254 replies to this topic

[Tony Benoit]

Attack lane based maps are bad.









Does this look similar? It should, its called terrible map design.

Seriously, this is not Defense of the Ancients, League of Legends, Heros of the Storm, Heros of New Earth, Defense of the Ancients II, etc. etc. etc.


You (Russ) need to have an intervention with your map making team. I'll give them compliments of the pretty map, but oh lord, the map layout design is abysmal. It is not fun on either side to huddle around one of three pieces of cover standing still sniping for 15 minutes. Its painful gameplay. The CW maps are NOT the only offenders, mind you. Some of the least favored maps in this game have this design. River[Sh]city, Forest Colony, Frozen[Sh]city, Swamp, etc. In fact, a LARGE chunk of the map pool is quite bad.


What is wrong with having a map NOT BASED AROUND 2 ATTACK LANES?! Guess what happens when you can only go in one of two path routes. Its a bogged down bull **** sniper fest. Why can't you (the map team) design a map NOT based around the concept of Lanes. Stop it. The new map is almost as big of a let down as Swamp.

Just for a little insight, you know why people hate swamp besides the random invisible twigs and branches immobilizing their mechs? Because its based around a single central choke zone that you must engage at. Its awful gameplay. Stop.

Factory on the other hand, no central choke zone, not based on attack lanes, great map! Crimson, to a lesser extent, still good map. Hellbore Springs? Horrible experience. Give your players freedom of motion. Let them be able to attack from several locations, not a single predetermined path. Mechwarrior:Living Legends, MechWarrior 3, Mechwarrior 4, all had these vast maps with limitless ways they could get to a central focus point or base. None of them had single attack lanes, and it was great. These CW maps? Not so much.

I just hope future maps stop being designed around these attack lane concepts. Its bad, and you should feel bad. Very bad, because the resulting game play is horrible.

[hybrid black]

i like it i dont see the problem we just need some tanks and **** going down

[Mad Strike]

Unlimited drop mode = First person MechaDota? ........ not a bad idea , RUSS MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!!!

I can't imagine how much XP and CBs will make with that !!!!!

Edited by strikebrch, 03 February 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[Davers]

If PGI is going to copy DOTA style maps they shouldn't leave out the best parts, namely the Jungle. The Jungle is what makes LoL interesting, not the 3 attack lanes. The Jungle is where all the 'options' come from. It's where all the secondary objectives, that are important, are located. The need to balance lane pressure, while trying to exploit the benefits from the Jungle, is what makes LoL a great game. LoL without the Jungle? Might as well just have everyone pile into one lane and rush the base. You know, like we have right now.

[Brody319]

Davers, on 03 February 2015 - 05:38 PM, said:

If PGI is going to copy DOTA style maps they shouldn't leave out the best parts, namely the Jungle. The Jungle is what makes LoL interesting, not the 3 attack lanes. The Jungle is where all the 'options' come from. It's where all the secondary objectives, that are important, are located. The need to balance lane pressure, while trying to exploit the benefits from the Jungle, is what makes LoL a great game. LoL without the Jungle? Might as well just have everyone pile into one lane and rush the base. You know, like we have right now.

problem is LoL, Dota, and every other moba that uses this system have 2 sides attacking each other. not one attacking the other while the other defends. it would be like any MOBA if all turrets went to one team.

[Impyrium]

It's certainly concerning IMO to see the CW maps so strongly based on lanes. The new map is fun, and looks nice, but it's not dynamic. I'm still holding to the fact that there's only three so far and hopefully we can see other, open maps later on. But yeah, lanes, not a fan.

[Deathlike]

The common theme from every map in this game is that it is totally uninspired in terms of how it plays out. All it has going for it is that "it looks pretty".

I've seen better map designs in older MW games (at least MW4) and it's just sad that virtually every map can be NASCARed in some way leaving to predictable movement and expected results (for the most part).

For a thinking man's shooter, not much thinking is done here.

[Wingbreaker]

Er, actually most shooters use 3 lane design philosophy.

[FireDog]

Seriously, PGI does not have good map designers... A few of the maps play ok but from most of the maps released thus far it seems they have artist making maps that don't know what makes a map worth playing, over and over and over again. Most of our maps only play in limited fashion and even the largest map, Alpine, was designed before the hill climb nerf so it is at best 70% wasted terrain. My recommendation would be to load up some old popular MW4 missions maps and some of the more liked MWLL maps and just see what made them so popular.

In addition to seeing mostly much larger maps they would see most all of the following.

Multiple lines of approach, (forts/objectives having 180-360 degrees of threat with 3-8 viable approaches to defend).

Asymmetrical terrain features to give players choice of ground to fight upon (cityscape plus parks, spaceports runways and landing sites plus rows of drop ships and buildings, mountains plus rolling hills or rivers, forest plus plains, mazes of tunnels, caves and building interiors in which to play hide and go seek ;-).

Cover from many angles to keep both sides guessing (hill lines, canals, creek/river beds, canyons and clefs, close spaced urban buildings, masses of trees and fauna).

Variable (maybe even selectable?) spawn points (not in plain site of one another in the first 15 seconds of the game) and victory conditions for both teams to add additionally elements of surprise. A bit of AI would go a long way here..

