48 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 May 2015 - 07:57 PM, said:

Wrong or uninformed on all counts.

Right, I'm wrong about the 1 high point on the map where it's easily accessed by an entire team in 2 minutes, has a lot of cover in multiple spots, and has only 1 real approach after it's been taken over.

No other spot on the map has such features.

[Spleenslitta]

Yeonne Greene, on 08 May 2015 - 02:57 PM, said:

I also often get fights in the C/D[5-6] square, and they are some epic games. Really Crimson is probably one of the best-designed maps in the game with regard to number of options and emergent play. I'd say it ties with Tourmaline.

But i ask you this. If we had alternate routes to the platform it would still be the center of the map.
Wouldn't combat still be focused on the platform the way it is right now?
Epic battles would still occur there but with more variation. There would be other alternatives for flanking.
That cannot be a bad thing.

I share your concerns that chopping off the mountaintop would make it a hold the mountain map like Alpine.
But maybe flattening the mountain and replacing it with small hills and scatterings of buildings could be a decent idea.

pbiggz, on 08 May 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

Having more underground action wouldn't be a bad thing, and having the existing tunnel be a + instead of a T (having another exit on the opposite side of the mountain to the middle door, perhaps around c5) would make the tunnel a very interesting part of the map.

But there would have to be enough entrances to these bunkers so that they don't become fortresses that everyone rushes to hold.
I'll add at least 2 extra entrances to make certain of that.

I'll update the map in a little while.

[Spleenslitta]

Map updated. I put my changes in the area of the post marked as such in big letters.

[Y E O N N E]

Pjwned, on 08 May 2015 - 08:44 PM, said:

Right, I'm wrong about the 1 high point on the map where it's easily accessed by an entire team in 2 minutes, has a lot of cover in multiple spots, and has only 1 real approach after it's been taken over.

No other spot on the map has such features.

H11/I11 is just as quick for two of the three lances to climb, takes no longer for Charlie to get to, is easier for assaults to walk up, is higher up than I9 meaning they can't get locks for LRMs unless you grant them, and has only one way up for bigs. In the time it takes the enemy to get to I9, you can be on I11 overlooking I9. There is no way for you to flank I11 at all without getting seen, while I9 has at least two ways you can surprise them. Moving up to H/I11 also allows you to navigate up to the entire north portion of the map without giving up the high ground, while taking I9 locks you into a single position. You can't move from I9 without the enemy seeing that movement.

The I11-H11 zone is an altogether superior position.

So yes, you are wrong.

All that said, if you are playing for keeps in a random match you would have a better chance of winning spawning on that side if your team linked with Charlie and cut the enemy off just as they were reaching the foot of the mountain. You'll roll over their assaults while their lights and mediums are half-way up the slope, allowing you do quickly drop back into the rocks and turn it into a slug-out while also baiting their lights to you with the illusion of easier targets.

Spleenslitta, on 09 May 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

But i ask you this. If we had alternate routes to the platform it would still be the center of the map.
Wouldn't combat still be focused on the platform the way it is right now?
Epic battles would still occur there but with more variation. There would be other alternatives for flanking.
That cannot be a bad thing.

I share your concerns that chopping off the mountaintop would make it a hold the mountain map like Alpine.
But maybe flattening the mountain and replacing it with small hills and scatterings of buildings could be a decent idea.

But there would have to be enough entrances to these bunkers so that they don't become fortresses that everyone rushes to hold.
I'll add at least 2 extra entrances to make certain of that.

I'll update the map in a little while.

But there are already so many current, underused options for flanking on Crimson. They don't get used because flanking requires speed, otherwise your team is dead before you reach the other side. And by Speed, I mean 100+ kph.

Placing a smaller outcropping of buildings on top of a flattened mountain would also just make it that much more ideal. You get to sit on the highest point of the map and have good cover? Why go anywhere else?

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 09 May 2015 - 08:08 AM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

pbiggz, on 08 May 2015 - 08:14 PM, said:

Having more underground action wouldn't be a bad thing, and having the existing tunnel be a + instead of a T (having another exit on the opposite side of the mountain to the middle door, perhaps around c5) would make the tunnel a very interesting part of the map.

Yeah, I kinda would love to see that rail tunnel become some kind of underground cave storage facility for mechs and parts and stuff, so its got that big platform...inside a mountain to form a sort of cave facility. A real life version of what im on about is in I think it was Independence, MO, called the SPace Center, its inside a mountain, but its storage and other work related places in there. kinda neat to drive in.

[Syrkres]

I like the idea of docks and stuff at the bay island.

I would make the two bridges draw bridges, one up and one down. This would allow the larger ship in the inner harbor to actually get there (unless the bridges were raised).

