254 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

MW:LL didn't get much hype, and certainly didn't have near the hype that PGI put into this game. Look back at all the dev blogs they put out and how much they promised us then compare that to MW:LL which got coverage, but not hype. Those are two separate things mind you. MWO had the advantage of being an official new game rather than just a mod (meaning it had more resources behind it), it promised to be faithful to battletech, and promised a mechlab as well as improvements upon the gameplay from the previous entries.
The ticket system crap and respawn modes also hampered MW:LL so I guess in that regard there gameplay was worse, but I digress.

Im curious during what period of MW4 you played, because during the time HC was up and running maps had quite a few options especially considering the massive size of them compared to these reinforced the scouting phase of the battles.

Example, NB-Krakatau (if I still had this installed I'd post a pic) was a fairly open map. It had a giant volcano that was probably about as big as the river city boundaries that went up a good ways. It featured rolling hills scattered on the surface of the volcano. Bearing in mind the volcano wasn't active so there was no lava except in a pit at the top which was smaller than Terra Therma's and unfortunately required JJs to get out should you waltz in. Around the volcano was a short basin of flat ground that was often deadly to be caught in as you had the volcano inside it and outside it was rocky terrain that worked great for jump snipers. Now if you compared the heat maps of that map to that of any of PGI's maps you would be wildly surprised at what you find particularly because of how often it required rolling engagements or how it supported different strategies in many different areas in just the one map. It allowed you room to maneuver in a attempt to gain the terrain advantage over your enemy.

This game has never brought the depth of gameplay that matched the glory days of NBT:HC and has been this way really since the glory days of Closed Beta which is the closest they have ever come to a deep and varied game and that is even considering that Gaussapults were king of the heavies.

Sure sometimes you could play nascar trying to chase each other, but unlike maps like caustic, once a head catches the opposing teams tail, you have no cover to turn to leaving engagement the only option. Granted that is all provided neither team uses scouts either which generally stops that nascar mentality.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 February 2015 - 11:00 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

I will add that they can appease both the more methodical players and the "ADD" players simply by creating varying sizes of maps and they can do this all without the DOTA 3 lane approach.

The occasional Inner City or Riverside (I think is what that map was) is always fun and it allows for the players who want fast action to get it since those maps ensure quick enemy contacts, again without the 3 paths.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 05 February 2015 - 10:52 PM.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

The Greatest Problem by MWLL was the Imbalance Mechs against Aerofighter...
Im building many Maps for mW4 (Hillfort, Mechgarnision, Versuvus Desert, Golgatha ....)First Rule for me , many places for Ambushes and alternate tactics and RealisticTerrain and BT Ambiente, not forced to going a way

Edited by CSJ Ranger, 06 February 2015 - 03:29 AM.

[Ghogiel]

WM Quicksilver, on 05 February 2015 - 10:39 PM, said:

The ticket system crap and respawn modes also hampered MW:LL so I guess in that regard there gameplay was worse, but I digress.

Just to note: ticket system, respawn and map rotation were set by server admins. ie the players. No respawn or limited respawn on preselected assets with no tickets did happen too.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ghogiel, on 06 February 2015 - 05:12 AM, said:

Just to note: ticket system, respawn and map rotation were set by server admins. ie the players. No respawn or limited respawn on preselected assets with no tickets did happen too.

That wasn't until later, when MW:LL first came out, I don't remember there being an option. They did later correct that but it seemed the servers up were slow to switch over.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Quicksilver, you and I want the same thing on the maps, we want that long game play with a good BTech flavored game happening, but we are the minority, especially when it comes to paying customers. Most of the people in this thread want that as well, but we're still very much the minority.

Designing maps for league play, you can ignore the standard rules of map making because the league's rules supersede them. That's why you have those fond memories of the MW4 maps designed for specific leagues, they were designed to be played in a very specific style and the people playing those leagues wanted a very specific style of gaming to happen.

