96 replies to this topic

[Rebas Kradd]

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.

[Koniks]

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.

[PappySmurf]

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.Look at these links for a solution and a look at the SDK . I do miss all the 500+ MechWarrior 4 maps that were mostly made by the community it was a fun project making maps back then.

Also you could make maps back then as small as MWO maps up to 6x the size with the older PC MechWarrior game engines. But they where quite plain compared to maps made today for modern games.

http://www.worldofle...proportions.php

http://www.bing.com/...1C140B9FE37E46D

https://youtu.be/MjORTEob79c


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 you can make larger maps with theCryEng3 SDK I have made a few and tested then with MWO models and believe it or not I even made a open world platform map to test out.

Edited by PappySmurf, 06 April 2015 - 09:56 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

PappySmurf, on 06 April 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

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.Look at these links for a solution and a look at the SDK . I do miss all the 500+ MechWarrior 4 maps that were mostly made by the community it was a fun project making maps back then.

Also you could make maps back then as small as MWO maps up to 6x the size with the older PC MechWarrior game engines. But they where quite plain compared to maps made today for modern games.

http://www.worldofle...proportions.php

http://www.bing.com/...1C140B9FE37E46D

https://youtu.be/MjORTEob79c


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 you can make larger maps with theCryEng3 SDK I have made a few and tested then with MWO models and believe it or not I even made a open world platform map to test out.

CryEngine is well known for supporting large maps, so the adherence to small ones has raised eyebrows. Of course, a large map for a human-sized avatar is much smaller for a Battlemech. If resources and performance and PGI's ongoing struggles with Cryengine are the closed door here, I'd at least like to know.

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.

[PappySmurf]

Rebas the 3 lane rule is a basic map design for new games today think LOL=League or legends,WOT world of tanks , Warthunder tanks ETC.

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.

After I learned to use the SDK and tools it still took me 6 months to make a new map from scratch. I would assume with more use of the map maker and tools and a team of a few designers it would take a month to make a new 6x map with say 6-8 +lanes and some basic tactical warfare to the map besides funnel everyone down 3 lanes to a central 12v12 death match point.

P.S There is nothing like trying things out that you might be interested in Rebas the Cry Engine 3 SDK is free you can download it make your own servers ,maps, characters , and much more who knows you might make the next new Game of the year PC game.

Edited by PappySmurf, 06 April 2015 - 11:10 AM.

[Rebas Kradd]

PappySmurf, on 06 April 2015 - 11:05 AM, said:

Rebas the 3 lane rule is a basic map design for new games today think LOL=League or legends,WOT world of tanks , Warthunder tanks ETC.

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.

Well, if efficiency is the reason, then I'd at least like to hear that from the good folks at PGI.

But it's worth mentioning that the 3-lane approach, while traditional and easy, doesn't really gel with the early design concepts PGI pushed to the Founders. 3-lane and central feature on small maps doesn't have a lot of room for either role warfare or information warfare, because only your eyes are needed to spot the enemy, and only one or two areas will end up being central to combat.

A lot of tactically-minded players would like to see maps more like MWLL's. I realize that bringing up another product will most likely preclude any response from the devs, but 90% of people's perception of MWLL's superiority is down to map design. Wide-open, large so that scouting was a legitimate activity, multiple points of interest so that every match felt different, rolling terrain so that brawlers had a chance. The only question is whether such maps would appeal to enough players.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 April 2015 - 11:56 AM.

[Heffay]

This might be a bit dated, but directly answers your question.

http://www.pcgamer.c...tion-to-detail/



Getting players to the action quickly is definitely one of the goals.

edit: The original article was on Penny Arcade, but haven't had a lot of time to search for it.

Edited by Heffay, 06 April 2015 - 12:17 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

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?

[Heffay]

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?

The opposite of having a central feature is a featureless map. The feature gives context and scale. Otherwise you're just fighting in the hills, or the plains.

You use quick action players with a negative tone. There is nothing wrong with getting to the action quickly.

[Rebas Kradd]

Heffay, on 06 April 2015 - 12:58 PM, said:

The opposite of having a central feature is a featureless map. The feature gives context and scale. Otherwise you're just fighting in the hills, or the plains.

