55 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

We dont need map selection ability. The game already has a small playerbase and limited map selection, and given the game's very boring, bland and pointless game play, there would be very little keeping more players from quitting in short order if they had to wait in the Q minutes longer cuz they dont happen to have the meta maps picked in their Q, plus, getting the same 3 maps for 2500 games......if they even lasted past about 100......would surely drive anyone insane.

Map selection ability sounds good in your head, but its actually very, very, very bad....look at BF3 and any shooter ever. THe game has many maps, only a select maybe 3-5 get played absolutely to death. In BF3, its metro and the 2 harbor maps. Also seen thunder run map on there a few times....but that game has like 40 maps in the line up. No way in hell do we want MWO to be the same thing.....what maps would be played time and again?

HPG, Mining and Canyon? for 3500 games........and that would not get boring as hell very quickly? The limited map selection already has people bored to tears.

[Dimento Graven]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 04:15 PM, said:

...

HPG, Mining and Canyon? for 3500 games........and that would not get boring as hell very quickly? The limited map selection already has people bored to tears.

I'm sorry, but this is where the histrionics falls flat.

I would have all but maybe 2 maps selected.

I love:

Caustic
Tourmaline
Alpine Peaks
Both Forest Colony maps
Crimson Strait

I can tolerate:
Terra Therma
Canyon Network
River City
The Mining Colony
Frozen City

And the rest I wouldn't have selected, but would be ok with to tolerate if whatever group leader I happened to be with had them selected.

Your 'worry' is not as extreme as you want to make it out to be.

[Pjwned]

Dimento Graven, on 20 March 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Oh, so just because 12 people belong to the same unit they're suddenly super powered or something?

No, don't be foolish.

Not saying they're super powered, but they did and still do have a noticeable advantage other than VOIP, which you failed to address.

Quote

It was absolutely the fact that these pre-mades could enjoy a level of communication unavailable to the solo pugs that is the core of the difference in play style, not that they all have the same unit tag, or theoretically get to play with one another more often.

The lack of VOIP only aggravated the issue, VOIP does not magically fix the other issues.

Quote

I pug equally as much as I play grouped, and the unit I'm with happens to be one of the largest units in the game, and I can tell you that solo queue or pre-made queue the side that win more often are the ones where people communicate with each other and you don't have a majority of individuals doing their own thing.

That's not mutually exclusive with what I said.

Quote

It has zero to do with how often you play with the 11 other people you happen to drop with and more to do with what those 11 other people understand is the current strategy, which enemy is target priority, and where they should be moving to. ALL of these things more easily communicated via VOIP than text chat.

1. Saying it has nothing to do with how often you play with groupmates is just plain wrong, both that and understanding current strategy and such are important even if group familiarity is less important but still important.

2. I'm not assuming that a group will use text to communicate, especially when they have no excuse with in-game VOIP available if they don't have their own.

Quote

And yes, since in game VOIP has been made available I've been on teams where it has been 6 groups of 2 vs. 1 group of 12, and the group of 12 was ROFLSTOMPED due to the level of communication over VOIP. I've also been on solo queue teams where, again, it's very easy to see which side is communicating and directing the team and which isn't. The 12-0 stomps in the solo queue I've participated in regularly occurred when the team was using in-game VOIP, and the 0-12 losses I've experienced it was near dead silent.

Six groups vs one large group is a lot different from groups facing random players with no group.

Quote

This for me proves that the level of communication in game is now sufficient that SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO USE IT, any group of experienced pugs can perform as effectively as any similarly experienced group of unit players.

That is again wrong, groups have an inherent advantage over non-grouped players (beyond the exclusivity of VOIP that is now fixed) and that's why they should stay separated. To reiterate, denying that familiarity with your groupmates matters is stupidity, and groups being able to complement their mechs and builds with each other is a rather large advantage over random players who have no such opportunity.