Also like the idea of opening up the lower east side (e5 section) either another tunnel or an overpass. Possibly putting a road from D^ island to south side, then up and over the hill. Also put maybe a few buildings along E7/E7 to give some cover as things come over.

Flatten our G2 make a landing pad(drop ships).

Make f3 less sloped so you can get up there and possibly snip. This would give more defense around the F2 base.

B3 is fine, nice to go around and hide behind that at times (from LRM spam).

C4/C5 I would likely put road or path up sides and a observation tower or some building up top (or along C3 side).

[Spleenslitta]

I'll put up an updated map later today.
This time with a huge storage facility that could allow for spread out spawnpoints for the eastern team.

Yeonne Greene, on 09 May 2015 - 08:06 AM, said:

But there are already so many current, underused options for flanking on Crimson. They don't get used because flanking requires speed, otherwise your team is dead before you reach the other side. And by Speed, I mean 100+ kph.

Placing a smaller outcropping of buildings on top of a flattened mountain would also just make it that much more ideal. You get to sit on the highest point of the map and have good cover? Why go anywhere else?

I think you missunderstood what i mean by Flattening the mountain Yeonne Greene.
I meant removing the mountain entirely and replacing it.

Replacing it with smaller hills and scatterings of buildings and possibly a broad ramp you can walk up to the upstairs platform in the middle.
Yeah...that would mean the middle bunker and the tunnel going through C4/C5 would be gone.

As for the unused flanking alternatives. We got B8 to A2 coastline that remains mostly unused.
But we got nothing but the saddle on the other side. Climbing the E4/E5 mountain gets you nowhere since that goes out of bounds.
Middle mountain cannot be climbed by over by a mech without JJ's.

That's why i think we need the tunnels under E4/E5 mountain and that valley outlined in green.

Syrkres, on 09 May 2015 - 08:22 AM, said:

I like the idea of docks and stuff at the bay island.

I would make the two bridges draw bridges, one up and one down. This would allow the larger ship in the inner harbor to actually get there (unless the bridges were raised).

Also like the idea of opening up the lower east side (e5 section) either another tunnel or an overpass. Possibly putting a road from D^ island to south side, then up and over the hill. Also put maybe a few buildings along E7/E7 to give some cover as things come over.

Flatten our G2 make a landing pad(drop ships).

Make f3 less sloped so you can get up there and possibly snip. This would give more defense around the F2 base.

B3 is fine, nice to go around and hide behind that at times (from LRM spam).

C4/C5 I would likely put road or path up sides and a observation tower or some building up top (or along C3 side).

Glad you like it. The landing pad for dropships at G2 and the drawbridges has been noted.
But the major point of putting the big harbor facility on the island was to move the big freighter over there since the water is so shallow inside the bay.
Smaller boats would transport container to/from the train depot to the island harbor since they can go in shallow water.

Yeah i know it's equally shallow all over the place but this would make more sense that's all.
But then again ...they could have dug the bay deeper by using mudboats...

Edited by Spleenslitta, 09 May 2015 - 10:26 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Spleenslitta, on 09 May 2015 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'll put up an updated map later today.
This time with a huge storage facility that could allow for spread out spawnpoints for the eastern team.

I think you missunderstood what i mean by Flattening the mountain Yeonne Greene.
I meant removing the mountain entirely and replacing it.

Replacing it with smaller hills and scatterings of buildings and possibly a broad ramp you can walk up to the upstairs platform in the middle.
Yeah...that would mean the middle bunker and the tunnel going through C4/C5 would be gone.

As for the unused flanking alternatives. We got B8 to A2 coastline that remains mostly unused.
But we got nothing but the saddle on the other side. Climbing the E4/E5 mountain gets you nowhere since that goes out of bounds.
Middle mountain cannot be climbed by over by a mech without JJ's.

That's why i think we need the tunnels under E4/E5 mountain and that valley outlined in green.

When you say flattened, it sort of has the connotation of "rounding off" rather than "removing entirely" without anything else to suggest the latter...which I didn't pick up on if it was present. Thus, my impression was that you wanted to make that mountain more of a hill with a blunt top to place structures. I'm still not sure I like your clarified suggestion, though. That sounds like it more or less turns Crimson into another, larger River City.

Regarding flanking options, you are looking at it as an instantaneous thing, when it's not. Flanking options open up over time according to team movements. In the beginning, before anybody moves, yeah, there's only one way to flank: wide through the water. If the enemy moves en masse to any one location, though, you have the entire rest of the map to use.

And a flank, by nature, only has three directions of approach: left, right, and behind. Crimson has more than enough paths to allow that in any given location other than the edge of the map and bay-side base area (which is an excellent holding point and should be used way more than it is...though it's more or less also on the edge of the map).