You use quick action players with a negative tone. There is nothing wrong with getting to the action quickly.

I'm not exactly opposed to it myself, but it greatly reduces the role of scouting and communication. 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.

Lack of a central feature doesn't mean featureless maps. Look at MWLL's maps. Plenty of varying terrain and useful landmarks without resorting to a single feature that inevitably requires you to take it.

[Heffay]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 April 2015 - 01:03 PM, said:

I'm not exactly opposed to it myself, but it greatly reduces the role of scouting and communication. 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. Lack of a central feature doesn't mean featureless maps. Look at MWLL's maps. Plenty of varying terrain and useful landmarks without resorting to a single feature that inevitably requires you to take it.

Unlimited respawns let you do things like that. But in a one life and you're out kind of game like MWO, having a large map can be a detriment to the game play. You can't really have capture points that move the battle around, since... if you die at that point, it doesn't matter where the next spawn point is.

I actually *really* like the no respawn rule, since it creates a lot more cautious game play. Communication and scouting are VERY important in MWO as a result, since one little mistake creates a significant disadvantage for your team. You can still set up traps, dictate where engagements happen, etc. The pillars are still there, they are just a different type than you would see in something like MW:LL or TF2.

[Trashhead]

I would like to see role warfare, too.
Scouting is a role i would like to try, but so far it is hardly necessary.

Apart from that:
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.

[PappySmurf]

I think Rebas wants Tactical maps and Objectives like we had in MechWarrior2-MechWarrior4 in BTU , MWL , and NBT planetary leagues.Where the objectives were not just the same same 12v12 destruction battles for 3 years now.

http://www.alteredga...ld-war-ii-maps/

P.S Sorry Rebas but your like 15-10 years to late all the real MechWarrior games and leagues are gone and MWO only represents the most shallow aspect of what Mech games were really like.
And the grand scale of the maps as well.

Scout------------->

https://youtu.be/nm76b8tzzWI

Edited by PappySmurf, 06 April 2015 - 02:13 PM.

[PappySmurf]

https://youtu.be/nm76b8tzzWI

[Rebas Kradd]

Heffay, on 06 April 2015 - 01:25 PM, said:

Unlimited respawns let you do things like that. But in a one life and you're out kind of game like MWO, having a large map can be a detriment to the game play. You can't really have capture points that move the battle around, since... if you die at that point, it doesn't matter where the next spawn point is.

I actually *really* like the no respawn rule, since it creates a lot more cautious game play. Communication and scouting are VERY important in MWO as a result, since one little mistake creates a significant disadvantage for your team. You can still set up traps, dictate where engagements happen, etc. The pillars are still there, they are just a different type than you would see in something like MW:LL or TF2.

You make good points. MWLL being a respawning game means more freedom for map design.

Even so, MWO's maps are too small to make scouting meaningful (you can seriously see everything with the eyes), and those traps and dictations rarely seem to matter with the sheer amount of proximity between the teams, And still, any central feature is straight where people go. 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).

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 April 2015 - 02:14 PM.

[Summon3r]

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

[Thad Jantzi]

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.

[JohnnyWayne]

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.

Edit: I just read the OP, tbh I heard from multiple persons that maps seem to be their issue. I don't have a good awnser for how to create maps in the environment of MWO myself right now and hell I don't really think you would care about such from a random internet stranger.^^ All I can think of is that Nascar in caustic is not good and maps that favour one spawnpoint (bog - one side has access to the hills the other dont) tend to be somewhat frustrating to players.

@OP: No we don't want a walking simulator - especially not in an assault mech. To get an environment like that with an actual scout role that runs ahead we would probably need a different game that is not arena style based. The only way I see to make this happen is as a staged attack in CW similar to what we have now - but with more than 2 stages.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 06 April 2015 - 03:25 PM.

[Johnny Z]

I like the maps mostly except for the red water

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

+1 for Urban map!

Edited by Johnny Z, 06 April 2015 - 03:20 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

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.

Devious. Bargain struck.