63 replies to this topic

[Tarogato]

I too want bigger maps. It's one of the things I REALLY enjoy about Living Legends - no two fights are the same because the maps are expansive.

MWO... it's incredibly boring. Every match it's walk for 30 seconds toward the center of the map and BOOM you've already made contact with the enemy force. It's practically the same bloody match every single time you hit that launch button, because the engagement happens so early in the game that there's no time for teams to vie for position or there's not enough room for them to maneuver and play out a scouting phase.

Bring on the walking simulator, I want to actually GO somewhere, PGI. Give me battlefields, not fighting areas.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Because small dev company? I dunno, I hear that excuse all the time

Chenkenstien, on 05 June 2015 - 05:16 AM, said:

I have a feeling that all of those issues could be solved if given ANY focus by the devs. Or a vision of what the game should be. But thats probably wishing too much.

fixed

Tarogato, on 05 June 2015 - 09:18 AM, said:

I too want bigger maps. It's one of the things I REALLY enjoy about Living Legends - no two fights are the same because the maps are expansive.

MWO... it's incredibly boring. Every match it's walk for 30 seconds toward the center of the map and BOOM you've already made contact with the enemy force. It's practically the same bloody match every single time you hit that launch button, because the engagement happens so early in the game that there's no time for teams to vie for position or there's not enough room for them to maneuver and play out a scouting phase.

Bring on the walking simulator, I want to actually GO somewhere, PGI. Give me battlefields, not fighting areas.

I can hear the answer forming in Russ' mind:

"because esport. Walking make esport boring. esport rule!"

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 05 June 2015 - 09:26 AM.

[EvilCow]

Large maps would require scouts and tactics, imagine the cries.

[Last Of The Brunnen-G]

How to implement a button, where you choose the map size for your next drop. I would prefer to choose the exact map and maybe the drop size (in tonnage or players), but that is a dream.

[Midax]

So where is this Russ wants MWO to be an esport come from? Did he really say that?

[FupDup]

Because maps that were large enough might make it so being mobile but poorly armed and armored might be almost as useful for your team as being powerful and armored but slow, and we can't have that.

[Jman5]

SpiralFace, on 05 June 2015 - 05:06 AM, said:

multiple issues with that:

- There would be HUGE downtime between where your mechs spawn, and where you fight. Thats a lot of waiting if the end result is you running into a much better player and getting stomped within a minute of the first engagement.
- Assaults would be terrible to play. Ask any Direwolf that spawns the far side of alpine. You can go the entire game waiting to get into the action and have all the other players finish off the opposing team before you even touch them.
- Light mechs would be a nightmare to root out. You think a 1v12 skirmish where the light is content to run and hide is annoying now, if the maps where 5 times bigger, this would be a nightmare.
- It wouldn't change anything. Just look at Alpine itself. For all of its size, the map only revolves around a single terrain feature, EVER. Changing the map size means NOTHING unless there was some physical game play reason to spread your force out as opposed to just camping the best spot on the map.

Agreed on all points. It really bugs me how much people cry about wanting bigger maps. Yet the big maps always devolve into fights in one small sector. Hell, for all the hate River City gets, fights generally occur over a larger area than most other maps.

Alpine peaks is huge, and yet Skirmish/Assault always devolve into that hill fight. Terra Therma is a monster, yet it's always a fight at the middle. Tourmaline is probably the only exception to this rule, but even still 2/3 of map are almost never fought in.

Despite what they say, people don't really want big maps where mobility is encouraged. They just want to be able to group up, get to the enemy ASAP, and duke it out. If people liked lance on lance combat they wouldn't constantly complain about "getting left behind" when one lance charges another. Hell Direwolves are one of the most popular mechs in the game.

Then they say things like "we want role warfare!" Yet 9/10 Light or otherwise fast mechs don't even bother scouting for the team. Who spawned where and what path their team is going down is incredibly useful, yet I'm usually blind to enemy positions until I see them with my own eyes.

Personally I would be a fan of randomized spawns to shake up the maps and create split engagements. However I get the feeling that it would lead to outrage because nobody scouts and everyone just wants to deathball in big slow mechs.

Edited by Jman5, 05 June 2015 - 12:39 PM.

[sycocys]

I'm sure most of it has been answered, but possibly the biggest factor is Russ's dream of making MWo some sort of e-sport and keeping everything in tightly packed arenas is the only way he can see that happening.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

MasterBurte, on 05 June 2015 - 10:15 AM, said:

How to implement a button, where you choose the map size for your next drop. I would prefer to choose the exact map and maybe the drop size (in tonnage or players), but that is a dream.

I want a map selection. Like say you choose the map you drop on as attackers, then the defenders are seeded into the map. Something like that. As it is, its gotta get expensive when the navcomputer explodes in orbit during insertion and our drop goes all



Given all the crashes that must produce, youd think theyd get better computers O.o

sycocys, on 05 June 2015 - 12:53 PM, said:

I'm sure most of it has been answered, but possibly the biggest factor is Russ's dream of making MWo some sort of e-sport and keeping everything in tightly packed arenas is the only way he can see that happening.

