96 replies to this topic

[PappySmurf]

The thing about the OP'S post is even if we get bigger or better map designs without new game modes and actual objectives other than destruction it wont make much difference in game play.

[Theodore42]

Part of the problem with the way maps are played is the necessary simplicity of solo queue tactics. But most maps tactically play out differently in the group queue and I find that when a solo queue team is communicating they tend to break from the default map tactics as well. These situations I find most rewarding to play. Especially on Alpine and Tourmaline; I've had some awesome gameplay on parts of these maps that in a normal solo queue drop people just don't go to.

I've always thought adding multiple variations to the different game modes would get players fighting in different parts of the map and revitalize the maplist. Things like adding new spawn points in skirmish, new base locations in assault, and new node configurations in conquest.

Some of these maps are amazing and as it is now they are being completely underutilized. Perhaps some time could be spent rethinking the placement of objectives or just adding in a bunch of variations.

As for the need for a central location... While it may not be necessary, there is a reason forts are placed on the tops of hills. When military forces attack something, there is an objective involved. If it isn't a structure then it is a tactically useful piece of land.
Having a dominant central feature lends itself to tactics.

My favorite and least favorite maps for tactics and why:

River City and Forest Colony don't have central features and they are the two most tactically convoluted maps in the maplist. Especially River City! No central feature and an infestation of buildings to block lanes of fire pretty much means people line up along the river (note: the only central feature) and start shooting at each other. Then the ocean spawn team takes D4 (water area by the citadel) and is either shot up there and loses or gets into the area around the citadel and wins. Not really room for tactics, just which ever team is better at brute forcing their way to a win. My win rate on this map is 1.15.

HPG Manifold is the most tactical map imo. It has clear firing lanes but lots of cover. However, scouts can still flank you from anywhere (since lights can walk along the surrounding wall). It has a central feature BUT notice that taking the top does not mean a win. And basement is just as risky since you can easily get trapped in there and separated from objectives. My win rate on this map is 1.45.

Maybe its lame to use my win rate as an argument for if a map has good gameplay tactics or not.... I just know that when HPG comes up I know how to win and when River City comes up I know what's going to happen.... not how to win.

Edited by Theodore42, 06 April 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Theodore42, on 06 April 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

River city and Forest colony don't have central features. And they are the two most tactically convoluted maps in the maplist. Especially River City! No central feature and a infestation of buildings to block lanes of fire pretty much means people line up along the river (note: the only central feature) and start shooting at each other.

Not sure what River City you're playing. The citadel is the central feature and it constantly leads to NASCAR tactics very much like Caustic. At least in my experience. Although it's a little more forgiving.

[Big Tin Man]

This is an entertaining conversation for sure. To my knowledge, the largest two maps (Alpine and Terra Therma) are BY FAR the two most hated maps (not by me personally, but in general). The issue with the need/want for scouting to play an active role is that it would require too much area to effectively do. It's already miserable if you start at the furthest spawn on Alpine in a slow assault. 4 minutes into the match you catch up with your group, and 6 minutes in, the action starts, maybe, unless your a brawling assault.

Terra therma is amazing if both sides stay out of the center. Good route variation, engagement areas and flanking opportunities, but a horrendous walking feast if both sides are unknowingly chasing each other.

The bog is probably the map with the most potential to be expanded an become truly great. It is hard to figure out their movements, but everything ends up centered on the two islands in the middle. If this was expanded to add 1-2 more grid squares all around, the bog could be great. I'm also for putting the original full fog effects back in as a weather variant of the map and reducing the effective sight distance of thermal there (i.e. hot bog fog masks thermal readings beyond 350-400m)

[Theodore42]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 April 2015 - 03:36 PM, said:

Not sure what River City you're playing. The citadel is the central feature and it constantly leads to NASCAR tactics very much like Caustic. At least in my experience. Although it's a little more forgiving.

Nascar on Caustic is easy to counter. Get some assault mechs behind a hill, all the other mechs behind the volcano, wait for the enemy team to "nascar" their way right into the open, pincher attack from cover, easy win.

The reason nascar happens on River City is because the citadel (or anywhere) isn't a tactically superior position. It really just gives cover to the ocean spawn team up to the city area behind the citadel. Which is why River City always seems to turn into a brute force brawl in d4 / citadel city area. But yeah, around the citadel is definitely where the fights usually happen.

Big Tin Man, on 06 April 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

Terra therma is amazing if both sides stay out of the center. Good route variation, engagement areas and flanking opportunities, but a horrendous walking feast if both sides are unknowingly chasing each other.

I like Terra Therma a lot, although I'm all about the center. The team that takes the center always beats the team that tries to take the center. And people get convinced that because they tried to take center and failed that taking center is what caused them to lose. But didn't the Red team just take the center and win?

