254 replies to this topic

[Thanatos31]

Artgathan, on 07 February 2015 - 08:14 AM, said:

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).

but that sounds like it would be a great option for the "hardcore" mode of MWO, Community Warfare, in which teamplay should be rewarded, quiaff?

[Artgathan]

Phil Ambush, on 07 February 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

but that sounds like it would be a great option for the "hardcore" mode of MWO, Community Warfare, in which teamplay should be rewarded, quiaff?

Err... Half-neg? I agree teamplay should be rewarded, but I still don't think large maps would affect teamplay. They'd follow the same basic formula we see on the small maps - the Commander shuffles their troops around until they're in a good position for an attack, and then they assault the enemy position. This is the basic formula of combat - increasing the map size only really lengthens the walking time before the shooting starts.

In my opinion, teamplay only starts to occur when the shooting starts, as that's when people actually begin interacting with each other (granted, scouts will be speaking with the Commander before contact occurs, but this is interaction limited to a small portion of the team).

[Thanatos31]

Totally agree, I just believe that on a more open field team play& movement will be more important than on maps that literally consist of a choke point at the end of a lane/tunnel and we snipe it out. then again maybe it would also always tend to go into that direction anyways.

[Artgathan]

Phil Ambush, on 07 February 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

Totally agree, I just believe that on a more open field team play& movement will be more important than on maps that literally consist of a choke point at the end of a lane/tunnel and we snipe it out. then again maybe it would also always tend to go into that direction anyways.

I think we're just disagreeing on what constitutes team play - I just don't see one person ordering a bunch of others to move from X to Y as team play.

That said, even on larger maps there will tend to be locations that teams will gravitate to because they offer some strategic advantage. This could create it's own problems, as teams might be unwilling to budge from their 'tactically sound' location on opposite ends of the map, out of each others weapon ranges. At least on "small" maps you're never out of range of the enemy, so you're somewhat forced to engage.

Also, I think on larger maps the emphasis would be placed (more so than it is now) on 'sniping it out' (since the size of the map would permit snipers to shoot-and-scoot quite easily).

That said, the map design of these small maps could definitely use some improvement. As it is it's exceedingly difficult to conceal your team's movement from the enemy (in a way that isn't immediately predictable).

[MechB Kotare]

Agreed with OP. If we are to face a CW, in which every single map is the same old boring Dota design style, i might just as well reconsider further financial support of this game.

MWLL map design ftw.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 07 February 2015 - 09:19 AM.

[Thanatos31]

Artgathan, on 07 February 2015 - 09:16 AM, said:

I think we're just disagreeing on what constitutes team play - I just don't see one person ordering a bunch of others to move from X to Y as team play.

Well, but isn't that what makes 12 man groups coordinated and effective. Moving consolidated and focusing efforts?

[Kristov Kerensky]

MechB Kotare, on 07 February 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Agreed with OP. If we are to face a CW, in which every single map is the same old boring Dota design style, i might just as well reconsider further financial support of this game.

MWLL map design ftw.

You mean the big open designs that actually ended up being played exactly like the MWO maps, where everyone converges on certain map locations every time because that's where the real or perceived tactical advantage is? Yeah, lets do that..oh, hang on a minute, they DID do that! Alpine and Tourmaline, which people seem to hate because they are so big and it takese so long to get into combat....do you even bother to read the comments in this thread?

[Rebas Kradd]

Phil Ambush, on 07 February 2015 - 08:36 AM, said:

but that sounds like it would be a great option for the "hardcore" mode of MWO, Community Warfare, in which teamplay should be rewarded, quiaff?

That was the idea, but I think the player base is still too small.

Perhaps after the Steam release...

[Weeny Machine]

Kristov Kerensky, on 08 February 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

You mean the big open designs that actually ended up being played exactly like the MWO maps, where everyone converges on certain map locations every time because that's where the real or perceived tactical advantage is? Yeah, lets do that..oh, hang on a minute, they DID do that! Alpine and Tourmaline, which people seem to hate because they are so big and it takese so long to get into combat....do you even bother to read the comments in this thread?

As for maps: The chat is full of complaints about the Bog and LRM errr Caustic Valley but not Alpine.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Bush Hopper, on 08 February 2015 - 10:09 AM, said:

As for maps: The chat is full of complaints about the Bog and LRM errr Caustic Valley but not Alpine.

Read this thread, complaints about Alpine, too big, too open, no fun. If you actually get away from the tower/ridge line by the one base, there's a lot of different places where combat is far more complicated and fun. But that requires doing something other than moving in a straight line towards the enemy, and that's just too much work?

