Jump to content

Dear Pgi: Dota Maps Are Not Fun.

Maps

254 replies to this topic

#81 mike29tw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,053 posts

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:18 AM

View Postpbiggz, on 03 February 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:


Posted Image

Not meant to be a be-all-end-all map, but just an example of how simple it could be to make a more interesting CW map. Take note, although there are gates that serve as moderate choke points, there are no LANES and there are plenty of options inside the base as well as outside for cover from fire and stealth.This ENTIRE map has strategic value, not just the gates as choke points. If you wanted to attack the south gate you could circle wide around and the buildings would give you cover, if you wanted to attack the north gate AND west gate you could split your forces under the cover of the cliffs. If you wanted to attrition you could use the river and lake to help you cool down, its these sorts of things that make the outside of the base far more interesting, and once inside, its not merely choke points.


This. Make this map a reality please.

Btw, what would you say if we put some ship wreckage in the open water to provide more option of approach?

Edited by mike29tw, 04 February 2015 - 12:19 AM.


#82 Soy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts
  • Locationtrue Lord system

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:22 AM

Many battles throughout history have been decided by the environment, weather, etc.

For example, Waterloo.

I highly doubt that Napoleon's lament was "too much mud for my cavalry to wreck newbs, **** this map".

#83 zortesh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 624 posts

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:30 AM

View PostSoy, on 04 February 2015 - 12:22 AM, said:

Many battles throughout history have been decided by the environment, weather, etc.

For example, Waterloo.

I highly doubt that Napoleon's lament was "too much mud for my cavalry to wreck newbs, **** this map".


I highly doubt he ever said "wow all these lanes make battles amazingly easy to perdict and provide so many convenient chokepoints!"

#84 Sabazial

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Point Commander
  • Point Commander
  • 725 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 04 February 2015 - 12:45 AM

I have to admit i find the current CW maps far from addicting. Some good ideas in this thread, i also like the idea of a walled base in a tundra or similar. I'd also love to see maps based on sabotage missions behind enemy lines etc in which the attacking team has to infiltrate base camps to destroy enemy supplies and fuel dumps.

#85 HellJumper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,226 posts
  • LocationIslamabad, pakistan

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:10 AM

tbh you can talk as much about bad map design or how they can improve or let community make it...

base line is nothing willhappen.. they (devs) are bad and really lazy at making maps and they will keep on doing what they best know i.e. make bad maps...

so no point in pointing out all the problems in their map designs or offering services to make for them..it wont happen...

#86 Escef

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 8,529 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationNew England

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:19 AM

View PostNotMwHighlander, on 03 February 2015 - 11:58 PM, said:



Why do you feel people would agree with me more than you? I think I found a problem here in your argument.


Look, slugwit, you asked me to find people to agree with you. Find them on your own, and don't start claiming I said something I never said. Y'know, like you did here?

Edited by Escef, 04 February 2015 - 01:20 AM.


#87 Kmieciu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Urban Commando
  • Urban Commando
  • 3,437 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:20 AM

I would really love a huge city map, where the fighting would take place between buildings, unlike River City and Crimson Strait.

#88 William Mountbank

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 671 posts
  • LocationBayern

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:45 AM

I wish we had more of these threads, some of us have been asking for a different approach to maps for a long time.

My own thoughts are that lanes aren't such a bad thing, the problem is more that once in a lane you are committed to what is a very narrow, linear area with predictable cover (if any). There's normally scant options for disengaging and moving to a different area without exposing yourself to the full enemy firing line. So the only option becomes to dig into whatever small piece of cover you can find and wait, because moving means dying.

This is why I like some of the city areas of Crimson and the whole of Mining Colony, as the lanes there are wide and full of cover. Imagine if the slopes of Caustic were littered with buildings and crevasses, or if Terra Therma had multiple partially hidden levels in the caldera.

The great thing about pbiggz map idea isn't the absence of lanes, it's that it has wide lanes with no long lines of sight. Static snipe-offs come about from the complete lack of visual obstructions - a sniper knows exactly where you'll be, and has a 1400m corridor or funnel to play with. In Crimson lower city, snipers are just Jenner prey, and gameplay is always dynamic because there is always a way for enemy mechs to flank a sniper position.

I don't think secondary mission objectives or larger maps will help nearly as much as more cover in wider lanes of attack.