"Do, or do not. There is no try." -Yoda

Edit: you can win without contesting the center, especially on the objective modes. But if it's open, may as well take it. Easy access to everywhere on the map from there.

Big Tin Man, on 06 April 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

The bog is probably the map with the most potential to be expanded an become truly great. It is hard to figure out their movements, but everything ends up centered on the two islands in the middle. If this was expanded to add 1-2 more grid squares all around, the bog could be great. I'm also for putting the original full fog effects back in as a weather variant of the map and reducing the effective sight distance of thermal there (i.e. hot bog fog masks thermal readings beyond 350-400m)

I like bog a lot and would also like to see the view distance dropped back down, at least a little. I've done some cool tactics on that map, but I've also pulled a few boners as well. Still figuring it out tbh.

Edited by Theodore42, 06 April 2015 - 04:11 PM.

[mekabuser]

BOg.?
Let me clue you in on something.. the lack of collision in this game in conjunction with whatever you call it, geometry ,clipping, whatnot, makes a map like bog an abomination.

At least someone, is doing something decent with SOME of the maps.. crimson, tourmaline, even alpine, all decent maps..
I would love to know WHY... they just dont level the mountain in alpine, and take advantage of the rest of the map? no , now the spawns just funnel everyone to the mountain.

but bog,.. bog is such nonsense due to all of MWO numerous faults I am seriously not going to play it anymore..

I dont mean to be a jerk, but I dont think there is one mwo map that comes close to a mwll map.. Of course white knights with their excuses..

so tiring. all this settling for mediocrity .

[Rebas Kradd]

Big Tin Man, on 06 April 2015 - 03:50 PM, said:

This is an entertaining conversation for sure. To my knowledge, the largest two maps (Alpine and Terra Therma) are BY FAR the two most hated maps (not by me personally, but in general).

Alpine is hated by some for its size, but for a lot of others by its gameplay. There's one spot that everyone rushes to because it's tactically advantageous, and all gameplay revolves around that.

As far as taking a while to reach the action, well, that is indeed a gamer appeal issue. A lot of players don't want to wait forever, but the hardcore folks think that taking forever to reach the battle is a "tradeoff" and a "choice" for taking an assault.

mekabuser, on 06 April 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

BOg.?
Let me clue you in on something.. the lack of collision in this game in conjunction with whatever you call it, geometry ,clipping, whatnot, makes a map like bog an abomination.

At least someone, is doing something decent with SOME of the maps.. crimson, tourmaline, even alpine, all decent maps..
I would love to know WHY... they just dont level the mountain in alpine, and take advantage of the rest of the map? no , now the spawns just funnel everyone to the mountain.

but bog,.. bog is such nonsense due to all of MWO numerous faults I am seriously not going to play it anymore..

I dont mean to be a jerk, but I dont think there is one mwo map that comes close to a mwll map.. Of course white knights with their excuses..

so tiring. all this settling for mediocrity .

Some people simply want different things than you. That's not "settling for mediocrity".

You make fair points about Bog, but if you can't enter a debate without being able to acknowledge that people have different preferences...

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 April 2015 - 04:03 PM.

[A Large Infant]

Alpine and Mordor are not the most hated maps according to available data.

From way back:


Additionally, taragato was keeping a running tally in this thread but is now keeping the results to himself so they don't influence the votes.

[Theodore42]

mekabuser, on 06 April 2015 - 04:00 PM, said:

BOg.?
Let me clue you in on something.. the lack of collision in this game in conjunction with whatever you call it, geometry ,clipping, whatnot, makes a map like bog an abomination.

Yeah, Bog has more Geometry problems than any other. Maybe it was too ambitious, with all that gnarly vegetation and ground clutter. But tactically it is very interesting to me. There seems to be a small set of options from spawn and then a large set of follow up options from there, giving way to tactics. Maybe my opinion will change once I have a better understanding of the follow up options, but as it is now, it's a pretty fun map.

Frustrating geometry? For sure. Needs more polish? Can't argue. But the enemy is dealing with that too. To me, the gameplay is sound.

[Yokaiko]

Mizeur, on 06 April 2015 - 09:29 AM, said:

Part of the problem is that a lot of the maps were designed for 8v8 and don't scale up well to 12v12.

If you try playing them in private lobbies with smaller groups it's a much different experience.

A couple of the maps sucked in 8v8 like River Sh1tty.

[Thad Jantzi]

I'm in an exceptionally good mood this morning and so it is with great pleasure that I will answer all of the questions, as promised.

