Unfortunatly still does not go away that i am absolutely dissappointed with alot of maps so far. In my eyes the overall design is just poor. - Sorry, no offense to your work.
The reason is that for example Alpine Peaks could use more art assets and perhaps even a tunnel. For various reasons such as more cover, more entrances and perhaps less action from that big hill.
The feeling i am getting is that when a map is done, it's done. It won't be modified or even analyzed to improve overall design. (Apart from other data)
For example to improve current getaways, or perhaps make a extra getaway to make it 'feel' balanced.
Alpine Peaks has not been modified in years. Or River city. Shortly after the resize from 4vs4, 8vs8 to 12vs12.
Quote
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.
The only maps i like which are great in design are Tourmaline Desert, Crimson Strait and Mining Collective. For obvious reasons.
Again no offense to anyone's work. But i would like have seen improvement of current maps. Why leave it to rot for years when you have great tools to analyse PUG behaviour and more.
It's really quite funny I found this post before I found your post in my thread "Taro I choose you!" ... I lol'd.
Here's where the tally is at so far:
MWO's most disliked maps: Terra Therma: 59 votes: boring tactics, hot, bland graphics. Bottlenecks. River City(s): 55 votes: poor visibility (night), poor spawns, small size. Alpine Peaks: 31 votes: lack of cover, large size (suggested: add tunnel) Forest Colony(s): 23 votes: small size, bland graphics/ugly filters. Viridian Bog: 22 votes: invincible trees, hard to navigate roots/getting stuck, framerate. Caustic Valley: 19 votes: lack of cover, bland graphics/dull. Frozen City: 18 votes: framerate, visibility (forced heat vision) Mining Collective: 9 votes: framerate, crashes, boring tactics. HPG Manifold: 5 votes. Geometry. Canyon Network: 3 votes. Crimson Strait: 1 vote: crashes? Tourmaline Desert: 1 votes: invisible geometry.
Total votes registered: 246. (last updated: post #298)
I've tried to remain as impartial as possible in collecting the feedback. The most common complaints in general are, in no particular order:
overly small maps
This is something that Thad already mentioned is a known concern. I find it likely that this will be addressed, but in the off chance that it's not a priority, I'd like to point out that it's one of the number one complaints that I've noticed.
lack of dynamic gameplay / diverse tactics
This is a result of the fact that almost all MWO maps have a prominent central feature and almost all engagements are contingent upon which team better controls that feature. Since everybody heads toward that center point every match, the gameplay sorely lacks diversity and there's little room for any sort of thought out tactics and counter tactics. I'd like to point out that the two most "liked" maps are Crimson and Tourmaline, neither of which have central features at all - they're completely asymmetrical maps, yet they seem to receive practically zero negative feedback. While Alpine is also completely asymmetrical, it's in the top three most disliked because it suffers from having a central hill that everybody always fights over and the prominence of that hill ruins any chance for other parts of the map to be used and that's the reason so many people hate this map. The hill needs to be significantly altered to solve the problem (or see my solution at the bottom of this post)
framerate
Frozen City, Mining Collective, and to a lesser extent Viridian Bog, all have received numerous gripes about framerate. For Frozen City it's the day version because the snowstorm causes FPS drops and forces you to use heat vision (which for many people, myself included, causes more FPS drops... slideshow worthy). Do note the HPG has been praised one more than one occasion for have the best framerate of any map in the game and this is something I've noticed personally as well. I wish all the maps ran as well as HPG did. Even Tourmaline runs very well on my system, yet Mining Collective is all but completely unplayable.
Trashhead, on 06 April 2015 - 01:29 PM, said:
i think having different spawn points each match could make the game more interesting even without changing the current map designs.
Depends on each map, of cause.
Theodore42, on 06 April 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:
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.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
...
“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.
The issue: spawns are stale, every match plays the same way because we memorised the spawns eons ago.
The solution: more spawns!
I think this should go very high on PGI's priority list because it shouldn't be too hard to address and the diversity and variety it would add would soooo greatly improve the quality of the gameplay. ... and you can bet your hind end I'll bug Paul about it since you deferred to him, Thad.
