96 replies to this topic

[KraftySOT]

Not to mention that the mere fact that spawns are spread out, means that there will be a predictable and logical 'meeting up point' which is determined by placement of the fast vs slow mechs, and that meeting up point becomes the 'real spawn point' for the team. Then theyre already in contact, and the map plays out the exact same way it did last time.

If you put the teams together, as far from each other as possible, youre presented with at least two more options. If you always went left before, you can now go straight, or right. Because the dance floor is open to you. There isnt anyone else out there dancing yet. So your collective teams decision making, effectively has a choice, where no choice existed before.

Then youll see maps play out different, even without changing the maps themselves.

The main issue is that once contact is made, where that contact is made, determines everything else that happens.

If contact is made at the same place, every time, the same thing will happen, every time, with competent players.

[PappySmurf]

Thad I would like to thank you for the direct chat and answers about your part in the MWO map designs.I also would like to say I like all the maps made for MWO small or medium size a few larger maps would be good IF!!! we had proper game modes to support the bigger maps as in -------->

24 man raid mode against clan or IS bases on planets.
12v12 IS vs Clan base capture and hold.
2v2=12v12 Solaris style attrition with re-spawn.
24 man VS AI battle's for planetary resources.

To be honest Thad IF! Russ gave MWO more game mode options for MWO you and your team could devise better maps and better tactical objectives for players.


P.S Thad I also believe all maps (solo/CW) should be included in the solo MM queues your just denying the most populous players no access to CW maps unless they play Cw and I think that type of thinking is detrimental to MWO and its longevity.

Edited by PappySmurf, 08 April 2015 - 10:00 AM.

[Anjian]

It needs to be said that this game has the WORST maps of any game I have ever played online in the last 15 years.

[Bigbacon]

scouting doesn't matter in this game because 99% of the time, each map plays out exactly the same.

I actually like most of the maps in the game except forest colony, river city, and alpine.

the first 2 for being too small and alpine for just being completely underutilized by the players...it is an awesomely designed map except we only ever get to use a tiny bit of it because that is where everyone goes.

Edited by Bigbacon, 08 April 2015 - 09:36 AM.

[KraftySOT]

Anjian, on 08 April 2015 - 09:30 AM, said:

It needs to be said that this game has the WORST maps of any game I have ever played online in the last 15 years.

I find that hard to believe. Unless you simply dont play alot of games. Maps are bad these days. And have been for a while. You have cop outs like Arma that just make realistic places, and you have utter failures like Richochet. Whenever a medium that is originally the domain of only artists, becomes mass produced, quality takes a nose dive.

Thats what Andy Warhol's whole schtick was. The death of art in a medium. Maps are simply a sandbox for you to play with toys in. They ceased being an artistic endeavor, or even a mathematical problem to solve (the American McGee approach) and became just a function of a product. You have to have maps. so you have maps. They even procedurally generate them in games now...completely removing the need for a mapper at all.

Now you have exceptions of course, Skyrim from an artistic standpoint (and had a veritable ASS TON of artists and mappers and money), and something like Portal expanding on the American McGee approach. Even League of Legends takes the American McGee approach. Its a mathematical component of the game. You really PLAY the map, in addition to playing the game. Like back when you could rocket jump, and maps were designed with rocket jumping routes perfectly placed on a grid, to allow highly skilled players to jump around the entire level in a completely unique way. The map is almost an active character in the game.

But you have to think, there are literally tens of thousands of games available right now. Most of them are utter crap. MWO is at least well above the trash heap.

Id say all of our maps are better than Seine Crossing in Battlefield 4. Beautiful to look at. Probably the worst designed shiny **** youll ever see. All the BF4 maps are pretty bad, and BF3 wasnt much better either.

Heck id go so far as to say pretty much every MP map in Halo 1 & 2, make MWO maps look like master pieces. Those were so, very, very bad. In every way.

Edited by KraftySOT, 08 April 2015 - 09:52 AM.

[Jonathan Paine]

Any chance of getting breakable features on the map? I am not talking about levelling mountains or digging tunnels, but I want to be able to blow apart any small feature that should be more fragile than a giant battlemech. Death to the trees! Death to the roots! Death to the frickin' signs on River City! Crush those puny pebbles into dust, turn those tiny cars into splotches on the ground!