Quote

What I've seen in this thread is a fear of change, "Oh no's it will be different and I will have to wait longer", no, not true.

"Oh no's it will be different and I will lose more often," probably not true, though given how some people have expressed their understandings of how the game functions, I can't imagine them winning all that much.

It's more like "the negatives outweigh the benefits and it works fine as it does now."

Edited by Pjwned, 20 March 2015 - 06:00 PM.

[ollo]

What should at least be possible to exclude 2 maps from the matchmaker per mech - it just sucks to drop with a 270m brawler build on alpine...

[LordKnightFandragon]

ollo, on 20 March 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

What should at least be possible to exclude 2 maps from the matchmaker per mech - it just sucks to drop with a 270m brawler build on alpine...

Lol, and thats why a more generalist build should be made, that way your ready for any situation. BUt, alas, MWO is a team death match game, where hte focus is on dealing tons of damage faster.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Dimento Graven, on 20 March 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but this is where the histrionics falls flat.

I would have all but maybe 2 maps selected.

I love:

Caustic
Tourmaline
Alpine Peaks
Both Forest Colony maps
Crimson Strait

I can tolerate:
Terra Therma
Canyon Network
River City
The Mining Colony
Frozen City

And the rest I wouldn't have selected, but would be ok with to tolerate if whatever group leader I happened to be with had them selected.

Your 'worry' is not as extreme as you want to make it out to be.

Is it? Maybe not for you. BUt what game that has selectable maps doesnt end up going with like 3 of them and thats it.

BF2142, it was Camp Gib, Berlin, Cerbere Landing and the occasional Seuz Canal. Sometimes one could find a few NS maps...
BFBC2, it was Oasis, Arica and map with the big wrecked container ship in the middle....
BF3, its the 2 harbor maps and metro with a little of that park map tossed in during a rush mode. Also saw the French city map in there.
BF2, it was Kharkand almost exclusively, cant recall seeing any other map played.....the occasional Road To Jalalbahd, but mostly only Karkhand.

MWO, I guarentee, you let players pick their maps, and turn off ones they dont want, you would never find a game outside of one where there is either alot of chokepoints, or it heavily favors brawling.

Maybe you wouldnt turn off all the maps, I personally wouldnt either, but alot of players would. Mordor, Alpine, River City, Forest, Frozen City and Bog would be a rare map. You would see alot of HPG for its close quarters and brainless design making brawling very quick and easy, fast games, over quickly...you might see the Frozen city where the snow is gone and its easy to see cuz its very cold and heavily favors mass laser boat builds. If you were an LRM boat player, you would see alot of Alpine or Caustic for its open-ness.

[Pjwned]

ollo, on 20 March 2015 - 04:31 PM, said:

What should at least be possible to exclude 2 maps from the matchmaker per mech - it just sucks to drop with a 270m brawler build on alpine...

Atlas can easily fit a few LRM tubes to make up for that. I also run a few different short range brawler builds myself, but all of them go 80-100+ KPH so it's not as big of an issue, but if I were to run a mech as slow as an Atlas and wanted to brawl with it I would make sure it had something for longer range fighting.

[Whiplash!!!]

We don't need to deselect a few from the queue... we need to be able to select the 2 or 3 maps that they've made that aren't ******* awful.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Whiplash!!!, on 20 March 2015 - 06:22 PM, said:

We don't need to deselect a few from the queue... we need to be able to select the 2 or 3 maps that they've made that aren't ******* awful.

And PGI needs to release the map making tools to the public and let their QA, if they have one, or the public, vote on the ones that get in. Maybe put 2 on the PTS and run it for 2 weeks, then during that time, there is a running tally, here on the forums, not on ***** twitter, where players can cast a vote on which map they like better. Come patch day, that winning map wins and gets in.

