335 replies to this topic

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Reference, does PGI see a need for large expensive maps, lets look at what PGI has for statistics and telemetry,

- they have all the current maps with the actual routes and areas indicated that every Mech has moved through.
- The have the location of every kill and death that has happened to a Mech, and this is current information

If we were only using these examples it would show that most if not all players only use a small amount of any map played.
- If PGI asks there gameplay designers what is working and what is not, they will tell them that the smaller maps are being used more to there full potential. (and they are easer to build and design, less $ for PGI to make.)

Here's an example of one of the medium to larger maps showing where the Mech's actually move:
(Frozen City dated May 2014, quite a bit of wasted space that had to be built and never gets used.)



This example shows that there is no reason to move to any other location, so finding the enemy is the only option.
- If there were reasons that needed the team or lance to move to a location or requirement to be at the maps edges we may see the entire map being used.
- It's been stated many times before, there is no reason for the current TDM mode that would follow any storyline or lore related function. (maybe when we see CW there could be a reason to need to destroy every Enemy Mech on the Battlefield.)

- game-wise ok, but any sane Company Commander would cut his loss's when down to less than 30% strength and 'surrender' or 'concede' the field to the opposition. Mech's cost quite a bit of $ to simply throw them at the Enemy. Many of the stories detail battles where the Enemy was 'driven off', few state that the Enemy was hunted down to the last Mech.
- Yes, it's a game of big stompy robots shooting each other, and that's what most players want to do, but there are quite a few long time players of this BattleTech franchise that do want tactics, strategy, wide open venues, and big maps that allow all these features.

I to have played on most if not all of the crazy large maps 'from that other game' (MW:LL), and I can tell you, if you don't have scouts doing there scout role, things will go bad for you. Large maps offer more options for the teams, if the maps are designed and planned well, and also offer future options for the designers to add in later. If you start with a small map there is little room left for added options.

If PGI doesn't have the time or development resources to built these large maps, perhaps they could 'stitch' together copies of the ones we have now, effectively 'creating maps twice the size' they were. This would give PGI the option of placing the teams on a small or large map, but only using the resources from the base map model. They could nearly double the maps we have now for much less cost.

An Aside:
I would still like to see a future battle field option when CW arrives, something as opposed to needing to hunt down and kill every last standing Mech.
- Rather than just kill everything, perhaps PGI could look at a function that the Commander or surviving Pilots can select.
~ 'Concede the Battlefield',
~ if there are only 3 Pilots left each can select this option, there votes would show to the other team members, consensus, game ends. Victors take the Battle location, opposition leaves with some level of Loyalty bonus for saving there Mech's to fight another day. (and any intel they gained from the battle, enemy and location) - Just an idea.

Just some ideas, for the option to have large maps,
9erRed

Edited by 9erRed, 23 June 2014 - 07:34 AM.

[Ghogiel]

9erRed, on 23 June 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Here's an example of one of the larger maps showing where the Mech's actually move:
(Frozen City

Frozen isn't a large map.

[CeeKay Boques]

Sephlock, on 20 June 2014 - 02:22 PM, said:

Let me tell you how PGI does large maps:

As you described.

Let me tell you how PGI does not do large maps:

Well.

Unless that changes, we are right in rejecting the idea of large maps from PGI.

You know, Large maps can be fixed, have things changed, different drop points.

You know what small maps can be?

Small.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

See, I love how people complain about mapsizes.

Too small and it hinders my mech. Too big and it hinders my mech. Medium sized and it's too easy for the other guy to do x or y.

Hey guys, there's a fix to all this complaining... know what it is? It's called taking a varrying loadout that works effective at varrying distances.

Use that ERPPC for long range, have some medium or large lasers for close in work, Have some SRM's and LRM's.

Mechs are NOT ment to boat extensive amounts of weapons, it's why most modifications to mechs were only swapping rear mounted weaponry forward, or swapping a flamer for an extra heatsink or the like. These machines are not practical, in any way, so they're generally built with either a specific role in mind [4G Hunchback comes to mind as one with a specific role in mind, so does the AWS 8Q] Or to be all around fighters. [there's a reason the AS7-D has LRM's, because the Atlas needs some long range punch to survive, with it's primarily short range loadout of 4mlas SRM6 pack and AC20.] Of course there ARE mechs ment to boat, the Awesome, the Catapult. that's their role.