Here's actually a post I did on the topic quite a while back.
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!
Thad, seriously... thanks so much for doing this. It means a lot to see a dev spending so much time answering questions like this. I know ya'll are busy, but it really helps instill some trust in you guys to see you interacting here on the forums. So,
... edit: that came out a LOT bigger than I was expecting, blololol...
I did not see any answers as to why we have 'lanes' of any kind in a MW game. I love the idea of CW but cannot stand the lane\gate\towerdefense mechanics. Theyre so disappointing.
However I feel like Thad was targeted unfairly in this thread, as even before his response we should all be aware that every artist on the team answers to their superiors, and when the boss has ideas, you can disagree, but if he still likes his ideas, you roll with them.
Of course, even though there are maps Thad did not make... I assumed they had more map designers than 1 or 2...
How big is PGI? With these mekpak prices they should either hire more staff, or admit that MWO is NOT reaching outside of the battletech fanbase. (because non BT fans think the prices are beyond ridiculous, and are shocked to learn that people actually pay them)
It's really quite funny I found this post before I found your post in my thread "Taro I choose you!" ... I lol'd.
Here's where the tally is at so far:
MWO's most disliked maps: Terra Therma: 59 votes: boring tactics, hot, bland graphics. Bottlenecks. River City(s): 55 votes: poor visibility (night), poor spawns, small size. Alpine Peaks: 31 votes: lack of cover, large size (suggested: add tunnel) Forest Colony(s): 23 votes: small size, bland graphics/ugly filters. Viridian Bog: 22 votes: invincible trees, hard to navigate roots/getting stuck, framerate. Caustic Valley: 19 votes: lack of cover, bland graphics/dull. Frozen City: 18 votes: framerate, visibility (forced heat vision) Mining Collective: 9 votes: framerate, crashes, boring tactics. HPG Manifold: 5 votes. Geometry. Canyon Network: 3 votes. Crimson Strait: 1 vote: crashes? Tourmaline Desert: 1 votes: invisible geometry.
Total votes registered: 246. (last updated: post #298)
I've tried to remain as impartial as possible in collecting the feedback. The most common complaints in general are, in no particular order:
overly small maps
This is something that Thad already mentioned is a known concern. I find it likely that this will be addressed, but in the off chance that it's not a priority, I'd like to point out that it's one of the number one complaints that I've noticed.
lack of dynamic gameplay / diverse tactics
This is a result of the fact that almost all MWO maps have a prominent central feature and almost all engagements are contingent upon which team better controls that feature. Since everybody heads toward that center point every match, the gameplay sorely lacks diversity and there's little room for any sort of thought out tactics and counter tactics. I'd like to point out that the two most "liked" maps are Crimson and Tourmaline, neither of which have central features at all - they're completely asymmetrical maps, yet they seem to receive practically zero negative feedback. While Alpine is also completely asymmetrical, it's in the top three most disliked because it suffers from having a central hill that everybody always fights over and the prominence of that hill ruins any chance for other parts of the map to be used and that's the reason so many people hate this map. The hill needs to be significantly altered to solve the problem (or see my solution at the bottom of this post)
framerate
Frozen City, Mining Collective, and to a lesser extent Viridian Bog, all have received numerous gripes about framerate. For Frozen City it's the day version because the snowstorm causes FPS drops and forces you to use heat vision (which for many people, myself included, causes more FPS drops... slideshow worthy). Do note the HPG has been praised one more than one occasion for have the best framerate of any map in the game and this is something I've noticed personally as well. I wish all the maps ran as well as HPG did. Even Tourmaline runs very well on my system, yet Mining Collective is all but completely unplayable.
The issue: spawns are stale, every match plays the same way because we memorised the spawns eons ago.
The solution: more spawns!
I think this should go very high on PGI's priority list because it shouldn't be too hard to address and the diversity and variety it would add would soooo greatly improve the quality of the gameplay. ... and you can bet your hind end I'll bug Paul about it since you deferred to him, Thad.
Here's actually a post I did on the topic quite a while back.
I just want this to be in this thread one more time.
Thank you Thad Jantzi for taking the time to answer questions about maps. It is always nice to see devs using the forums.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
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.