#89 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:50 AM

you will realise that this will more or less always be the case if there is any fortification with gates.

anways a caustic like map, where the base is in the middle would be cool, and attackers can come from any direction.
But then with fixed spawnpoints playerbehavior will still make it "dota" like.

but those hills creating the "lanes" are needed otherwise how would attackers be able to approach without being seen? doesn't makes sense to have a 260degree possible attack angle if they knwo whee you are.

and any map made with enough cover for such an approach to be hidden will, surpise surprise, create lanes.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 February 2015 - 01:52 AM.


#90 Latorque

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 04 February 2015 - 01:56 AM

In pretty much any MP-FPS i've played so far there were always preferred tactical positions on maps - i actually like most of the normal gamemode maps; with the exception of those which were obviously designed for 8vs8 and feel rather cramped for some gamemodes *cough* looking at you River City / Assault *cough*. There is barely any complete washout in my eyes in the normal map cycle; bar one: Terra Therma is a moronic abomination of a map; and it kind of set the tone for the utter disaster that the CW maps are.

On most other maps; there are actually several different lanes of attack; Terra Therma has one central fortress that has to be taken - whoever holds it; wins. But at least there are several entrances to the central crater - unlike in CW; were the attacker is forced to march up to a gate by two or three very narrow lanes; blow up a gate and then charge into the waiting guns of the entrenched enemy, reinforced by loads of static defense turrets.

On the rare occasions when i played it it reminded me of World War I trench warfare: even with a coordinated team you charge in over wide open space all at once into the hell in front of you - in a PUG team you more or less go one by one; with rather obvious results. At least back then the poor sods had an artillery barrage softening up the defenses before charging (while in MWO at least no one actually dies, so there's a good thing :D). The only element lacking for the whole experience is some officer blowing a whistle after nervously fumbling with his pocket watch.

On top of that; the CW maps cater massively to the meta in regards to actual or alleged OPness of some chassis or quirks and HitReg-problems. I'm not sure if they really designed them around that; and if yes it is a horrible idea.

#91 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:00 AM

View Postpbiggz, on 03 February 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

Posted Image

The primary issue with this map is simple. The area in the yellow square, is the ONLY PLACE you see combat, while the area in the purple square rarely sees combat at all, save for the end of games in which pugs have been extra-rolled. Same with Boreal Vault, same with Helbore Springs. Such a massive swathe of the map is rendered nothing more than a time delay for the attacking team. Why design all that space if you wont even use it, it looks marvelous on the new map and its a ******* shame it goes to waste.

Posted Image

Not meant to be a be-all-end-all map, but just an example of how simple it could be to make a more interesting CW map. Take note, although there are gates that serve as moderate choke points, there are no LANES and there are plenty of options inside the base as well as outside for cover from fire and stealth.This ENTIRE map has strategic value, not just the gates as choke points. If you wanted to attack the south gate you could circle wide around and the buildings would give you cover, if you wanted to attack the north gate AND west gate you could split your forces under the cover of the cliffs. If you wanted to attrition you could use the river and lake to help you cool down, its these sorts of things that make the outside of the base far more interesting, and once inside, its not merely choke points.

The c3 gate in Helbore springs is awesome, it has lots of places where attackers and defenders alike can circle around and hit you from the rear, while the G3 gate has no such thing, and is just a bottleneck for lurm boats and snipers. Let the inside of the base be a place for pure brawling, where the defenders and attackers can both use narrow streets or passes that circle around one another to try to get the advantage on their opponents. Highlander's frustration comes purely from the map being so much less than it could be.



View Postmike29tw, on 04 February 2015 - 12:18 AM, said:


This. Make this map a reality please.

Btw, what would you say if we put some ship wreckage in the open water to provide more option of approach?



why? that map has also lanes, 3 of them tbh. don't see much difference. very much like sulfurous, why? well the 3 lanes are between the green hills, and resemple the gates of sulfurous. past the gates of sulfurous are many smaller industrial like buildings, which resemble very much the "urban like" surrounding of that map.

So basically they are both the same design of a map, jut looking different.
The only new is the open water, where no sane individual would go to without being sniped to death.

this map is tbh a 5 minute rush map tough the gates, open the generators, because they are horrible close to each other and then go to omega.
So the map does look different, but will not play different, except you have 2 pugs doing god knows what wird thing.
But indeed the map would be by visuals a nice addition and feel different by the looks. But it does not change the lane mechanic.