But everyone wants to pack as much of the same range profile stuff as they can to maximize that pinpoint damage, or to work within a certern range, and while yes, that makes total sense, you're also forgetting that, by going say, Medium lasers and SRM's, you're going to be limited to around a 300m range bracket [shorter really.] Which means you're doing pretty much nothing beyond that. So yes, those large maps are going to suck. Kitted yourself out with LRM's... well now when those lights come to knock on your door you have nothing to protect yourself with.

It's a failure of the community, not the game, as I've said before... just because you CAN make your mech an awesome alpha boat at 500m, doesn't mean you SHOULD do so. So everyone's going to complain about big or small maps, it doesn't matter.

We just need more, varried, and reworked maps in general.

[Fut]

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

Same here.
MWO would have much more depth to it if the maps were larger.
It'd also allow room on the battlefield for multiple objectives (ie. Destroy power generator in D5 to disable the turrets at Opfor base located in B7).

Smaller maps are for lazy people, or those inflicted with ADD who cannot sit still long enough to enjoy a large map.

[Solahma]

One idea that would be easy to add: Many destroyable objectives. Randomly spawn several dozen detectable objectives throughout the map. A team scores 1 point for every objective destroyed. PGI could even use unfriendly turret emplacements that do not belong to either team and will fire upon anyone that is in range.

As far as a map goes, I would love to see a large urban only map like Big City from MechWarrior 4.

[Sandpit]

Ghogiel, on 23 June 2014 - 01:57 AM, said:

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.

That's a design issue though, not a size issue.
When you can physically see the enemy force as soon as you spawn there's zero need for any kind of scouting. You already know where they're at and what their forces consist of. That's what I mean by strategy and tactics.

Again, this isn't about doing away with small maps, it's about including big ones as well. It doesn't have to be one or the other guys.

[Ghogiel]

Sandpit, on 23 June 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

That's a design issue though, not a size issue.
When you can physically see the enemy force as soon as you spawn there's zero need for any kind of scouting. You already know where they're at and what their forces consist of. That's what I mean by strategy and tactics.

That's a design issue and not a size issue.

[Varent]

ninjitsu, on 20 June 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Well, Alpine Peaks is super boring, so I don't think bigger is better.

I dont think anyone wants small maps. Honestly bigger maps are always better provided a few things.

1) They arent empthy - like terra therma, tourmaline, and alpine - Give us things to hide behind, give us obstacles to overcome, let there be something truly interesting to look at while we run by.

2) Make them balanced - We dont need places like alpine in which jump sniping, ranged dps and lrms are king. We need balanced maps where short range can have a place as well. Currently short range firepower has little to no place because there simply isnt cover to move up. Larger maps make longer range weapons more king but this can be changed with cover. Id ask, where is our sprawling city map with logs of buildings? Where is our jungle with gigantic trees. We deserve a dense environment that makes cover more of a thing instead of hill hump jump snipers.

3) Objectives - The best part of large maps would be actual objectives. Such as locating things perhaps, taking out supply convoys, escorting vips, Searching and securing crash sites... There are a dozen and one different scenarios that they could put into this game to make it more interesting. A larger map right now wouldnt do anything for this game but make it a longer time to run towards the enemy. This game needs objectives so that the lights have more of a true roll and so that the game evolves into more then an arena shooter that it is now.

4) Destructible Terrain - Seriously this shouldnt be that hard to code, setup parts of buildings, trees and parts of natural environment as destructible and set them to fall appart just like the legs of a mech or the torso parts. Make it so that the players can effect a natural environment more. Give use to the flamer, let us set fire to a forrest and watch it slowly burn down and spread. I would say this should be considered first since it would change how we look at maps.

Just some thoughts.

Edited by Varent, 23 June 2014 - 08:13 AM.

