335 replies to this topic

[Mainhunter]

I Like Alpine....

[Thorqemada]

Even my Atlas can climb Hills at Alpine...it does it that slow like a real Assault Mech should do.

[Rebas Kradd]

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

I don't know where he's getting his data from but I really think it's faulty and given PGI's history with data collection..... well let's just say I don't have a lot of...

Sometimes impressions just happen. It doesn't mean anyone's lying. Plenty of people have complained about big maps, and some have complained because they're just BIG.

[Lostdragon]

I would love maps tailored to specific numbers of players other than 12. For example, I would like to see River City and Forest Colony restricted to 8 or less and also have a map that is 2-3 times bigger than Terra Therma (and better designed) that supports 48 players with multiple objectives.

[Sandpit]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 June 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Sometimes impressions just happen. It doesn't mean anyone's lying. Plenty of people have complained about big maps, and some have complained because they're just BIG.

I don't think I said anywhere or implied anywhere that Russ was lying about it at any time.

Lostdragon, on 25 June 2014 - 02:26 PM, said:

I would love maps tailored to specific numbers of players other than 12. For example, I would like to see River City and Forest Colony restricted to 8 or less and also have a map that is 2-3 times bigger than Terra Therma (and better designed) that supports 48 players with multiple objectives.

you're talking a long list of headaches involving groups, pugs, premades, and MM as a whole. I wouldn't expect to see anything like that any time in the near future.

[Kharax]

New Maps and just talking about, but not bringing it. should be the thread name aswell.

[AlfalphaCat]

I want bigger maps too.

I like the suggestion of the lances spawning more spread out too.

@whoever said Alpine Peaks is boring, that's the heightmaps fault. It is too tall, not too big.

[Lostdragon]

Sandpit, on 25 June 2014 - 02:31 PM, said:

I don't think I said anywhere or implied anywhere that Russ was lying about it at any time.


you're talking a long list of headaches involving groups, pugs, premades, and MM as a whole. I wouldn't expect to see anything like that any time in the near future.

A guy can dream...

[DaZur]

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

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

Correction: Some people don't like larger maps because there is only one single myopic mission goal: Meet somewhere on a map, until a winner is decided by attrition. This forces players into a linear decision regarding what mechs to bring to the battlefield.

Giving players multiple mission goals (Especially ones that might require speed / stealth) and segmented / branching secondary goals would require mech class diversity to succeed.

As it stands right now, Medium class is largely useless because both lights and heavies overlap their battlefield slot and Heavies and Assaults are the most practical class to accomplish the singular goal of dispatching the enemy with the greatest chance of survival.

[Sandpit]

DaZur, on 25 June 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Correction: Some people don't like larger maps because there is only one single myopic mission goal: Meet somewhere on a map, until a winner is decided by attrition. This forces players into a linear decision regarding what mechs to bring to the battlefield.

Giving players multiple mission goals (Especially ones that might require speed / stealth) and segmented / branching secondary goals would require mech class diversity to succeed.

As it stands right now, Medium class is largely useless because both lights and heavies overlap their battlefield slot and Heavies and Assaults are the most practical class to accomplish the singular goal of dispatching the enemy with the greatest chance of survival.

^This

Just hoping this helps show Russ that the statement just isn't true and needs to expand the data collection pool that he's been using.

Again, let me clarify. I am not now, not have I ever stated in this thread that Russ is "lying", I'm saying that he's making a mistake. It's not different than when players jump on the forums and say things like "Nobody uses (insert weapon here)" or "(insert weapon here) is useless, nobody can win with it"

Except in this case we're talking about someone who directly shapes the game and game development. To say "players don't like big(ger) maps" is just a blanket assumption and simply isn't true and I'm hoping to change his view on this particular subject. That's exactly what the forums are for.

[Kommisar]

If all we are going to have is Team Death Match with single elimination, then, YEA, large maps are no good.

One death, with killing enemy mechs the only real viable means to win (and being the main reward mechanism) there is no reason to use anything but a small 600 x 600 meter area (very roughly). Especially when all these maps have ONE single strong tactical position.

Give us more dynamic game play, then we can use the larger areas. Happily.

Oh, yea. It also doesn't help that our largest current maps are the worst designed. Sorry, I know someone put a lot of effort into them; but they are seriously flawed. Yes, I've made LOTS of maps for competitive play.

[Slepnir]

I don't twitter but sign me up for bigger maps. look at the dynamic MW 3 maps that connected to each other. or the objective maps of MW 4 with waypoints. even alpine is to small for a CW style.convoy escort type mission. most of the maps are way to small as it is , since they were not designed for 12v12'

[Sandpit]

Slepnir, on 25 June 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

I don't twitter

neither do the majority of people in the game or on the forums so I'll do what I can to post topics like this when they get tweeted

[Screech]

DaZur, on 25 June 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

Correction: Some people don't like larger maps because there is only one single myopic mission goal: Meet somewhere on a map, until a winner is decided by attrition. This forces players into a linear decision regarding what mechs to bring to the battlefield.

Giving players multiple mission goals (Especially ones that might require speed / stealth) and segmented / branching secondary goals would require mech class diversity to succeed.

As it stands right now, Medium class is largely useless because both lights and heavies overlap their battlefield slot and Heavies and Assaults are the most practical class to accomplish the singular goal of dispatching the enemy with the greatest chance of survival.

I would agree with every word here except change the word some to most in the second sentence. I don't think they are right I just feel they are the majority. Changes you mentioned I feel would help to change this sentiment but changes would be needed first.

[Javin]

I would rather just get new maps period.

[Sandpit]

Screech, on 26 June 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

I would agree with every word here except change the word some to most in the second sentence. I don't think they are right I just feel they are the majority. Changes you mentioned I feel would help to change this sentiment but changes would be needed first.

I don't think they are though. This thread helps show otherwise. I've seen several complaints about map design but nothing really about large® maps.

Javin, on 26 June 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

I would rather just get new maps period.

again, I feel ya, I'm the same way, but this isn't about map production speeds, just gauging whether or not Russ was accurate about players not wanting big(ger) maps.

I'd love to see some content other than mechs as well but that's a topic for another thread