[Whiplash!!!]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

And PGI needs to release the map making tools to the public and let their QA, if they have one, or the public, vote on the ones that get in. Maybe put 2 on the PTS and run it for 2 weeks, then during that time, there is a running tally, here on the forums, not on ***** twitter, where players can cast a vote on which map they like better. Come patch day, that winning map wins and gets in.

Could not agree more. Been saying this since open beta.

[Krysic]

Map selection is a necessity. The cool factor of Mechwarrior was always the ability to immerse yourself in the mission. Right now the missions are so limited you don't really feel you are preparing for an event. Even CW feels too boxy and simple.

You want to immerse the casual player and build the base you have to give them MORE, not less. The more options they have for loadouts, map selection, mech designs (increase accessibility here, it's way too steep a grind) and game modes the more they will stick around and pony up a buck or two.

Pulling $2,000 from a diehard is less valuable than pulling $10 from 200 casuals. (But then again why not do both?)

Word of mouth baby, that 200 turns into a lot more pretty fast if you do it right and give them good value.

(Also, macro purchases will never outperform the micro transaction. Add map selection and lower prices to increase accessibility, the casuals have fun screwing around with builds and playing RP mission prep on the map they want and the diehards have more fodder.

Everybody wins.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

As much as I'd love to see map selection so I wouldn't have to play River Sh**** or Bog anymore, adding that feature would kill this game. Everyone would inevitably gravitate towards one or two Meta maps and never play anything else, which would stagnate gameplay faster than a no-heat ERPPC. Been there, seen that happen, no thanks. If we have to use a matchmaker (which I'm not a fan of for many other reasons), there can't be a hard-set map selector. I'd rather be stuck playing on maps that I hate based on their design than wind up playing a map that I like now so many times that I wind up hating it for rolling every single time.

That said, it would be nice if the game queued up two different maps at once for each game it formed, and allowed players to vote on which one they wanted. That would do a lot to alleviate the map streaks we often get, and it would also provide PGI with some very useful data with regards to map improvements. To wit: if one map is consistently down-voted, it's time to take another look at that sucker.

[Zordicron]

After tonights abysmal teams I got to partake on in pugland, my gut reaction was

"No way, anything that divides the playerbase even more so matchmaker puts me with windowlicker teams is bad."

but then I thought:

"well, wait. Certain player's playstyles and loadouts fit into certain maps a lot better. if I find it annoying, it would potentially be a way to avoid that."

But then:

" You know, NO. It wont work out that way, andit masks the route cause of the issues."

See, IMO, there are indeed some players that just flat out hate certain maps. But also, IMO, there are a lot more that dont like certain maps, because the maps themselves do not fit correctly into our 12 man teams, or into some game modes. River City, Assault. YAWN, but at least it isnt RC conquest. Now take RC, cut it to 6 man teams, wait a sec, room to run, scouting might actually be needed(briefly) flanking possible, etc.

the main thing they need to fix, is customizing maps to fit into the current game and game modes. They need to get variable team sizes going, pronto. River City assault: what if it was 4 vs 4? Remove ALL the turrets. Completely different game experience.


So, IMO: I gotta vote no to any type of map exclusion or voting etc. Maybe, AFTER they get the team sizes and maps etc customized per game mode per map, we could look at it again.

[Dimento Graven]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

Is it? Maybe not for you. BUt what game that has selectable maps doesnt end up going with like 3 of them and thats it.

BF2142, it was Camp Gib, Berlin, Cerbere Landing and the occasional Seuz Canal. Sometimes one could find a few NS maps...
BFBC2, it was Oasis, Arica and map with the big wrecked container ship in the middle....
BF3, its the 2 harbor maps and metro with a little of that park map tossed in during a rush mode. Also saw the French city map in there.
BF2, it was Kharkand almost exclusively, cant recall seeing any other map played.....the occasional Road To Jalalbahd, but mostly only Karkhand.

MWO, I guarentee, you let players pick their maps, and turn off ones they dont want, you would never find a game outside of one where there is either alot of chokepoints, or it heavily favors brawling.