[Little Details]

Dearest Thad, you say you worked on Canyon Network. Please confirm that this map does NOT confirm to your desires as you made this map before mech archtypes (movement sizes) were introduced - therefore, 85% (made up number, but it's easily that) of the places where you purposefully allowed mechs to get out of the canyon up to the ridges were rendered moot as the slope/speed mechs could travel upwards was significantly reduced. This used to be my favorite map (by FAR) as there were an almost unlimited number of approaches/lanes/repositioning available for teams and now you have... way WAY less unless you're willing to lose half your team as they circle a quarter way around the map to get to one of the few places everyone can walk up.

[Kalam Mehkar]

KraftySOT, on 08 April 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

...Almost every word written...

I can't like your posts enough. I understand where Thad is coming from, but your replies are incredibly well thought out and provide constructive criticism (I understand most of and agree with almost all of) while staying courteous and professional to the developer who took time out of his day to give some insight into his own processes and thoughts.

Thanks!

Edited by Kalam Mehkar, 08 April 2015 - 10:16 AM.

[Sarlic]

Problem is it think it's wasted time. I am skeptical, but i do not think the maps will be adjusted. Or it would have been done earlier (apart from the resize).

[Almond Brown]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 April 2015 - 12:24 PM, said:

Well, there you go. Too bad the original article is a 404.

Doesn't explain why the constant emphasis on a central feature, though. Just an orientation device for similarly-minded "quick action" players?

Well back in the day, when comp teams fought on Large Maps, the Nascar track was just bigger and scouting was great but still the end game was creep "left" after the scout reported the enemy creeping "right" until the clock wound down, then a quick brutal fight ensued and many matches ended with more than 50% of the Mechs still on the field. Doing head counts was how things were decided. It was not always "fun", but it was competitive. LOL!

Edited by Almond Brown, 08 April 2015 - 10:47 AM.

[Kyle Wright]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 April 2015 - 09:22 AM, said:

Thad, there has been a lot of concern in the community about the design philosophy for the current maps. I personally have enjoyed the most recent slew (e.g. Bog and Collective) because of their dense terrain breaking things up into smaller fights. But the concern remains that most of the MWO maps (including Bog and to a lesser degree Collective) are small, prohibitive of real role warfare (e.g. scouting), and designed around a central objective and/or a three-lane approach. This tends toward NASCAR dynamics and/or makes gameplay repetitive and predictable.

I asked Russ about this during the last Townhall and he deferred the question to you and Paul. So here I am asking it. But Russ did bring up the point of balance between hardcores and casuals/new players at the same time, which I thought was informative.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if I were to take a stab at the philosophy behind the map design, would it be that PGI's priority in map design is to funnel players to the action quickly? And that it's your opinion that wide-open maps requiring longer/varied travel times and actual scouting would be frustrating to too many players?

I could see the reasoning behind that; I'm just trying to confirm it. Last time I brought up the idea of larger maps, I got quite a few people saying they didn't want MWO to be a "walking simulator" and such things.

Here i wanted to share something with you from last year, thats is related to what you are talking about.

This was a topic i did a while back. At some point Mechwarrior: Living Legends was brought up. Take note that one of the map designers responded to some of the maps he made ON HIS FREE TIME. The maps are both pretty and simple at the same time. Lets face it cryengine in more than capable at doing bigger maps. On top of that PGI doesnt have to get all crazy with unique features. Most of the MW:LL maps ive seen look more relative to real life terrain features that can be found anywhere.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Rebas Kradd]

Tractor Joe, on 08 April 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

Would be nice to do some real scouting with the 4 scout mechs I have. It would increase the need for coordinated team work and for VOIP.

I would like a similar setup, but it would not discourage deathballing. If anything, teams would deathball, send out one or two scouts to find the enemy blob, and then the two deathballs would turn and march towards each other.

We need gamemodes that feature multiple objectives that will FORCE teams to split up to win. MWLL's theater gamemode was a good example.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 08 April 2015 - 11:25 AM.

[Summon3r]

KraftySOT, on 08 April 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

And imho Viridian Bog is a fantastic map, but has one problem thats holding it back from being truly outstanding.

It needs less clutter on the swamp level, and it needs this:



Providing connectivity and more interesting routes to the 'good spots', as well as escape routes for when things go side ways.

