Pgi Make A New Style Map That Doesn't Center Around One Point
#1
Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:22 PM
My suggestion is to make a map that this is literally impossible to happen. Below is a rough sketch, by all means it shouldnt be so simple, there can be like passages on the sides for example, but the idea should remain true. The team starting locations are obviously in the respective corners where is "stuff". There can be some "lrm shelters" on the grass area just to prevent that kind of games, but no big objects that would make whole teams center on it.
Does anyone else agree? Do you want to see something like this as a map?
#2
Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:27 PM
with your specific idea: no
#3
Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:27 PM
#4
Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:36 PM
a: a single location where fights happen.
or
b: a single location where fights happen.
I can't see anything different happening in practice for regular pug play. This, because people are creatures of habit. They'll push to a central location that seems reasonably strong, every time. Or, they'll race around in circles if there is no good central location. Ultimately, though, you're simply not going to see very diverse games.
The OP's suggestion would just create the exact same thing above, but at long range: people stay with their Stuff, where they have cover, and poke across the open ground, because pushing across the open ground without cover means the team that does that simply loses. No offense is intended Mr. Panda, but it's a terrible map idea that would result in awful, "River City: Assault" style play.
#5
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:09 PM
Wintersdark, on 22 November 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:
a: a single location where fights happen.
or
b: a single location where fights happen.
I can't see anything different happening in practice for regular pug play. This, because people are creatures of habit. They'll push to a central location that seems reasonably strong, every time. Or, they'll race around in circles if there is no good central location. Ultimately, though, you're simply not going to see very diverse games.
The OP's suggestion would just create the exact same thing above, but at long range: people stay with their Stuff, where they have cover, and poke across the open ground, because pushing across the open ground without cover means the team that does that simply loses. No offense is intended Mr. Panda, but it's a terrible map idea that would result in awful, "River City: Assault" style play.
If you read my suggestion, I said there would be small cover on the 'open field', kinda like the rocks on Caustic. They aren't big enough for the whole team to group up but big enough for one mech to take cover from LRM rain or ballistics. And comparing the map to river city assault is not correct. River city has the citadel which is the center point, and the water area is so small it can be really easily covered. My suggestion is a whole big map, if one team centers their efforts at the center, there is opportunity for enemy mechs to slip by near the sides. The map is not river city size, its a good big size map. The size will force people to spread out to defend the "line", and there would not be centralized fights and death balling would also be gone. My suggested map solves all problems mwo has with its maps, even if I say so myself its true.
#6
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:11 PM
1. Long range stalemates,
2. Short range standoffs,
3. Mobile aggression (NASCAR)
Wintersdark lays out solid points, but it also comes down to practicality. It's difficult to get 11 other people to pull off an unconventional plan. The more straight forward and familiar the plan, the better your team will be able to organize around it. There are plenty of other ways to play, but it's best done with a premade that you can practice the strategy with.
If you wanted to try a 12-man flank through jenner's alley on frozen city skirmish, you could totally do it. But if you tried doing that with a pug group, you're likely to confuse people who are used to going another direction.
#7
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:23 PM
MadPanda, on 22 November 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:
If you read my suggestion, I said there would be small cover on the 'open field', kinda like the rocks on Caustic. They aren't big enough for the whole team to group up but big enough for one mech to take cover from LRM rain or ballistics. And comparing the map to river city assault is not correct. River city has the citadel which is the center point, and the water area is so small it can be really easily covered. My suggestion is a whole big map, if one team centers their efforts at the center, there is opportunity for enemy mechs to slip by near the sides. The map is not river city size, its a good big size map. The size will force people to spread out to defend the "line", and there would not be centralized fights and death balling would also be gone. My suggested map solves all problems mwo has with its maps, even if I say so myself its true.
You misunderstood my likening of your suggestion and RC:A.
I wasn't comparing the maps themselves, but how they play: teams hole up in their defensive area, as cover is better than in the open field. Makes River City: Assault horrific to play, and it's got a much smaller "no mans land" between cover.