[Fut]

Lightfoot, on 21 June 2014 - 07:59 PM, said:

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.

This is what MWO desperately needs.
All of the maps so far just feel like game maps, and it's quite obvious. The Devs need to just make large, realistic, and nice maps, then let us loose on them to fight. Players will figure out the best routes, the best places to try and hold...etc.

Edited by Fut, 23 June 2014 - 08:24 AM.

[sabujo]

I like big maps and the whole antecipation of battle that a small map cannot offer. I like Alpine, even though it is becoming monotonous (rush to plateau) as well as Terra Therma (rush to center). I had really good fights on terra therma and it did not involved the center, but for that to happen both teams must seek that option.

Like many have said before, we need bigger maps but most of all, we need better maps.

[Gallowglas]

I think the biggest problem with the large maps we have seen so far is that there are only 1 or 2 areas of true tactical significance. As a result, people gravitate to a few key points and fighting rarely diverges from those points. If you had more areas where high ground could be utilized, then you'd perhaps see more distributed combat. Look at Crimson Straits. Sure, it's not a big map, but fighting often takes place in the city, in the tunnels, in the saddle, and both above and below the platforms.

I don't think we necessarily need huge maps, but having largish maps with more tactical choices (particularly near the edges) and less central focus like Caustic Valley, Alpine Peaks, or Terra Therma would be my preference.

Edited by Gallowglas, 23 June 2014 - 08:34 AM.

[Viges]

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

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.

I'm sorry but we can discuss map sizes only and only in the context of game modes. For obvious reasons.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

we need extended timelimits on larger maps too, the typical timelimit just isn't long enough.

[Sandpit]

Gallowglas, on 23 June 2014 - 08:33 AM, said:

I think the biggest problem with the large maps we have seen so far is that there are only 1 or 2 areas of true tactical significance.

agreed somewhat but again, that has a lot less to do with design than size. I'll explain my thoughts on that when I get home this evening. Short version:
communication tools, design, players, etc. play into what you're describing a LOT more than szie. Bigger maps naturally offer more areas to engage because there's more area in general.

Viges, on 23 June 2014 - 09:10 AM, said:

I'm sorry but we can discuss map sizes only and only in the context of game modes. For obvious reasons.

uhm not sure what you're getting at here?

[Sybreed]

Sandpit, on 23 June 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

agreed somewhat but again, that has a lot less to do with design than size. I'll explain my thoughts on that when I get home this evening. Short version:
communication tools, design, players, etc. play into what you're describing a LOT more than szie. Bigger maps naturally offer more areas to engage because there's more area in general.


uhm not sure what you're getting at here?

he means that as long as we only have assault/skirmish/conquest/no respawn there's no point of having big maps. In big conquest maps, only the smaller mechs will get to the further cap points because the assaults want to be at the usual "confrontation spots". If you add diversity to game modes and whatnot and give reasons to go elsewhere on maps, then having bigger map would make sense.

In short, having an actual "warfare" scenario would make big maps shine. Our arcadey game modes don't require bigger maps.

edit: Or I could be wrong and the guy could explain his point further.

Edited by Sybreed, 23 June 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Deathlike]

xhrit, on 22 June 2014 - 07:27 PM, said:

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.

It sounds nice, except when we already get occasional bouts of massive DC and desyncing. Also, by design that would usually cause greater bandwidth consumption (which this game tends to have problems with as it is)... you're asking for trouble.

Edited by Deathlike, 23 June 2014 - 09:46 AM.

[Goose]

Flash Frame, on 23 June 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

we need extended timelimits on larger maps too, the typical timelimit just isn't long enough.

What we learned about game length from Teh SnoreFest - er, The Tournament belongs in it's own thread.

Moar relevant: Note how often Tourmaline comes up in this thread …

[ogy]

BIGGER

[Mad Dog Morgan]

I want maps that better utilize the various portions of the map instead of just the choke points.

Bigger maps will just lead to more sniping. Better maps will lead to more interesting combat.

Edited by Vaskadar, 23 June 2014 - 09:50 AM.