View Postzortesh, on 04 February 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

I highly doubt he ever said "wow all these lanes make battles amazingly easy to perdict and provide so many convenient chokepoints!"


guess what? if you set up a defense for a tactical spot, you will very like try to choose terrain that ahs thse lanes, because your attackers pathes will be predictable.

You don't build an important military facility in a "fair" spot.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 February 2015 - 02:06 AM.


#92 LameoveR

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 153 posts
  • LocationMoscow, Russia

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:07 AM

What? ~500k DOTA players at one time everyday. It says dota maps is amazing, but unskilled players always find a justification for their incompetence. Like bad maps design.

Edited by LameoveR, 04 February 2015 - 02:07 AM.


#93 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:11 AM

View Postoldradagast, on 03 February 2015 - 06:02 PM, said:


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.
Are you saying in all the Scenario packs for BattleTech There was NEVER a Scenario or 5 like this one?

I'm not defending PGI, They have not given us a diverse scenario pool, and the half the scenarios we do have are doe to player complaints/wants.

Oh and Lily, If my force is defending a base, with narrow channels leading to an obvious Objective with extra fire power at my disposal?, where do you think I want you?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 February 2015 - 02:13 AM.


#94 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:19 AM

There's two key differences between the DOTA map in the OP, the FPS maps from other games that people keep referencing and the CW maps we have for MWO.
  • Side-lanes: There's no way to go from Lane 1 to Lane 2 to Lane 3 unless you want to spend 10 minutes walking back to base
  • Map size vs mech speed. In games like CounterStrike or Quake, it doesn't take 5+ minutes of walking to get in position. You can often get from one side of the map to the other in about a minute, if no one's shooting at you. This makes the lane-maps especially unbearable in MWO.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 04 February 2015 - 02:19 AM.


#95 Soy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,689 posts
  • Locationtrue Lord system

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:25 AM

View Postzortesh, on 04 February 2015 - 12:30 AM, said:

I highly doubt he ever said "wow all these lanes make battles amazingly easy to perdict and provide so many convenient chokepoints!"


Precisely.

#96 xengk

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 2,502 posts
  • LocationKuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:45 AM

As long as a map have 2 opposing spawn point with cover/obstacle in between, "lanes" will form.
It is pretty much a staple design for Team Death Match type maps.
You want to funnel players into each other to start the action, instead of having them wander around looking for a target. Unless the map is small enough to guarantee players will find each other quickly.

The later map design are suited for Free For All Death Match type, like Quake and Unreal where you pick a direction after spawn and run forward until you find someone to kill.
Even ole Counter Strike like CS_Assault have lanes, you either choose to go back door, vent or front door.

#97 mark v92

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 441 posts

Posted 04 February 2015 - 02:52 AM

View PostMikeBend, on 03 February 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

http://i.imgur.com/XnivF0W.png Doesnt look like caustic at all.




you mean like this? (MW living legends)

#98 Rasc4l

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary Rank 1
  • 496 posts

Posted 04 February 2015 - 04:46 AM

With MWO's maps I've been wondering for a good time already that do the map designers at PGI really play this game. It should be clear that the world is full of examples of good maps for games like these. Which begs the next question that is the current situation with MWO's maps based on ignorance or ego? Don't the PGI mapmakers dare to copy MWLL maps and insist on reinventing the wheel or don't they simply know how to make a good one?

#99 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 04 February 2015 - 05:06 AM

View Postmark v92, on 04 February 2015 - 02:52 AM, said:




you mean like this? (MW living legends)

MW:LL was made by a huge billion-dollar gaming company, you can't possibly expect MWO to have the same quality or size of maps, the ability to ride different sort of vehicles, pilot mechs with the same kind of interactive, detailed HUD or cockpits with working monitors.

#100 Tom Sawyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Widow Maker
  • The Widow Maker
  • 1,384 posts
  • LocationOn your 6

Posted 04 February 2015 - 05:19 AM

View PostAlistair Winter, on 04 February 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

MW:LL was made by a huge billion-dollar gaming company, you can't possibly expect MWO to have the same quality or size of maps, the ability to ride different sort of vehicles, pilot mechs with the same kind of interactive, detailed HUD or cockpits with working monitors.


Ok that was a hard low blow but it did get me to laugh.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users