Small bits of cover are insufficient. Pugs will do what's simplest, and that's to defend the reasonably fortified position rather than rush across the deathtrap.
Jman5, on 22 November 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:
1. Long range stalemates,
2. Short range standoffs,
3. Mobile aggression (NASCAR)
Wintersdark lays out solid points, but it also comes down to practicality. It's difficult to get 11 other people to pull off an unconventional plan. The more straight forward and familiar the plan, the better your team will be able to organize around it. There are plenty of other ways to play, but it's best done with a premade that you can practice the strategy with.
If you wanted to try a 12-man flank through jenner's alley on frozen city skirmish, you could totally do it. But if you tried doing that with a pug group, you're likely to confuse people who are used to going another direction.
Exactly. PUG's settle on a single battle type not because the maps favor that (for example, taking the big hill on Alpine isn't necessarily the best strategy!) but as Jman says, because there's no communication, and a common simple strategy gets all the players moving in the same direction and doing the same thing. That leads to victory, and thus those players feel it was the strategy itself that won for them reinforcing that in future matches.
No matter what the map, it'll come down to that. One common strategy that pugs take by default. Not because they're bad, or too stupid to understand anything else, but because it's simpliest in a situation where there basically isn't any communication.
#8
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:43 PM
#9
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:49 PM
Fire bases with turrets, that give commanding views of the battlefield, controlling them gives the enemy a few turrets with which to harass. some random buildings to hide in, underground network to kinda get around without being seen......stuff to spread the game out...
And if spreading out didnt mean almsot certain death, it might happen...but not being in a deathball for mutual protection of each other, just pretty much means everyone is going to do just that.....then leeching off each other, hoping one person or another will deal enough damage so they can ninja the kill....
Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 22 November 2014 - 06:50 PM.
#10
Posted 22 November 2014 - 06:58 PM
#11
Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:17 PM
Game feels too much like a solaris match, and the maps should be a lot larger.
#12
Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:27 PM
Atlas32, on 22 November 2014 - 08:17 PM, said:
Game feels too much like a solaris match, and the maps should be a lot larger.
It'll always be that way. Larger maps will take a bit longer, but like Alpine the fights are still going to happen in the same place.
Don't get me wrong, I love big maps. But thinking bigger maps will lead to more involved tactics? Not going to happen.
In fact - although as I said I love big maps - I think bigger maps actually decrease the quality of PUG matches, simply because there's ever more spreading room increasing the odds that one team will scatter and be torn apart.
I don't think there is a solution.
#13
Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:43 PM
#14
Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:41 PM
#15
Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:47 PM
MadPanda, on 22 November 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:
My suggestion is to make a map that this is literally impossible to happen. Below is a rough sketch, by all means it shouldnt be so simple, there can be like passages on the sides for example, but the idea should remain true. The team starting locations are obviously in the respective corners where is "stuff". There can be some "lrm shelters" on the grass area just to prevent that kind of games, but no big objects that would make whole teams center on it.
Does anyone else agree? Do you want to see something like this as a map?
Thats NOT Forest Colony?
Wintersdark, on 22 November 2014 - 05:36 PM, said:
a: a single location where fights happen.
or
b: a single location where fights happen.
So... Alpine
Cause noone fights anywhere but that ******* hill anymore
#16
Posted 22 November 2014 - 09:52 PM
Inappropriate018, on 22 November 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:
Except it would have to be wide enough for all the maps and with the way you get stuck in/on things NOW that would be terribad
#17
Posted 23 November 2014 - 02:16 AM
Mechwarrior Buddah, on 22 November 2014 - 09:47 PM, said:
Thats NOT Forest Colony?
Forest colony has potential, but its too small map. The paths can be too easily covered by the whole enemy team which makes pushing a bad play in most cases if we think that teams are equal of skill. But I guess the water area with the rocks covering on forest colony would be the closest thing to compare to my idea.
#18
Posted 23 November 2014 - 02:25 AM
#19
Posted 23 November 2014 - 02:38 AM
#20
Posted 23 November 2014 - 02:44 AM
Edited by kapusta11, 23 November 2014 - 02:44 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users