84 replies to this topic

[KraftySOT]

I can totally understand that, Alpine is one of the more hated maps. Maybe it and Mordor are the least popular maps.

Though I hope that doesnt prevent other large maps from being made at some point.

Theres literally only two reasons Alpine is bad. One is the same problem thats in Boreal Vaults. The other is frankly, the mountain.

When you give a piece of terrain like that, when theres mechs that cant shoot up or down very well, youre going to have a piece of terrain that YOU HAVE TO BE AT, if you want to do well on the map.

Thats the main issue. That one piece of terrain. The other minor issue is as mentioned the same with Boreal. The lines of sight in many places, are just too damn high. Berms. You need more rolling hills. Berms that you can hide behind that are just as tall as the mech, without some huge piece of terrain that can see over them.

Those two issues, thats all you gotta avoid for large maps. We the player base would still like to see some large maps. Tourmaline is pretty big and you have alot of the fights taking place at different places, scouting actually makes a difference, its a pretty good experience. What makes that map work is that without JJs you cant get up onto the really high spots on the map, and theres deep valleys with berm walls, to allow you to get where you need to go without being shot, however, you can always crest the hills, its not so steep as to FORCE you into the valley.

Id hate to think we'll not see another large map because the head designer is gun shy after one of the first maps that MWO had. Alpine is bad, no one is disputing that, but its clearly because of lack of experience.

Two years later, I have faith that he can make a large map, without the two problems Alpine has.

[FupDup]

It comes from the assumption that big = wide open, when actually big =/= wide open. Big maps could be claustrophobic humpfests if the designers wanted them to be, and small maps could be wide open firing lines if they felt like it.

Sort of related is their fear of long-range combat. There was a comment a while ago about wanting the majority of combat to be within 600 meters?

[TyphonCh]

I actually enjoy Alpine. The large, wide open-ness is a nice change from the sloppy carnage of 12vs12 that river city, and other small maps suffer
*Cough*8vs8*cough*

Edited by Team Chevy86, 21 February 2015 - 11:14 AM.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Its not the size, its what you do with it that counts.

Putting one giant feature in a large map like they did with alpine totally negates the point of it being a big map.

King of the hill blah blah blah, boring.

If Alpine was flatter, with groups of buildings here and there mixed in with the varied terrain it would have been such a great battlefield.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Yeah, if they flattened out Alpine, made it more based around all the points on the map, rather then 1 big mountain in the middle, Alpine would likely be one of the most fun maps to play. hundreds of places to go, many places the enemy mechs could poke out from. there are several bases on that map, theres rolling hills and all kinds of fun stuff on that map. It could only be made better imo.

[Yokaiko]

Just make alpine so you can't climb victory hill it gets much more interesting.

[Weeny Machine]

1. Maps in general:
I agree with the OP. Currently I am not even spoilt, I'd love new maps...ANY new maps

2. Scenario Maps
I'd love kind of scenarios like the very first Alterac Valley in WoW (sorry that I have to refer to that). However, it felt epic to fight NPCs and enemy players. In order to win and get progress in the scenarios you had to fulfil objectives. It felt epic and I would like to see that in this game to feel like being on a real battlefield of 3050

[oldradagast]

Mister D, on 21 February 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Its not the size, its what you do with it that counts.

Putting one giant feature in a large map like they did with alpine totally negates the point of it being a big map.

King of the hill blah blah blah, boring.

If Alpine was flatter, with groups of buildings here and there mixed in with the varied terrain it would have been such a great battlefield.

Exactly. Alpine is only a bad map because of that infernal I9 hill. Outside of Conquest games, at least half the map may as well not exist because nobody uses it for anything. Either you take the hill and have excellent coverage of most of the map, or you die trying.

Terra Therma is better, IMHO, since at least some interesting fights can emerge around the center. That one fails more when players decide to play peek-a-boo in the door ways and die. With proper tactics, Terra Therma is fine, though I do wish the map terrain wasn't as dismally dark in places.

[Malleus011]

I like Alpine a lot, because your 'mechs engine actually matters as much as your weapons, and opportunities for long-range combat exist.

It's the single map we have that feels (in some areas) to be more realistic terrain. Yes, long-range fights are possible, but you can maneuver, reposition, or use superior strategic speed to create a tactical advantage.

In short, it's got deeper gameplay than tiny maps like River City or Forest Colony, which get pretty old after a while.

I think Alpine needs the most help with variety in spawn points - it's a HUGE map, try spawning the teams in a LOT more spots, so more of it gets used.

Yes, the mountain is a dominating terrain feature, but changing up the spawns could reduce it's dominance on the map.

Pity we can't get more maps the size of Alpine, with a variety of spawn points and combat options, instead of being funneled down the same three canyons or jammed onto tiny maps.

[Yokaiko]

Malleus011, on 21 February 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

I like Alpine a lot, because your 'mechs engine actually matters as much as your weapons, and opportunities for long-range combat exist.

It's the single map we have that feels (in some areas) to be more realistic terrain. Yes, long-range fights are possible, but you can maneuver, reposition, or use superior strategic speed to create a tactical advantage.

In short, it's got deeper gameplay than tiny maps like River City or Forest Colony, which get pretty old after a while.

I think Alpine needs the most help with variety in spawn points - it's a HUGE map, try spawning the teams in a LOT more spots, so more of it gets used.

Yes, the mountain is a dominating terrain feature, but changing up the spawns could reduce it's dominance on the map.

Pity we can't get more maps the size of Alpine, with a variety of spawn points and combat options, instead of being funneled down the same three canyons or jammed onto tiny maps.