Ample indications of features suggesting game immersion (properly scaled cars and trucks, buildings, factories, farms, bridges, roadways, military elements of all sorts, even people or animals scurrying about).

In a nut shell every map should support as many different options to play as possible, not the few 1-3 like we have now. Improvements in this area would be the biggest bang for buck to keep players returning for more fun.

Edited by FireDog, 03 February 2015 - 05:56 PM.

[Brody319]

If PGI would just ask I'm sure plenty of people here could design a map for them. They got this community full of people eager to help and they don't take advantage of it a lot.

[MoonUnitBeta]

One word: Gates.

Gates will always be the reason we will have "lanes".

Edit: Not Bill Gates... but I guess if you dig deep enough he's some what related.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 03 February 2015 - 05:56 PM.

[oldradagast]

AUSwarrior24, on 03 February 2015 - 05:41 PM, said:

It's certainly concerning IMO to see the CW maps so strongly based on lanes. The new map is fun, and looks nice, but it's not dynamic. I'm still holding to the fact that there's only three so far and hopefully we can see other, open maps later on. But yeah, lanes, not a fan.

Agreed.

CW maps are a step backwards in map design, creating easy kill-zones for stale, repetitive game play. It's even sillier that one side gets to camp, shooting targets, while the other side hopes to rush for a win.

MWO - and Battletech - is not supposed to be about mindlessly rushing an NPC goal or simply gunning down easy targets. The maps should be vast, open,and full of places for ambushes, flanking, and so on.

The static objectives are a huge flaw thus far in the system since there's very little replay value that can come from a game where the objective is fixed, all the approaches are obvious and easy to cover, and one side gets to camp on defense. Additional objectives - ones that require movement and scouting - are sorely needed, as are maps that are NOT based on obvious kill-zone lanes.

[Davers]

Brody319, on 03 February 2015 - 05:54 PM, said:

If PGI would just ask I'm sure plenty of people here could design a map for them. They got this community full of people eager to help and they don't take advantage of it a lot.

Many of the things players want in maps (large, with many options) are in direct opposition to what PGI had stated they were looking for (maps that funnelled players together so players can get to fighting quicker). PGI isn't interested in making maps that allow teams to spend 30 minutes looking for each other and trading pop shots at range.

[Wingbreaker]

MoonUnitBeta, on 03 February 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

One word: Gates.

Gates will always be the reason we will have "lanes".

Edit: Not Bill Gates... but I guess if you dig deep enough he's some what related.

And Moon Unit wins the coveted "Smartest Poster of the Thread" award.

[Rebas Kradd]

Agree with the OP (though I disagree with the tone).

Would it really be so bad to have just wide-open flat maps? I'm guessing it would be more taxing on the engine, but if I'm wrong, that wide-open territory would be simpler to create AND more open to possibility. Every previous game had wide-open plateaus.

I know Russ made "no circle-strafing" a pillar of their map philosophy upon starting out. I'm just wondering if he ever asked the community what THEY wanted. Frankly I'd love some good old-fashioned circle-strafing.

[Brody319]

Davers, on 03 February 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

Many of the things players want in maps (large, with many options) are in direct opposition to what PGI had stated they were looking for (maps that funnelled players together so players can get to fighting quicker). PGI isn't interested in making maps that allow teams to spend 30 minutes looking for each other and trading pop shots at range.

They made Terra Therma they have no excuse.

[Rebas Kradd]

Davers, on 03 February 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

PGI isn't interested in making maps that allow teams to spend 30 minutes looking for each other and trading pop shots at range.

So they aren't interested in scouting after all?

CW is supposed to be the "hardcore" mode. I get the "instant action" mentality of the other game modes, but CW isn't supposed to adhere to that mindset.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 03 February 2015 - 06:08 PM.

[Xoxim SC]

Mmm DOTA On a serious note though, I do agree the maps aren't fun. I don't even bother getting on because CW is BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING!

[oldradagast]

Rebas Kradd, on 03 February 2015 - 06:04 PM, said:

Agree with the OP (though I disagree with the tone).

Would it really be so bad to have just wide-open flat maps? I'm guessing it would be more taxing on the engine, but if I'm wrong, that wide-open territory would be simpler to create AND more open to possibility. Every previous game had wide-open plateaus.

I know Russ made "no circle-strafing" a pillar of their map philosophy upon starting out. I'm just wondering if he ever asked the community what THEY wanted. Frankly I'd love some good old-fashioned circle-strafing.

At this point, anything is better than "taking pop-shots and walking into a killzone, the game mode."

And they wonder why CW numbers are down... admittedly, a book could be written about that, but maps that make the original DOOM levels look genius-level is part of the problem.

[Impyrium]

MoonUnitBeta, on 03 February 2015 - 05:56 PM, said:

One word: Gates.

Gates will always be the reason we will have "lanes".

Edit: Not Bill Gates... but I guess if you dig deep enough he's some what related.

True, but I suppose what I want to see are bases which are comprised of actual walls, rather than just sitting in craters or canyons. Perhaps have the base in the middle of the map, and have three gates on varying sides. I'm sure it'd be difficult to balance a map like that, but it'll also lead to much more varied and immersive play.