I did the same with Tribes and Tribes 2 maps. My league specific maps, you won't find listed anywhere anymore, they were designed for league use and were extremely constrained in their parameters. My non-league specific maps, some of those can still be found, like Space Balls. It was designed to showcase the abilities of the Tribes 2 engine and randomization that we could achieve with scripts, man called Zear found out how to do it and I stood on his shoulders to make Space Balls. 2 bases, 7.5k above the 'world', gravity of 0, unlimited view distance, oh..and 360 randomly placed asteroids of randomly determined size that were created every time the map loaded, creating a totally new and unique middle ground between the 2 bases every time you ran the map. You can still find it and d/l it, it was popular and it was used on servers around the globe. My 20 or so maps all designed for league play, I can't find those anywhere and they were all popular in the leagues..but that was the only place you ever saw them despite being released for public use, they were not general public friendly designs. League players loved them though, but talk about a minority group, less than 5% of the total Tribes 2 player base were in the leagues. I think you'd find something similiar for MW4, most of the people playing it weren't in the leagues, they had no clue there were even such a thing as custom maps, and the probably wouldn't have liked them if they found them. Too long, too boring, no action...pick your complaint, the LCD crowd, which is where the actual money for any game comes from, is not known for it's long attention span or it's love of complexity. Space Balls LOOKS simplistic and it's fast paced, but it's one of the most complex maps ever done for Tribes 2 with all the scripting I had to create to get that simplistic look happening that the LCD crowd loves

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 06 February 2015 - 01:02 PM, said:

Quicksilver, you and I want the same thing on the maps, we want that long game play with a good BTech flavored game happening, but we are the minority, especially when it comes to paying customers. Most of the people in this thread want that as well, but we're still very much the minority.

Designing maps for league play, you can ignore the standard rules of map making because the league's rules supersede them. That's why you have those fond memories of the MW4 maps designed for specific leagues, they were designed to be played in a very specific style and the people playing those leagues wanted a very specific style of gaming to happen.

I did the same with Tribes and Tribes 2 maps. My league specific maps, you won't find listed anywhere anymore, they were designed for league use and were extremely constrained in their parameters. My non-league specific maps, some of those can still be found, like Space Balls. It was designed to showcase the abilities of the Tribes 2 engine and randomization that we could achieve with scripts, man called Zear found out how to do it and I stood on his shoulders to make Space Balls. 2 bases, 7.5k above the 'world', gravity of 0, unlimited view distance, oh..and 360 randomly placed asteroids of randomly determined size that were created every time the map loaded, creating a totally new and unique middle ground between the 2 bases every time you ran the map. You can still find it and d/l it, it was popular and it was used on servers around the globe. My 20 or so maps all designed for league play, I can't find those anywhere and they were all popular in the leagues..but that was the only place you ever saw them despite being released for public use, they were not general public friendly designs. League players loved them though, but talk about a minority group, less than 5% of the total Tribes 2 player base were in the leagues. I think you'd find something similiar for MW4, most of the people playing it weren't in the leagues, they had no clue there were even such a thing as custom maps, and the probably wouldn't have liked them if they found them. Too long, too boring, no action...pick your complaint, the LCD crowd, which is where the actual money for any game comes from, is not known for it's long attention span or it's love of complexity. Space Balls LOOKS simplistic and it's fast paced, but it's one of the most complex maps ever done for Tribes 2 with all the scripting I had to create to get that simplistic look happening that the LCD crowd loves

That is all really irrelevant though, considering the 3 path design isn't needed to cater to LCD crowds, small maps do that just fine. Replace maps like River City with Inner City from MW4 and you'd achieve that same goal, except the league play crowd would be more satisfied with the removal of the 3 paths; though we will still complain for larger maps.