They have changed the spawns, its still good side. bad side.

That friggin mountain needs to go. Period.

[Goose]

Now that ACs aren't triple-ranged, grabbing the peak doesn't win by kills, but it still means you can observe the rest of the map.

Most games on that map is someone failing to be on the Plains of Failure first, then pushing a bad situation; No one seem to have tried anything else enough to gauge it's effectiveness …

What happens if there's a cloud ceiling, most of the way down that damn hill?

[Tarogato]

How do we feel about petitioning to remove/flatten out the Alpine Hill in the Middle? I think it would be a very simple task for the map design team and could probably be done in less than an hour and introduced with the next patch. I could start a thread with a poll and after collecting enough votes, I could forward it to Russ on Twitter and make sure it gets reviewed. Only if there's enough interest in creating such a petition, of course. Let me know if you think it sounds like a good idea or not.

---

Btw, here's something I posted up a while ago that would help with the monotony of matches:

Tarogato, on 04 December 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

I think the easiest fix for Alpine is to add spawn variants. I've talked about this in a lot of threads, so let's make some visuals this time. Here goes:

Here's what Alpine Assault looks like now:

---

Here, in order, Alt A, Alt B, and Alt C configurations:

---

We already know what the current Conquest points look like now, so I won't bother.
Here are the Alpine Conquest Alt A, Alt B, and Alt C configurations:

---

So the idea is simple: whenever you get Alpine, it'll randomly choose between the four variants. Hey, variety! Now we get to use more parts of the map! Now we get to use more tactics!

How about it? Spawn variants!

[Malleus011]

Yep, Alt configurations of spawn points is what I'm after - say, five or six different possible spawn points which would change the character of the map.

Flattening out the mountain would be fine as well, or flattening it for say five of the six spawn options ...

[TexAce]

Compare the heat maps of Alpine in the first months after introduction and in the last months.

The one mountain is only that much important because spawn points where changed drastically.
Before the change everything resolved around the radio tower.






BTW, this unfortunately also shows how less players were present in 2014 than in 2013....

Edited by TexAss, 21 February 2015 - 11:58 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

Malleus011, on 21 February 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

I like Alpine a lot, because your 'mechs engine actually matters as much as your weapons, and opportunities for long-range combat exist.

It's the single map we have that feels (in some areas) to be more realistic terrain. Yes, long-range fights are possible, but you can maneuver, reposition, or use superior strategic speed to create a tactical advantage.

In short, it's got deeper gameplay than tiny maps like River City or Forest Colony, which get pretty old after a while.

I think Alpine needs the most help with variety in spawn points - it's a HUGE map, try spawning the teams in a LOT more spots, so more of it gets used.

Yes, the mountain is a dominating terrain feature, but changing up the spawns could reduce it's dominance on the map.

Pity we can't get more maps the size of Alpine, with a variety of spawn points and combat options, instead of being funneled down the same three canyons or jammed onto tiny maps.

But it doesn't. Only a fool would ignore death mountain. The side that controls it has about a 90% chance of winning.

[MonkeyCheese]

I miss the old alpine conquest locations. That map+gamemode use to be fun. Alpine conquest is now a joke.

Also I miss fighting often in the far outskirts of alpine.

Edited by MonkeyCheese, 21 February 2015 - 12:05 PM.

[KraftySOT]

Mister D, on 21 February 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Its not the size, its what you do with it that counts.

Putting one giant feature in a large map like they did with alpine totally negates the point of it being a big map.

King of the hill blah blah blah, boring.

If Alpine was flatter, with groups of buildings here and there mixed in with the varied terrain it would have been such a great battlefield.

Yeah exactly. Id think the map would be successful if it wasnt for this one solitary feature. Then theres no accounting for that feature in the rest of the map. So every match boils down to the same thing.

I think they can do it, they just have to avoid what makes Alpine so bad.

[KraftySOT]

And those heat maps are great.

Youd definitely see it spread out more without this giant dominating terrain feature (or features as it were, the Radio Tower to Death Mountain fire fight is still the same general area, using the same terrain feature, Death Mountain, just the Radio Tower was the one spot on the map that could in a small degree counter Death Mountain).

Like the one guy said, if it wasnt for those dominating features, and more hills and some buildings spread around, youd have a pretty cool map.

I think its fairly unanimous among the community that Death Mountain is a Thing™

Edited by KraftySOT, 21 February 2015 - 12:20 PM.

[Mordin Ashe]

This is complicated. On one side people want bigger maps. On the other hand when we get them we pick one strategy and run it over and over again... Remember people, we have some slow Mechs that can't be any faster (DW, Stalkers etc). Each and every map must be viable even for these big boys.
Personally I am a fan of smaller maps, simply because it is viable for every chassis and fast Mechs can still perform enough flanking and daring strikes to make a difference. Anything bigger and people have tendencies to never visit most parts of the map - even though these parts are what they desired in the first place.

[Coolant]

I was never a fan of big maps...in MW4:Mercs I hated running a long ways just to get to the action, and then because it was respawn running again. I don't care how good the graphics are, I don't want to play a game to enjoy the scenery, especially after playing a map a thousand times. I want to battle. Short maps get you to the action quicker. I actually love some of the arena maps from Mercs. Probably why I want Solaris to come to MWO so much. The roar of the crowd, like gladiators....

But, we need more maps period. And, not just CW. My unit barely plays CW, so new maps there are essentially like no new content. We need regular maps too. Why can't maps be made for both. Or, like it has been suggested hundreds of times, let the community make maps. Or, make average maps released every patch, and high quality ones every couple of months.

Tired of the same old maps!