Its riiiiiiiiiiight there at the cusp of being truly great. Flow is its only problem. It has tons of interesting areas that no one will ever go because the only way to get there is jump jets, which are bad now, and those interesting areas, are useless. If you jump up there, theres no one to shoot at, and no one will ever come up there and get you. So you wander off the cool spot, and head for the same spot youve gone a thousand times before, and the map plays out the same way it did every other time, because theres only two routes that make sense, because those other spots lack connectivity, and the ground floor is so cluttered it impedes movement.

viridian bog would be an excellent map it the godforsaken twigs and branches were destructable and not able to stop mechs cold in there tracks.... like come on

just gonna add this from a post i made that basically doubled up on this thread i forgot about oops:

[color=#959595]PGI have any of you guys played world of tanks? if not a serious look at the maps in that game would go a long ways. excellent battlefields that would help make MWO feel more like a battlefield/war then the forced arcade style brawls.... MOAR alpine/tourmaline size and bigger maps pretty please! oh not to mention the destructible objects and stuff [/color] [color=#959595] [/color]

Edited by Summon3r, 08 April 2015 - 11:27 AM.

[Damocles]

Krafty that jumpship/space station format is glorious.

Megathread.

[Rebas Kradd]

Kyle Wright, on 08 April 2015 - 11:16 AM, said:

This was a topic i did a while back. At some point Mechwarrior: Living Legends was brought up. Take note that one of the map designers responded to some of the maps he made ON HIS FREE TIME. The maps are both pretty and simple at the same time. Lets face it cryengine in more than capable at doing bigger maps. On top of that PGI doesnt have to get all crazy with unique features. Most of the MW:LL maps ive seen look more relative to real life terrain features that can be found anywhere.

Agreed heartily. PGI seems to be trying way too hard with their terrain design. They could probably manage with much simpler terrain and still accomplish the same gameplay.

I will say, however, that you need to be careful with that. Think back to previous Mechwarrior titles and how they featured enormous, wide-open maps with no terrain cover. What kind of gameplay did that create? Long-range, almost exclusively. Be honest - did ANYONE use anything besides PPC, Gauss, and large lasers in those games? Really?

One thing MWO has done better than any other title in the franchise, is create an environment that allows every type of role. Map design is part of weapons balance, and all these maps feature frequent cover, lots of obstacles, and approaches that let brawlers get in on the action as long as they're willing to do the footwork. So if you want wide-open prairie map, those rolling hills and ravines had better be frequent enough to break up the sniper fire, or it becomes a PPC/Gaussfest really quick.

[Tlords]

Thad, thank you for replying. I am with you. More diversity is better game play. Thank you for building my favorite maps Tourmaline and Alpine. Nothing beats long range firefights. Every time I hit a a light at 800+ meters with ERPPCs I squeal like a little girl.

I love this game - keep making it great! And... good luck to your Canucks!

- Tlords

[Tlords]

Tractor Joe, on 08 April 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

I would like to see a large map with no key features other than maybe some mountain peaks on the horizon or a river. Something almost open world feeling with very sparse terrain. Like the prairie along the front range of the Rockies, flat looking until you get out in it.

One of my favorite moments of this game is being the only person on the radio tower in Alpine, watching a 12 v 11 battle below me. The engagement stayed at long range till the end. ERPPCs, large lasers, LRMs constantly flying. It was glorious.

Big thumbs up for this idea.

[terrycloth]

Alpine is way too wide open. It's why people fight on the hill, or just north of the hill. There's cover there. It's one of the worst maps -- Canyon Network is the very worst map because there you literally can't move, instead of just being constantly pinned down by sniper fire on Alpine.

A 'long range only' map sucks to play on.

[Summon3r]

terrycloth, on 08 April 2015 - 12:41 PM, said:

Alpine is way too wide open. It's why people fight on the hill, or just north of the hill. There's cover there. It's one of the worst maps -- Canyon Network is the very worst map because there you literally can't move, instead of just being constantly pinned down by sniper fire on Alpine.

A 'long range only' map sucks to play on.

then dictate the range at which your team will play at, or you just solo pugging all the time? plenty of spots on alpine to change how the fight plays out

[terrycloth]

On most maps you could theoretically do that, but anything <500m is essentially worthless on Alpine. There are one or two places that would work for that except that people above you can shoot you with impunity if you go there. It's a terrible map.

Also, what? 'Dictate the range your team will play at?' Who does that? Yeah, I pretty much only solo PUG because the group queue sucks, but telling everyone 'get to 270m or less' on Alpine is just... a bad idea.

Edited by terrycloth, 08 April 2015 - 02:10 PM.