[Kristov Kerensky]

WM Quicksilver, on 06 February 2015 - 01:38 PM, said:

That is all really irrelevant though, considering the 3 path design isn't needed to cater to LCD crowds, small maps do that just fine. Replace maps like River City with Inner City from MW4 and you'd achieve that same goal, except the league play crowd would be more satisfied with the removal of the 3 paths; though we will still complain for larger maps.

The three lane is really only used on the CW maps, and make enough tactical sense to be used. Personally, already said, too many options for the Attackers in my opinion, but still workable.

The other maps, that three lane approach is actually player enforced, not map. I've played all of the maps in 'unconvential' manners, but that's maybe 1 out of 50 drops, probably worse really. The players are the guiding force usually, even with enforced attack lanes, the players still decide how it plays out

[terrycloth]

Walking around with nothing to shoot is boring. If you want people to wander around the map, there has to be stuff to shoot there. PVE enemies might help? If in every corner of the map was an airbase or tank depot or something which you could take over and have it start spawning helicopter and tank bots to go scout for you and annoy the enemy team?

Actually, just having something like sensor towers for you to wander around and capture might be enough, and that wouldn't take much coding. It's why conquest is more fun on some maps -- there are multiple places that people are drawn to so even if you end up in a deathball, it isn't fighting in the same location every time.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kristov Kerensky, on 05 February 2015 - 09:50 PM, said:

Personally, I'd LOVE to see some seriously complicated maps with borders that were literally 10 minutes apart at 100kph, with tons of places for ambushes, sniping, LRM storms, brawling, all that fun stuff. Give Lights a REAL reason to be out front, actually scouting for the team. But that type of map leads to very long drawn out combats for a while, before everyone starts to just head to a certain spot every damn drop to get that dance going on ASAP. It's just the nature of the beast, that beast being the players. Say what you will about how the DOTA maps give you no real choices, they WORK and they are successful and that's really all that matters. And that's because when you get down to it, people want to just get that dance going in earnest ASAP, not spend time searching for foes that could be anywhere.

This, unfortunately. The current map philosophy is a choice made in favor of pleasing the LCD players, and as much as it irritates those of us who want a nice, deep (read: drawn-out and complicated) game, it would try too many players' patience.

[SuomiWarder]

I have been whining about the poor lane channeling map designs for quite a while. So obviously I agree with the OP.

Look - put a honey pot in the middle of a map (something to defend or both sides want to capture) and there will be fighting. Without lanes. Put in two or three that require someone to stay in the location for a win and now you have a dynamic requiring split forces and swapping between attack and defense.

It is not rocket science - the problem is that PGI is copying other games. And none of the are BattleTech stompies so the resulting game play is not fun for MWO.

[Ghogiel]

WM Quicksilver, on 06 February 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

That wasn't until later, when MW:LL first came out, I don't remember there being an option. They did later correct that but it seemed the servers up were slow to switch over.

No respawn and serval other variables should have been in from the start. I am pretty sure it is stock crysis funtionality.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kristov Kerensky, on 06 February 2015 - 02:13 PM, said:

The other maps, that three lane approach is actually player enforced, not map. I've played all of the maps in 'unconvential' manners, but that's maybe 1 out of 50 drops, probably worse really. The players are the guiding force usually, even with enforced attack lanes, the players still decide how it plays out

It's subconscious behavior by all players because of how they design the maps. There is a center landmark that is almost always some sort of focal point.

River City -> Cathedral
Frozen City -> R***** Ride
Caustic -> Caldera
Alpine -> Candy Mountain
Forest -> No mans land
Mining -> Center Platform
Swamp is the only one I really don't know about, but everyone tends to stay completely away from the low ground unless its a conquest game probably for a similar reason people stay away from the low ground on frozen (for the most part).

Then you could always look back at this interview as well to understand that they designed these maps that way: http://www.pcgamer.c...tion-to-detail/

Now some of the paths on the non-CW maps simply provide little advantage so no one runs them generally (low ground/Tunnel on Frozen or River on River City) but they still provide this approach.

