kharax]

please not such a borring alpine peaks style thing, or better first bring anything new maplike.

Edited by Kharax, 22 June 2014 - 09:45 PM.

[Sandpit]

Kharax, on 22 June 2014 - 09:39 PM, said:

please not such a borring alpine peaks style thing, or better first bring anything new maplike.

but do you dislike big maps that are well designed?

[Almeras]

A map has to be big enough to flank common 'bunker positions'

Currently I feel the biggest flaw in the maps is the force pathing or massive obstacle in the middle. Every maps seems to have one or both. It makes the game movement predicable and or frustrating if you miss the other team.

It would be nice to get a map with consistent rolling hills for cover but not movement restriction, tunnels the well paced bit of sharp cover for LRMs but otherwise open to player lead movement.

Edited by Almeras, 23 June 2014 - 01:19 AM.

[Thorqemada]

What scares me to the bone is that Sean Lang belives that Alpine is the best Conquest Map - that is so far off it is not even funny!
And yeah - all the TDM Lovers want small maps bcs that means less movement, more Dakka more soon and more matches more often.

The orignal Conquest with quicker pace ressource count was th best game mode this game ever had as it forced the Deathball to break up and promoted small scale encunters and quick reaction maneuvers - especially Alpine today with the slow pace ressource count is nothing but Deathball-Skirmish with a late match spead out if necessary.

I do want large maps with real Mission Objectives!

Edited by Thorqemada, 23 June 2014 - 01:35 AM.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 22 June 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

you cannot have those on smaller maps period. Of course size doesn't automatically include those. This thread was based on the fact that Russ stated players don't like big maps. That's the whole basis of this. I felt he was wrong in that assertion so I started this thread. That's HIS statement, I feel it was inaccurate. This thread isn't really about map design itself (although as with all threads on a forum it tends to branch out a bit into other areas of the map discussion which is fine and helps get new ideas out there) but the original intent and purpose was to refute Russ' statement about players not wanting big maps.

I disagree about your assertion. some of the big maps demonstrate that's not the case. eg there are smaller maps that have more tactics/strategy/role for lights than some of the big maps, canyon probably has twice as much of those things than some big maps. Granted that's mostly because players just simply don't like those maps, have no shred of tactical thinking or how to play them, and map is actually just bad for those things.

I consider pretty much all maps in MWO small maps or just spaced out small maps with 1 exception.

I do agree that Russ is pulling that notion about "large" maps out of his azz though, and he's getting that impression because people generally hate the larger maps that we have. It's not that they are big that's the problem... it's they are might as well be a small because they are amongst the worst maps in the game.

Edited by Ghogiel, 23 June 2014 - 01:57 AM.