I would say that approaches A and B are very good and important. I agree 100 % that those should be the basis of map design.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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. “
... 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.
I'm not sure exactly how to explain this to you but it doesn't matter if you agree with the assertion, because that's simply how it is currently in the game and how the game is played. It is possible to find "emergent gameplay" in the lower ELOs where people are still figuring out how to play a map but for example anyone with hundreds of drops under their belt in any given map know the couple of feasible attack lanes and that's where the match happens. I think at smurfy's or somewhere else in the Internet where you could see the maps there used to be overlays showing dots on the map where people had died. This data unambiguously demonstrated that matches take place in very limited areas of the maps. Only in Conquest mode the data was more spread out. I'm sure this data is available to PGI so you can see for yourself that the "three lane routine" is what statistically happens.
As an example: Frozen City Skirmish. If the C3 attack lane (not caves of course) is not taken by either teams, the game is usually played so that the lower team advances through C4 towards B4. Then the fight happens at B3/B4 area unless the upper team decides to take the C3 route at this point when the lower team has already mostly evacuated their side of C3 towards B4/upper part of C4. If the upper team takes the C3 lane at that moment, then certain level of nascar may happen.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
I'm sure it is no easy task to make a map that is "balanced" in every possible meaning of the word so your task is not trivial in any way. However, it would help to have more than 2-3 connections between larger areas of the map and these connections should be wider than 2 mechs. We can't just have a large flat plain either, there must be the possibility to take cover so the fights aren't reduced to long range slugfests. Yeah, it's difficult and I wish you all the best in these endeavors.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
Again the players are explaining what is factually happening on the battlefield and as such they are not matters of opinion...
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
...and if we think about improving the role of scouts via map design, randomizing the spawn points would help a great deal.
Let me emphasize with my Frozen City Night Skirmish example above. The upper team has a lance spawning at A4/B4 border. This lance almost always starts the game by moving up the ramp southeast towards B4. If I'm a scout in the lower team and especially if I'm spawning in the upper 2 lances at D4 or D5, I almost exclusively attack the poor A4/B4 lance from the upper ridges of B4 southeast corner. There is no need 'scout' for the enemy, because everybody with more than 10 drops on the map knows there will be an enemy lance there and due to the few possible attack lanes, 99 % of the times I find them climbing up the ramp as I start to shoot them in the back.
If we had even 6 or 9 possible spawn places for lances instead of 3, there would be some scouting required to find out where they spawned this time. We do not. Therefore, no scouting is really needed in the game regardless of the issue you might take with that.
And regarding your argument that so and so many people would have to stop doing important things to make things like this happen. Well I'd go as far as to say this would be an extremely important thing to do to improve the gaming experience in terms of versatility and not just always doing the same thing.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
Pardon my directness but why don't you bug Paul about it? You must have some internal meetings and I can't believe he's such a big bad wolf that no one dares to suggest anything to him? I mean, he just took off the 3LL ghost heat, which was great.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
Well it is clearly the singly most dominating feature on the map (not the actual hill at I9 but the eastern slopes of I10 and H10). Once you are there, you have a gorge behind you, a large mountain on your right (G9/H9) and a huge mountain on your left (I9). The best defensible position on the map and the enemy has to attack uphill to reach you. Perhaps the most clear example of the situation where a huge and beautiful map is left almost completely unused.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
Okay BYE.
Bye and thank you again for participating in the discussion.
If we had the ability to opt out of just one single solitary map, my pick would be Caustic Valley. Very... interesting to know that it is your favorite.
...and a big round of applause to the Canucks for beating LA last night !
Thanks for the responses sir !
Tourmaline.
Seriously Tourmaline, bar none, hands down the BEST map in this game, you can brawl, you can snipe, lights have a use. Its far and away the best map. The Toumaline inspired CW map would be equal except that you had to add gates so meh.
......Alpine would also be amazing WITHOUT thrill hill, seriously giving up a tactical advantage over half of a huge map....is stupid, and it makes for dull gameplay.
Caustic is actually pretty awesome, the enforced nascar by the players is the issue there, those that remeber the ridge by the (former) south spawn know how to play that, I long for the old C-line rush that made that map a lot more dynamic.