[Spleenslitta]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 May 2015 - 01:04 AM, said:

When you say flattened, it sort of has the connotation of "rounding off" rather than "removing entirely" without anything else to suggest the latter...which I didn't pick up on if it was present. Thus, my impression was that you wanted to make that mountain more of a hill with a blunt top to place structures. I'm still not sure I like your clarified suggestion, though. That sounds like it more or less turns Crimson into another, larger River City.

Regarding flanking options, you are looking at it as an instantaneous thing, when it's not. Flanking options open up over time according to team movements. In the beginning, before anybody moves, yeah, there's only one way to flank: wide through the water. If the enemy moves en masse to any one location, though, you have the entire rest of the map to use.

And a flank, by nature, only has three directions of approach: left, right, and behind. Crimson has more than enough paths to allow that in any given location other than the edge of the map and bay-side base area (which is an excellent holding point and should be used way more than it is...though it's more or less also on the edge of the map).

I admit that the mountain thing could be missunderstood and it's an idea that we need to discuss thoroughly. Very thoroughly.

But when did i ever say flanking is instantaneous? It's a thing that changes according to the battle. Of course it is.
I ask as humbly and politely as possible that you don't put words and opinions of your own making into my mouth.
I don't mean to insult by saying so.

I mean that we could benefit from having on more way to cross north/south in the western part of the map rather than just the Saddle at D4/D5.
Right now we can only cross over the saddle in the western part of the map.
Currently going directly E5/E6 to/from E4 would go out of bounds.

I cannot figure out a clearer way to say it. English is my 2nd language.
I'll have that update up in a soon. I thought of a expansion of the map that allows more spread spawn points for the east team.

[Spleenslitta]

Added a lot of stuff to the map and some spoilerbuttons to keep the original post readable.
But what to do about the middle mountain and the northern spawn point? I have no idea.
Need to hear more alternatives about the central mountain. New alternatives.

[ShinobiHunter]

Really? Of all the mediocre maps we have, Crimson Strait is just about the best, IMO. I regularly have fights in almost every place in that map. There are many maps that need fixed, but Crimson is not one of them.

[Khobai]

Quote

Really? Of all the mediocre maps we have, Crimson Strait is just about the best, IMO

Crimson Straits has two major problems though:

1) Needs more cover elements in the water the water makes up a sizeable portion of the map yet has absolutely no cover. there should be rock outcroppings in the water like forest colony has.

2) Needs a second mountain pass that connects E4 to E5. This would give the map much better flow by making it feel less linear and giving players more options.

[Syrkres]

Another thing I think maps need to think about is defensive stands.

One time I was puggin on V-Bog and when we started I suggested why don't we play a defensive stand in B6. Everyone liked it because it was different, and turned out great. Places to hide behind with several choke points and a nice lane of fire to an open area.

Right now there is no real way to defend around the Assault capture points if a team wanted to.

For defensive areas, you need places for the brawlers to jump out from cover, and lanes of fire for longer range.

One would need to ask why are these points of interest (capture points) other than they are on the far ends of the maps. Build some type of base/fortification to house the capture points. Doesn't have to be too big.

For example in your map, if you expanded A6 structure out into the water a bit more, put a few high walls or buildings, it would be a great spot.
- It's a secure remote spot (why you would put something to protect there).
- you have lanes of fire as they have to cross the water, while your brawler mechs sit behind the walls waiting for them to engage.

On the other side F2 you could put up some type of fort which would be there for protecting the landing zone. Or maybe at G1 (would need to expand). This would give it synergy to the other side as well, though a bit more closed in as one can fire all the way down the water at A6, where as G1 is a closed off with the mountain to right, but if that mountain was given a pass (your road) it would open things up.

Also by putting these defensive positions in place, if a team was hit hard and down mechs, the remaining members could hole up in these spots forcing the enemy to cross open fields (giving them a chance).

No one builds a castle in the middle of the woods without clearing the woods out first.

Edited by Syrkres, 11 May 2015 - 12:42 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

How about a "Siege Mode"? Local authorities foresaw the coming mech battles and have barricaded certain thoroughfares to facilitate evacuation and damage mitigation. The open water can become littered with ship hulks in the aftermath of a Dunkirk style evacuation.

[Bulletsponge0]

MeiSooHaityu, on 08 May 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

Crimson is actually a map I feel does things pretty right.

Fights are often at the 2 tiered dock, but often...
*They spill out into the city at C3
*Take place in the tunnel at C4
*Behind the tunnel at B4 due to flanking
*Saddle at D4/D5

Even fights break out at sniper point at D2

I really think Crimson is one of the better map designs. Maybe Crimson is the best in the game to date.