Maybe you wouldnt turn off all the maps, I personally wouldnt either, but alot of players would. Mordor, Alpine, River City, Forest, Frozen City and Bog would be a rare map. You would see alot of HPG for its close quarters and brainless design making brawling very quick and easy, fast games, over quickly...you might see the Frozen city where the snow is gone and its easy to see cuz its very cold and heavily favors mass laser boat builds. If you were an LRM boat player, you would see alot of Alpine or Caustic for its open-ness.

First, this is MWO, not BF. Has anyone done any actual analysis on the other maps as to why a majority of players don't like to play them?

Who knows, it's an EA title and those ************* are run by the greediest sons of ******* the software industry has ever seen.

I've played BF in the past and was never impressed with the intelligence or REAL skill of anyone on there.

I refuse to base my MWO play on what happens in BF, or any other title, for that matter.

Secondly, I refuse to force people into a stupid random cycle of play because "bad people" might deselect all but one map. I don't care. I feel certain that there's a large enough core of people who would have all but maybe a few maps selected to keep a large enough population for MM to work with, ESPECIALLY if we dispense with the no longer necessary separation of solo and pre-made queues.

Sorry, but I believe allowing the player to decide their over all gaming experience will do more to keep interest in this game than subjecting them to the stupid randomness we're currently suffering through.

[Dimento Graven]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:

Lol, and thats why a more generalist build should be made, that way your ready for any situation. BUt, alas, MWO is a team death match game, where hte focus is on dealing tons of damage faster.

An overly simplistic view of the situation there.

"Jack of all trades, master of none" is phrase that applies quadruple-fold in MWO. "Generalist" builds aren't typically fun, nor successful in this game. Yes, occasionally they can be fun and occasionally you'll have a good match, but for consistent performance you need have builds that specialize in brawling, sniping, boating, whatever. A "primary" set of weapons and a complimentary "secondary" is what does best. Builds that have more than 3 distinct weapons systems typically don't do well.

No, give the players the option to either select/deselect the maps they want in their rotation, OR, allow the players to change their 'mech once the map is selected, kind of like CW now...

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2015 - 06:24 PM, said:

And PGI needs to release the map making tools to the public and let their QA, if they have one, or the public, vote on the ones that get in. Maybe put 2 on the PTS and run it for 2 weeks, then during that time, there is a running tally, here on the forums, not on ***** twitter, where players can cast a vote on which map they like better. Come patch day, that winning map wins and gets in.

Yes, totally agree to this as well.

PS WrathOfDeadguy, on 20 March 2015 - 07:21 PM, said:

...

Everyone would inevitably gravitate towards one or two Meta maps and never play anything else,

...

You might, I sure wouldn't. I'd have MOST maps selected. Most people I play with feel the same as I do.

[Dimento Graven]

Eldagore, on 20 March 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

...

So, IMO: I gotta vote no to any type of map exclusion or voting etc. Maybe, AFTER they get the team sizes and maps etc customized per game mode per map, we could look at it again.

Your whole statement is kind of confusing.

If you don't want to play 12v12, there's an option for that, and from what I understand they're adding that option for CW as well.

As far as "maps etc. customized per game mode per map", that's a weird statement.

Some of the maps need to be increased in size, the older maps specifically, I think we can all agree on that. Currently those maps have a LOT of potential play area "out of bounds", and it could be as simple as removing the OOB to the 'physical' edge of the map.

All maps need more dynamic/random drop points. Shift AP spawn points 15 degrees around the map, and or move them further in, farther out on the map so that when you've dropped in Charlie lance, in skirmish mode, on the high peak side, it doesn't always end up feeling like you're in BFE, and instead the tactics of the match are different because you happened to drop near the refinery near the frozen lake in the far corner...

Map selection needs to be in the game NOW though, so that there could be some hard data on "least used maps" so that PGI can start directing their efforts towards fixing them/not creating maps similar to them...