.....of course some of that is skirmish mode, witch by default stifles any sort of dynamic play, you guys shouldn't have caved there.
I've enjoyed many matches on Caustic that have not been nascar and I think that could be more of a player mentality issue.
No one goes up over the top because they fear being peeksniped and the heat increase. Mainly the heat. Now if there was a snow version where you got cooler the higher you went....... It'd also be great if it had random vent's, gysers etc
Hi Thad, im Tom. I used to do your job, at Raven, iD, and Valve.
Thad Jantzi, on 07 April 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:
“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.
This is unfortunately, and respectfully, backwards. You dont want to provide a playspace where action can happen anywhere, you want to provide three specific things:
Durability. A map should withstand thousands of game sessions without letting players feel bored. It must provide continuous tactical challenge.
Accessibility. Navigation in a map should be clear. Remember that complex map design is one of the main difficulties a new player is confronted with.
Entertainment. This need is obvious, but its rules are difficult to define.
Action can happen at the same places, as long as it happens in a different and interesting way. If you look at the most successful multiplayer maps in gaming history, action still takes place at a few map designer influenced places, but are dynamic in each of these places. Theres multiple ways into and out of these action hot spots and engaging and disengaging from the fight is how it remains dynamic. Tourmaline does a good job of this with sparse crystal stacks being truly impassable terrain, while rolling hills provide 3-6 paths into and out of a 'bowl' or 'glenn' where action is likely to take place. The fight can always be there, thats not a problem, its that it provides enough paths, to be dynamic, dependent on player choice. You dont need to shuffle players to areas "quickly" but you do need to funnel them to stage. Without the stage, the actors have no place to act.
The number one easiest way, since you could put rooms above rooms (post Doom II era engines, when I worked at Raven, we didnt have to worry much about verticality) to achieve durability, is, like Obi Payppy Wan said, "Use the Vertical, Luke". From a 2002 World Craft article
"My first recommendation, and probably the most important, is to put the third dimension to good use. Use and exploit the vertical dimension in your maps and give the players reasons to use the volume of the map and not only its two-dimensional layout."
Which leads directly to the second thing. Which is interesting and tactically challenging connectivity. Interesting ways to get from one part of the map, to another. This is what alleviates choke points, which is what makes games today terrible compared to the yesteryear of complex map design. You never have just two ways into an area. And it needs to be obvious. The way you climb Death Mountain™ on one side, is completely counter intuitive until you see someone else do it, then struggle turning your mech back and forth to overcome the not obvious hill climbing ability thats distinct to non obvious or listed movement archetypes. Death Mountain™ pretty much breaks every mapping rule...ever. The written ones, literally, not just some unspoken rulebook.
You need to hold the players hand. You arent providing a sand box. Youre providing the stage. You control the lights, you control the sound, the backdrops, where the actors should stand, where the effect should take place, where the solo should be delivered, what color the stage amp should be. You are the director. Youre not just a cog in a machine providing a play area for people and their toys. You need to grab that bull by the horns.
As to distinctiveness. Art wise, the maps are distinct, but id say that the very reason the OP here exists, is because most of the maps, are not distinct, and play very similar to others.
By comparison, and maybe this isnt fair given that they are different games entirely, but the technological and experience gap between the two, may even this comparison out....Quake 1 Death Match maps, were incredibly distinct, and were, for all intents and purposes, perfect. Even though the entire color palette was muted browns and greens and earth tones, every map was radically different and played different from one another. One of the ways this was achieved was to never, ever, make a choke point. If all maps flowed, and each map was designed differently, it was a sure bet each map would play differently.
Now taking into account they could literally do whatever they wanted answering only to Carmack and Todd, who were rather liberal 'bosses', as well as art styles not being dictated by any sort of even sci fi reality, Sandy and team had an easier job of it. Especially without Romero whining all the time.
Now, this is just a design philosophy disagreement, so take it with a grain of salt, and the industry has changed, and with change, will come different needs, I dont pretend to know yours, but thats my take on it.