I'll start off by saying that the maps I'm responsible for having designed are: Alpine Peaks, Canyon Network, Caustic Valley, Crimson Strait, Mining Collective, River City, and all of the CW maps. For questions which specifically concern the other maps (Forest Colony, Frozen City, Terra Therma, HPG Manifold, Viridian Bog and Tourmaline Desert) I can comment to the best of my ability, but I wasn't super involved in the design process for them.

“would it be that PGI's priority in map design is to funnel players to the action quickly?”

Speaking only for myself, I can say that my approach to map design is to A.) try to provide a diverse and compelling playspace where all different types of mech can play a role, and B.) try to make each map feel distinct from every other. I'm not trying to "funnel" players to the action quickly, it's my hope that the players' actions define where the fighting takes place and I consider it my job to provide a playspace where that can happen anywhere.

“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'm all for huge maps. It is, however, certainly true that maps requiring long travel times are frustrating to many players. You need only glance at the forums to see that. There is a consensus here that the sweet spot for map size is somewhere in the range of Caustic->Tourmaline and while I'd be perfectly happy to make maps bigger than that, or even bigger than Alpine, unless I'm instructed otherwise I think you'll see most maps henceforth be in the Caustic->Tourmaline range.

“Part of the problem is that a lot of the maps were designed for 8v8 and don't scale up well to 12v12.”

It's certainly true that a lot of the maps were designed before 12v12. What's even more important, though, for a number of maps is that they were designed before we even had a game. Forest Colony, Frozen City and River City were necessarily deep into development long before we could even play matches on them. At the time I was working on River City I thought it was enormous - turns out it wasn't. It's way too small - everyone agrees on that and the size of the maps that have come out since certainly reflects our awareness of that. We will ultimately be revisiting some of these maps with a view to improving the gameplay experience as much as we can.

“Thad might not be the problem it might be the Cry engine design itself limiting what a designer can do on a scale that works for MWO.”

CryEngine is not a limitation for us in any way. Every map size is the result of us having decided to make the map at that particular size. This isn't to say that there aren't tradeoffs - the larger a map gets the more art will have to be made for it, the more resources it will demand from your computer, and so on. You could have an enormous empty map that performs well and takes a short time to make. You could have an enormous map full of art that performs like crap and takes a very long time to make. You could have an enormous map full of art that performs well and takes an exceptionally long time to make. Like everything in life we are bound by the strictures of reality, and that will always involve making tradeoffs.

“P.S or it could be Thad is limited to only making small arena type maps by his boss to save on server resources or other things he has no control over”

It's nothing to do with server resources, and everything to do with design decisions. If I'm instructed to make bigger maps I certainly can.

“But even in that case, there's still the "three lanes" rule and "one big central feature" rule that we see repeated in almost every non-CW map and that don't really allow scouting or emergent gameplay into the game. “

The thing to realize is that there are different people involved in this process. It's not like I'm Rembrandt at the easel making whatever I want. I work in a company and that means that numerous people have input into the process and that's how it should be. If I made the maps 100% myself without anyone else's oversight I can assure they would be much more divisive than they currently are. Some of you would probably love them. The majority of you would probably hate my guts.

I have certain preferences, I like the mechs to go wherever they want. My favourite map is Caustic Valley, runners up are Tourmaline and Alpine. Other people prefer more discrete paths and arenas, and we work with that in mind as well. Everything you see is the aggregate of the work of many people. In any case I don't agree with your assertion that there is a "three lanes" rule and "central feature" in every non CW map, and I think there's plenty of room for scouting or emergent gameplay in all the maps with the possible exception of the ones I've already agreed are far too small.

“These core map designs are part of the DEVS SDK tools so Thad takes a already designed map scrapes off what he does not want and proceeds to build a new 3 lane map design.It is much faster than starting with a clean map and building everything from scratch.”

I have no idea what you're talking about.

“I realize that bringing up another product will most likely preclude any response from the devs,”

Not at all. You can talk about MWLL all day long - doesn't bother me in the slightest. What precludes me chatting on the forums all day long is that I'm busy working on the game.

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

Look, I don't know what to say to this. There's a feature in the center of the map. What's your solution to this? All the features must now be at the sides of the map? Some maps have a big thing in the middle, some maps don't. Whatever.

“No need to look for the enemy or report their positions/loadouts when you can see them with your own eyes, effectively eliminating one or two of the four pillars from the game.”

Yeah some of the maps are too small - we're working to remedy that. Forest Colony and River City, in particular, are WAY too small. I agree.

“Scouting is a role i would like to try, but so far it is hardly necessary.”

I take issue with that - besides in the two aforementioned "too small" maps, scouting is certainly a valuable role.

“i think having different spawn points each match could make the game more interesting even without changing the current map designs.”