[Thunder Child]

Personally, I would just love some CW maps (or, just maps in general) that encourage the Deathball to split up to succeed, that are designed to allow ambushes and hit and fade tactics (for things other than light mechs), that although they may have very obvious choke points and killboxes, also have alternate routes that bypass said points (and perhaps lead into new ones), And, MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL! Are actually big enough to require scout mechs to scout.

In this regard, Tourmaline and Alpine are two of the best maps in the game, imho. Although Terra Therma is pretty good too, if you can manage to prevent the Mass-Suicide of PuGs as they Lemming there way into the Melting Pot of DOOOOOOM.

I'd love to have some maps that have, say, three cap points, and if at any point your team holds all three, it's GGClose. Or even two of three. Make the Caps slowish. Make the points equidistant, in terms of travel time, if not actual distance.

Give us reasons to go do stuff, instead of just having to hunt and kill all teh thingz!

[Ashnod]

Signed... still waiting to see mostly open rolling hills.

[Ashnod]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2015 - 06:50 PM, said:

Dont forget extremity! It has real map conditions.

omg forget the map design check out that night vision.. WTB that + a similiar thermals..

[Thanatos31]

Serious question:

Isn't the current map design philosophy a direct result of what the mass "beginner"/PUG community wanted :
-Brawls
-Action
-Fast lived Robot shooting
-Brawls
?

Wasn't there an outcry of frustration when Alpine Peaks got released that players didn't want to spend 8 minutes of walking time until they find something to fight?

I'm also sure that Russ retweeted tweets that said "finally BRAWLING comes to CW" , and while I think it's great that there is more "fighting" in CW and not the pure snipe/choke-point festival, I keep on wondering if these fights wouldn't also be manageable/create-able on bigger/open maps?

Was there an Update by the Devs regarding them developing a faster way to create maps and thus give us more than the 8(?) we currently have?


The dilemma, I believe, is trying to please both the beginners and make the game look like a fast paced action laden game and trying to not upset the die hard fans of battle tech ( who keep on complaining on the forums but won't leave for the love of giant robots and the history they have with this franchise)

Edited by Phil Ambush, 07 February 2015 - 07:52 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Phil Ambush, on 07 February 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

Serious question:

Isn't the current map design philosophy a direct result of what the mass "beginner"/PUG community wanted :
-Brawls
-Action
-Fast lived Robot shooting
-Brawls
?

Wasn't there an outcry of frustration when Alpine Peaks got released that players didn't want to spend 8 minutes of walking time until they find something to fight?

I'm also sure that Russ retweeted tweets that said "finally BRAWLING comes to CW" , and while I think it's great that there is more "fighting" in CW and not the pure snipe/choke-point festival, I keep on wondering if these fights wouldn't also be manageable/create-able on bigger/open maps?

Was there an Update by the Devs regarding them developing a faster way to create maps and thus give us more than the 8(?) we currently have?


The dilemma, I believe, is trying to please both the beginners and make the game look like a fast paced action laden game and trying to not upset the die hard fans of battle tech ( who keep on complaining on the forums but won't leave for the love of giant robots and the history they have with this franchise)

The outcry was because people wanted a big map that was fun, not alpine, which is big, empty, and not fun at all.

[Thanatos31]

How would you make it more "fun" ? I find it to be one of my personal favs; of course, what I like isn't necessarily important .

[Artgathan]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 February 2015 - 05:50 PM, said:

This, unfortunately. The current map philosophy is a choice made in favor of pleasing the LCD players, and as much as it irritates those of us who want a nice, deep (read: drawn-out and complicated) game, it would try too many players' patience.

The problem with these "drawn-out and complicated" games is that they're really only entertaining for the Commander, as they're the only one really engaged by the kind of mental games a large map enables (everyone else just sort of marches around following directions).

A match taking a long time to play does not make it more complicated, and complicated doesn't necessarily entail 'better'.