Our role is to provide a linear experience, that appears to be dynamic. What I feel, and I promise you I mean no insult, what I feel has happened with MWOs maps, is that they are dynamic maps that appear to be linear. Thats why you have the complaints that you have, about the lanes, the singular huge dominating features, etc. While the maps may be designed from a dynamic standpoint, they act, in a linear manner. You want to do the opposite. Provide a linear experience that appears to be dynamic. Like any good play.
Quote
“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.
Id go out on a limb and say that Alpine is really the only problem and its because theres no chance that the fight will ever take place anywhere but the same two squares, which can be rather far from the slowest mechs spawn area alot of the time. Remove those complaints, then there are no longer frustrations for those "many players". The consensus is much more akin to "Death Mountain™" is terrible, not that the size of Alpine is terrible. I think many of us would definitely appreciate it if someone did instruct you to create something larger than Caustic and Tourmaline. Putting all the mechs into a single spawn area and not separated would increase the value of the "scouting" people want to do. As it is, even on the largest maps, the time to contact is still ridiculously low, and as soon as a full dorito comes up, you know what lance is where and what to do. Its not so much a tactical choice as a tactical certainty, which hurts map durability.
Quote
“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.
Fantastic.
Quote
“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.
A larger map, where youre concerned about total vertices, faces, whatever, showing, should mean less art. You could streamline that process alot by having large single feature rich maps, like a forest, or Tourmalines crystals, where you can reuse the same map models, with different textures, and modes (with leaves, without, alot easier than making new models) then plop them everywhere to break up lines of sight. Since these models wont be actually cutting line of sight for processing purposes, the map has to be extremely low detail, which should speed up the process. A large single feature rich map should take less time than a small detailed map. Something is going wrong here.
And back to the Quake example. No one cares if you reuse the same 4 textures and colors in all 12 of your DM maps, if each and every map plays entirely differently. Reuse reuse reuse. All those lovely doodads Viona makes, should really be in every map.
Quote
“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.
You know as well as I do, if you were doing what moves you, designing the maps, doing the art, you want to do, that you feel in your soul, with no oversight whatsoever, people would love it, because you love it. And the haters be damned.
You need more freedom. I hope this isnt a gun shy/they took meh artistic freedom bro, thing over Alpine and youre holding on on Death Mountain over some sense of egalitarian righteousness. You do good work. They should let you expand your horizons a little bit. Experiment. Do a map you really want to do for a change.
Quote
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.
There pretty much is. Were not lying to you. I wouldnt lie to you. Death Mountain™ and The Citadel™ are things. Lanes are a thing. Wether its two, or three, or four lanes (Terra im looking at you) your objective of emergent gameplay isnt being met. People arent utilizing most of the map, and for obvious reasons, the edges of the map arent where the enemy are. Any browsing of a Call of Duty kill location heat map will tell you that. Unless you want to put teleporters at the edge of the maps, no ones going there, unless verticality comes into play (where say you could go to the edge to get to a rise or cat walk that took you back to the center). Again, you are the director (well if its a collection of chiefs, as stage designer, that might be a part of your problem. No one should be handing the lead map designer a sketch or a flow chart, of how a map should go, thats...bad sauce) you need to tell us, the actors, where to stand, so we can play our parts and get our rocks off.
Quote
“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 think he's saying youre copy pasting your WAD files bro (sorry, DoomED joke). I think he's saying you have a library of art assets, including a basic 'format' that you can paste into the editor, starting a new map, to get you started. Which is ... of course way more annoying than a clean start. You spend tons of time cleaning up things instead of getting work done.
Quote
“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.
Man you really are sticking to that Death Mountain™ gun aint cha.
Ok, off the top of your head, name one other famous multiplayer map from our constituents, and peers, that has a single dominating terrain feature you absolutely have to hold to win the map. And before you answer, think about how the single most powerful weapon or item, was never anywhere near that piece of terrain, without some ridiculously dangerous way to get there. Lava. Rocket jump. Zipline. Interesting tactical choices. Do you go for the dominate terrain, or do you go get the red armor first. Did someone already get the red armor and the rocket launcher? Man. Better avoid the central room.