I agree, but I'm not in charge of game modes. If they alter the game mode to accommodate dynamically changing spawn points, cap points, or bases, I'd be delighted to put them in the maps. But, like anything, that would mean making a lot of people stop doing the work they're doing now and start doing that.

“I don't see why you can't provide varying terrain without limiting gameplay to one distinct feature (a la the hill in Alpine, or D*mbass Dome in Terra Therma). “

There is no map in this game that limits gameplay to one distinct feature.

“the only decent maps in game are alpine and tourmaline, they should be expanded upon and made even bigger, we should rarely ever see a map smaller by even a fraction “

Like I said, I think we all feel that Caustic -> Tourmaline is the size range we should be making maps in. By "all" I mean certainly myself, Russ and Paul. If I'm incorrect about that, I invite those guys to correct me, but I think I am not.

“How about you awnser his questions and he anwsers yours, independent on who wins. Suddenly we have a win win situation - something you probably won't get tonight.”

Looks like we got exactly that, since LA got their precious loser point.

“I like the maps mostly except for the red water”

I defer to Dennis De Koning for any comments concerning the red water.

“Also when more maps are in game and other additions it will be great.”

Agreed.

“The thing about the OP'S post is even if we get bigger or better map designs without new game modes and actual objectives other than destruction it wont make much difference in game play. “

Well I'm not the guy who makes up the game modes.

“Things like adding new spawn points in skirmish, new base locations in assault, and new node configurations in conquest.”

It's a nice idea. Bug Paul about it.

“Let me clue you in on something.. the lack of collision in this game in conjunction with whatever you call it, geometry ,clipping, whatnot, makes a map like bog an abomination.”

Okay so this is a big one, and I'll try to explain it here the best I can. Every asset in the game has its own collision hull which is, for performance reasons, much simpler than the actual model. In an ideal world the mechs would interact with these simple collision hulls, while weapons would interact with the render mesh that you see on the screen thereby never having the issue of invisible walls. So for whatever reason our game didn't work that way and both the mech and the weapons interacted with the same collision hulls. This resulted in there being a problem with essentially every piece of art in the game: either it would have extremely simplified collision that was inaccurate to the render mesh, OR the mechs would constantly be getting inextricably stuck on it. And believe me, this frustrates me more than it frustrates you. There has recently been a big time fix to the way the mechs interact with collision which you'll have no doubt noticed resulted in the mechs getting stuck much less often. This has resulted in us being able to change many of of the collision meshes to be much more accurate than they previously were. There is work being done on this continually both on the programming and art sides and I can assure you that you will only see improvements on it as we go. I agree wholeheartedly that the type of art in bog, weird shapes, gnarly branches, and so forth is certainly the worst offender for this kind of thing and all I can say is please continue to report the worst spots, and we will continue to do our best to improve it. If I'm wrong about this or I miscommunicated it, I invite the programmers to correct me.

“I would love to know WHY... they just dont level the mountain in alpine, and take advantage of the rest of the map? “

I don't level the mountain because I don't want to.

Okay BYE.

Talk to you again if the Canucks win a playoff round.
-T

[ChapeL]

...and a big round of applause to the Canucks for beating LA last night !

Thanks for the responses sir !

[JohnnyWayne]

@.@ Wow thats a long awnser *starts studying it*

[Tahribator]

You actually took part in the making of the best maps in this game Thad. Thanks for providing some insight despite the OP's passive-agressive post.

[Apnu]

Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

(says lots of great stuff)

Thanks for getting back to us! That was very interesting to read.

[ChapeL]

Now since the Canucks winning a playoff round is conditional to his returning on the forums... we'll never hear from him again I'm afraid...

[Alistair Winter]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to write that, Thad.

There's a lot of stuff I agree with, a lot of stuff I don't agree with. I won't get into any of that here. But communication and you taking the time to explain your logic makes it a lot easier to deal with the stuff we don't agree with, without resorting to tinfoil hats and blaming Russ Bullock for building the mountain on Alpine as a tribute to the Illuminati.

I don't think you guys understand just how much the players appreciate you writing posts like this - although I do understand that you're a very busy man. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.

[Surn]

bah, If only I had seen this thread prior to his response...

I would have asked if we could submit height maps and basic terrain textures for their consideration.

[Mike Forst]

Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

I read every word of this post.

[Metus regem]

Thad Jantzi, on 06 April 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

Here's my deal. If the Canucks beat L.A. tonight I'll come on these forums first thing tomorrow and answer all of your questions. But, if L.A. beats the Canucks you have to answer all MY questions.

That's hardly a fair deal.... Mind you, with random Louie gone out of the net, you might have a chance...