I'd leave it as is.

I once had a drop on Crimson where the entire battle took place on the shore and in the water at A4

it was glorious

[Corbenik]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 May 2015 - 08:13 AM, said:

Yeah, I kinda would love to see that rail tunnel become some kind of underground cave storage facility for mechs and parts and stuff, so its got that big platform...inside a mountain to form a sort of cave facility. A real life version of what im on about is in I think it was Independence, MO, called the SPace Center, its inside a mountain, but its storage and other work related places in there. kinda neat to drive in.

Honestly I wish all the maps that have rail lines had moving trains they could offer a distraction or moving cover. or something ;x

[Khobai]

Quote

Honestly I wish all the maps that have rail lines had moving trains they could offer a distraction or moving cover. or something ;x

yeah and the train could have machine guns and shoot both teams mechs for no reason

[Spleenslitta]

Khobai, on 10 May 2015 - 07:00 PM, said:

Crimson Straits has two major problems though:

1) Needs more cover elements in the water the water makes up a sizeable portion of the map yet has absolutely no cover. there should be rock outcroppings in the water like forest colony has.

2) Needs a second mountain pass that connects E4 to E5. This would give the map much better flow by making it feel less linear and giving players more options.

Yup to both of them.

ShinobiHunter, on 10 May 2015 - 05:51 PM, said:

Really? Of all the mediocre maps we have, Crimson Strait is just about the best, IMO. I regularly have fights in almost every place in that map. There are many maps that need fixed, but Crimson is not one of them.

I'm not suggesting these changes today. I'm aiming at what could happen far in the future.
Seems PGI wants to fix all the maps sooner or later. Having a thread full of ideas might be a good thing.

But i agree that Crimson Strait is one of our best maps. The reason i chose this map for this thread was because i had so many ideas for it.

Despite this no map is so perfect that it cannot be improved upon.
The proof lies in the fact that we have areas of Crimson Strait which is barelly touched. A few examples.
F1/F2/F3/E3 urban area extremely rarelly sees heavy fighting.
The G1 island that never sees action except if someone tries to hide when his entire team has been slaughtered.
Area around the eastern team spawning points in Skirmish rarelly see heavy fighting too.
A bit further west we fight but rarelly near the spawn points.

If we had a pass over E4/E5 mountain besides the Saddle then F1/F2/F3/E3 would liven up a bit.
A road from the Army Storage Yard to the Dropship Landing on the map would also help.
Add the Bunker underneath E4/E5 to the mix and i'd say both F and B sector rows urban areas would receive equal amounts of action.

I got no ideas for Therra Therma, Viridian Bog, Mining Collective, Tourmaline Desert, Caustic Valley or Canyon Valley so i didn't choose one of them.
I didn't choose Alpine Peaks, Forest Colony or Frozen City because PGI probably already have rough plans for them.

I got ideas for HPG Manifold though but not as many as Crimson Strait.
That was longwinded of me but now you see why i made Crimson Strait my choice for this thread.
At least you cannot say i gave a halfhearted answer to your question why.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 11 May 2015 - 01:49 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I got no ideas for Therra Therma,

Heres my idea for fixing Terra Therma: verticality.

Since players are going to be funneled to the center of the map anyway theres no need for the map to be so big. Reduce the overall size of the map and instead have the thunderdome consist of multiple levels connected by ramps (say 3-4 different levels instead of the current 2 levels). If were going to fight in the center anyway at least make the fighting there more interesting.

Having multiple levels also solves the problem of players not wanting to fully commit to going in the center and blocking the chokepoints while getting shot to pieces. Because there will be twice as many ways into the center and your team can enter on a different level as the enemy team to avoid getting shot up. Also having more entrances would mean you dont have to walk as far around the volcano to get back into the center, which is a huge pain.

Edited by Khobai, 11 May 2015 - 02:09 PM.

[Spleenslitta]

Khobai, on 11 May 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

Heres my idea for fixing Terra Therma: verticality.

Since players are going to be funneled to the center of the map anyway theres no need for the map to be so big. Reduce the overall size of the map and instead add multiple levels connected by ramps inside the thunderdome at the central volcano. If were going to fight in the center anyway at least make the fighting there more interesting.

Good idea. Hmm...maybe add an industrial town outside about 1 kilometer away from the Thunderdome.
That way we would be drawn to 2 places to fight in. Make the matches less predictable.

Fighting in the same place over and over get's old fast.
But that's for another thread. Let's stick to Crimson Strait.

I'll start another thread like this about another map once i'm done with this one. Hope to see you there.
Now i'm off to bed. It's past midnight here and i got work tomorrow.