Since we dont have pickups to draw you to different less used but more interesting parts of the map, there needs to be not one, not two, not three, not five, but multiple, great places to be. Some great places, the greatest places, should be difficult to get to, and countered by even more difficult places to get to.
Think HPG, but, 4 HPGs, instead of walls, and a larger HPG, over those 4 HPGs. The high ground is always good because of hardpoints. The longer it takes you to get to the highest ground, the better. Its a tactical choice. Do I take the pretty good, easier to get to high ground, or do I go the long way, and get to the highest ground. Or do I neutralize those spots by going underneath them all where I cant be hit. Youre weighing options.
Thats what leads to good map durability.
Quote
“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.
It depends on how you define limits. Youre not LIMITED from going to the corner of the map, shutting down, and walking away from your computer. But thats a terrible idea if you want to shoot mechs. If your goal is to shoot mechs. you have one obvious choice, thats so obvious, its like a giant blinking neon sign that says FREE MONEY HERE, only, the money is worthless, and you have to do this, at least a few times a play session, day after day, ad infintium.
Quote
“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.
But youll probably be the guy who gets to work with map entities and set all their values and get yelled at when things dont work right because someone else vaguely notated their additions and is out sick the day you do it.
Quote
“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.”
And believe me, this frustrates me more than it frustrates you.
Completely understand. Imagine what it was like for me, going from 2D sprites for 'map fluff' to actual 3D models. Then going from using them as fluff, to integral parts of the map geometry. And 2D sprites were no fun either. Its not like you just shot the little pots in Hexen and the spirte detected a hit. No, I had to individually set X,Y size so it would detect your hit. Far simpler than today, but time consuming and annoying, and of course since sprites rotated with you, you had to make sure the geometry wasnt cut into by the sprite at any conceivable angle. Placing 'fluff' took more time than actual geometry. Not sure if you do all of that your self. Ideally you should be.
Quote
“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.
Ill go pick a fight with Gordie Howe or something. Please? Pretty please? Ill kneecheck Ovetchkin, ill make Crosby cry...just please god. Get rid of Death Mountain™
Quote
Okay BYE.
Talk to you again if the Canucks win a playoff round.
-T
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.
Think what you want, it was 100% sincere.
Thad, thanks for your responses in the post. I agree with some and disagree with some, but like you said, ultimately I think we're waiting on new gamemodes to get different map menatlities into the Quick Action side.
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.
It would be the perfect way to balance resources against size. Give it the 30 min time limit of cw and so its not in random order with the other maps it could be a separate pug mode like Skirmish or Conquest. Or this map could replace Conquest.
It would also allow for larger teams 20vs20 or 30vs30.
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 mean quite frankly the map designers here have a huge task infront of them.
The maps must work for both the vehicle sim aspect, and the first person shooter aspect. The map designers have no choice in the way the game was developed, and it was developed for fast Stompy Robot Action. This puts a huge load on the mappers to make their maps work in both ways.
While in a FPS free for all deathmatch, many of the maps we have are fine, when it comes to team play in vehicles. Not nearly as much. Team Deathmatch is ok at best. It works, but has no durability. Youre bored of them the second time you nascar around a feature.
Very little time seems taken, and you can tell since a few maps we have were made before the game could even be played on them, with regards to how the maps actually play within the game mechanics. Its clear that theyre thinking about mech sizes and movement archetypes to some degree, but how the game actually plays, and how the maps cater to that, doesnt seem to come into play until the maps made in late 2014 onward. Makes sense. The mappers couldnt really play the game in the state its currently in, until then. 8v8, no ghost heat, lower TTK...the game has changed alot, and since the maps didnt cater to it at first, theyre even worse now.
I believe its a design philosophy problem. Not a talent problem. The mappers, Thad included, are very talented. The design philosophy of "sandbox" is frankly the wrong design philosophy.
I hate to say it, but World of Tanks maps are better than ours, even though theyre still basically laned tower defense maps.
Even better than WoTs, are War Blunders tank maps, which just feature rolling terrain, they make good sandboxes, but obviously most players are wandering around aimlessly since the maps dont focus you anywhere.
Its a difficult task to combine both sandboxy aspects, and focused aspects, and make it feel organic.