DOTA maps work, they work extremely well, or they would have been changed years ago, but when something works so well that it's a massively successful commercial venture, why muck it up? What's the MOST amount of people who ever viewed anything related to a MW combat event? LoL has millions of real time streaming viewers, packs stadiums with thousands of people who are just there to WATCH the players. I'd say that while many of us in this thread may not like the design, it's proven itself to be incredibly effective if you want to have any sort of e-Sport footprint. And we know PGI wants to do that, it's how you really make money in the long run, just ask LoL.

[Weeny Machine]

Kristov Kerensky, on 08 February 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Read this thread, complaints about Alpine, too big, too open, no fun. If you actually get away from the tower/ridge line by the one base, there's a lot of different places where combat is far more complicated and fun. But that requires doing something other than moving in a straight line towards the enemy, and that's just too much work?

DOTA maps work, they work extremely well, or they would have been changed years ago, but when something works so well that it's a massively successful commercial venture, why muck it up? What's the MOST amount of people who ever viewed anything related to a MW combat event? LoL has millions of real time streaming viewers, packs stadiums with thousands of people who are just there to WATCH the players. I'd say that while many of us in this thread may not like the design, it's proven itself to be incredibly effective if you want to have any sort of e-Sport footprint. And we know PGI wants to do that, it's how you really make money in the long run, just ask LoL.

I just tell you what I see in the chat.
If I you ask me, though, I'd like a mix of both and some kind of dynamic maps like the Solaris arenas from the TT (if you ever played that). People would be forced to stay on their toes or screw up royally like (moving walls, barriers etc)

Edited by Bush Hopper, 08 February 2015 - 10:46 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Bush Hopper, on 08 February 2015 - 10:39 AM, said:

I just tell you what I see in the chat.
If I you ask me, though, I'd like a mix of bother and some kind of dynamic maps like the Solaris arenas from the TT (if you ever played that). People would be forced to stay on their toes or screw up royally like (moving walls, barriers etc)

I did play Solaris arena in TT, and there was a Solaris in some of the previous MW titles, always fun, but always small maps and talk about enforced lanes...those maps were specifically designed to make you fight in specific locations for the audiences viewing pleasure

Personally, I'd love to see some of the maps from the old BTech game used, there were plenty of them that could be used and some of them would annoy the hell of some folks while others would annoy other players. Bases set up PROPERLY, no multiple attack lanes, no cover for over 1km out, massive amounts of static defense emplacements(jump that wall and tell us what's over there new guy...'jj engage'...BOOM...hmm, guess they still got lots of gun emplacements in there, did he leave a will?), and other maps where the defenders got caught out or are engaged in a running battle to go from point A to point B, you know, the battles from the novels and 'historical battles' from the BTech timeline that were put out. Various Mech factories, weapons factories, things like that, stuff that we SHOULD be fighting over, even the Clans were intent upon securing those facilities for their own use. Collateral damage should matter in those combats, it did in BTech, blowing up a building by accident when you missed your target could be EXTREMELY expensive, cause it housed something really important...be a nice touch at any rate.

[Hydrocarbon]

pbiggz, on 03 February 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

Not meant to be a be-all-end-all map

Wow, I can already picture how fun that map would be. IMO they need more city maps with less variation in elevation. More cover, more lanes for attack & retreat, more long lines of site that can be quickly negated with cover. THIS sort of map could make lights & mediums terribly fun, and possibly start filling their respective ques again. People might actually try "pulling agro" (to use a MMORPG term) to seperate the faster mechs from the slow mechs, then flank & pick apart the whales. Currently all I see is people gathering at a choke point, or dancing around that choke point (Caustic & River **ity).

[MechB Kotare]

Kristov Kerensky, on 08 February 2015 - 09:56 AM, said:

You mean the big open designs that actually ended up being played exactly like the MWO maps, where everyone converges on certain map locations every time because that's where the real or perceived tactical advantage is? Yeah, lets do that..oh, hang on a minute, they DID do that! Alpine and Tourmaline, which people seem to hate because they are so big and it takese so long to get into combat....do you even bother to read the comments in this thread?

Think what you like. Unlike you i actually played MWLL, and almost all maps were properly balanced for brawl sneaks, for long range engagements, for jumpsniping. You could make any build work on any map.

You compare alpine to MWLL designs? You might just as well become target of laugh. While i admit that each map visually looked wide open, it was nothing alike when actuallly being on that map. (Speaking of official MWLL maps ofc)

Alpine Tourmaline... People seem to hate? That is only what you like to see, but there are in fact tons of people (like me) who like playing those two. Especially because those two are the only 12 men maps.

You know what you'll figgure out? Most people i noticed agree, that PGI map designers are failos. You call Canyons, Hellbore, caustic, Terra Therma balanced maps? Comparing to MWLL, they in fact are not. Each map is good to play in with a specific range build. You call that balance?

Do me a favor and think twice before you brainlessly comment, trying to bash someone's opinion, and turning out to fail in it.

Edited by MechB Kotare, 09 February 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[SirSlaughter]

Robocraft maps are better