One tip that would go a long way...stop making maps with huge parts of the map being impassable terrain. This is a tip thats old as dirt.
If youre making a 48x48 Command and Conquer map, you dont block out 16x16 of it, with totally impassable terrain. If you want a feature that big, you have to increase the map size.
Features that big ruin connectivity.
Perfect connectivity^^
"Use the vertical, Luke"
Theres only one choke point in all of DM4. On the second level where the stairs lead down into a room, and the hallway connects to the main atrium room. Every other location on the map, you can leave the 'sandbox' multiple different ways, and arrive at other 'sandboxes'. Each location flows into multiple other locations.
The only thing we have even remotely like that, is HPG uplink, and The Bog. We need alot more of that, and alot less of the "hey were going to fight at the choke point.....again."
And again it was way easier for us, because we just had other things to lure you around the map. Pickup items. If you put the red armor, or the Oinkinator, or rocket launcher, some where, that was a reason to go there, you could dictate the flow around a map based on these things. MWO doesnt have that. Theres only one reason to go anywhere, and thats because it gives you a tactical advantage in pew pew. So you have to really think about how each tactical location interacts with another, and provide a plethora of those locations to choose from with interdependencies with other locations, amplifying or giving a malus to their usefulness (IE a great sniper spot which overlooks a common battle area, but cant shoot up, at a better sniper area that can shoot down on the original great sniping spot...a counter to that spot if you will)
I know its hard to make comparisons between Quake and MWO...but its the same concepts. Theres multiple design philosophies, and you can just totally ignore me...buuut.
All the theory is sound. When you talk to John or Todd, or Sandy, these guys who pioneered the process of making maps...its simply astounding the amount of time, effort, math, and play testing that went into these maps, that by todays standards, look like a cardboard box fort you made in your living room with a stone texture applied too it.
Terrain having to look good, and perform the same way as "rooms" is difficult to achieve and I dont envy Thad at all.
When I was working on Day of Defeat maps, the number one hardest thing to do was still keep people focused where I wanted them focused, but make the transition from open terrain, to closed FPS fighting spaces, seamless and organic.
Of course I had to do some silly things like the one sided spawn area, to prevent spawn camping, was contending with people who still have 400mhz pentiums. It looks bad by todays standards. But this was great at the time.
The fight always took place at the town center, around the Horse Statue, but was always dynamic, there we enough spots to hide and take cover, that every time you approached this area on a life, the fight was different. Different people with different weapons were in a multitude of different spots, and each spot had a right way and wrong way to take it out. All in all, that main area, had about 32-36 "Spots" from which to shoot at each other from. Some more difficult to get to, and more powerful, like the 2nd story of the Bank, or the 2nd story of the Warehouse. You had to go a back way and jump over some debris and duck under some other debris to get to the spot. It was a great spot that could counter some of the better spots at the lower area, but because it took a while to get too, you never could be sure someone would be there.
Later versions of this map, I added two pathways on each side of the Horse Statue town center, that lead around to another open area, next to the rear objectives, this really opened up the map and thats when gameplay I didnt expect began to emerge. Then I spent the rest of the time until we signed on officially with Valve, fixing problems because players started finding things I didnt intend and a "meta" grow out of those design flaws. I never got them fixed to my satisfaction before we began work on the Valve release and HL2 version.
Kubrick was even nice enough to put in an Overlord Dropship for you for scaling.
The hangars need to go back into multiple areas, each with connectivity to the upper hangars, along with cat walks and connectivity in the main room here, the landing area, up to each hangar bay. As well as connectivity and access to the moon surface. The overhead clearance of the entire level should be just like under the platform by the docks in Crimson. But please god no support pylons. Or lamps. Or little things to block movement that you cant see because theyre well below eye level.
One of the greatest maps ever created for any game....ever.
Created by...yup you guessed it. The greatest Mapper who ever lived. American McGee. (Im sorry Sandy, he's better than you) Tim Willits once said of Tokay's Towers that he might just give up mapping entirely because it was so good. American went on of course to one of the most successful (and brilliantly mapped) games of all time. American McGee's Alice.
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.
3