I wish we could fire Russ for that dream.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Sarlic, on 05 June 2015 - 06:07 AM, said:

Basically we were still playing 12vs12 on a map suited for 8vs8.

Pretty much sums it up.

[lsp]

Yeah, because this game is arena death match in robots with super short ttk, not mechwarrior. It's mech assault at best.

Edited by lsp, 05 June 2015 - 01:23 PM.

[lsp]

Darian DelFord, on 05 June 2015 - 05:10 AM, said:

3 Words for that


THINKING MAN"S SHOOTER

Something this game isn't. If you think it is, go try Arma. You can be the best equiped most skilled player to ever grace the game, and it won't matter if you're out manuevered. Just like life. You have to know actual land navigation if you want to be any good at Arma, It's not all run and gun CoD yolo ********, like this game is.

Edited by lsp, 05 June 2015 - 01:30 PM.

[warner2]

Maps are small because PGI want players shooting at each other 30 seconds after the match has started.

In all honesty big maps are good for organised play but I'm not sure big maps support the sort of casual game MWO is.

Alpine, as a big map, is often a total disaster.

[Kh0rn]

Did some one say MWLL maps ? http://imgur.com/a/6acoI
http://imgur.com/a/RUu7Z

Edited by Kh0rn, 05 June 2015 - 02:27 PM.

[Impyrium]

Jman5, on 05 June 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Agreed on all points. It really bugs me how much people cry about wanting bigger maps. Yet the big maps always devolve into fights in one small sector. Hell, for all the hate River City gets, fights generally occur over a larger area than most other maps.

Alpine peaks is huge, and yet Skirmish/Assault always devolve into that hill fight. Terra Therma is a monster, yet it's always a fight at the middle. Tourmaline is probably the only exception to this rule, but even still 2/3 of map are almost never fought in.

Despite what they say, people don't really want big maps where mobility is encouraged. They just want to be able to group up, get to the enemy ASAP, and duke it out. If people liked lance on lance combat they wouldn't constantly complain about "getting left behind" when one lance charges another. Hell Direwolves are one of the most popular mechs in the game.

Then they say things like "we want role warfare!" Yet 9/10 Light or otherwise fast mechs don't even bother scouting for the team. Who spawned where and what path their team is going down is incredibly useful, yet I'm usually blind to enemy positions until I see them with my own eyes.

Personally I would be a fan of randomized spawns to shake up the maps and create split engagements. However I get the feeling that it would lead to outrage because nobody scouts and everyone just wants to deathball in big slow mechs.

No, see, all of what you have described occurs because the maps themselves are so small and game modes too simple. Death balls occur because there's no reason not to switch into one- in every game mode, the winning 'strategy' is to kill your opposing team. There's no reason or room to spread out, because you get picked off, because small map and no real objective.

Same with scouting. It doesn't happen because there's no reason to. Maps are so small contact is inevitable right in the early stages of the game and you're really just throwing away a light.

The only 'good' map in MWO in my opinion that even comes close to a MechWarrior map is Tourmaline, and I'd consider that on the very minimum of what map scale should be.

IMO objectives are just as important as map scale. If we brought in large, open maps like from Living Legends, and placed meaningful capture points/bases across the map (that provided something like repairs, or rearming, or mech switch as well as points), then you'd require a team to spread out more and use tactics. A death ball on a large open map would be picked apart fairly quickly. A deathball could not handle map control... mainly because there is none in the current game.

So please don't make the mistake of assuming people want what you have described, for it's really just the aftereffects of having small maps and large teams in the first place.

[Khobai]

Quote

Is There A Reason Why Maps Are So Small?

because they cost $250,000 each

[Mystere]

Jman5, on 05 June 2015 - 12:36 PM, said:

Despite what they say, people don't really want big maps where mobility is encouraged.

I'm not one of those "people".

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

lsp, on 05 June 2015 - 01:22 PM, said:

Yeah, because this game is arena death match in robots with super short ttk, not mechwarrior. It's mech assault at best.

and its meant for esports. So it is meant to be Solaris

[Hades Trooper]

People whinge maps are too small, then they make alpine and people whinge it takes too long to engage and there spending more time walking than fighting.

go figure

Khobai, on 05 June 2015 - 03:30 PM, said:

because they cost $250,000 each

well if your gonna pull numbers out your arse like that why not just say 1 billion dollars

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Technically, there's a limit to the size of the maps in this version of CryEngine.

About 8Km radius from a spawn point or map center.
- Now that's 32bit, single precision, coding.
- Upgrading to 64bit and double precision calculations could expand the maps to 100's of Km's, but you'd take a hit on memory, draw distance, rendering details and may (probably) render low end systems not able to play the game at any functional FPS.

As mentioned, the larger maps would also increase the download size or any updates/patch's greatly.
- The reference to MWLL and there large maps, there's often quite a bit of optimization and 'fudging' some of the details for those maps. They do look great at distance and do include great detail objects, but generally ground surfaces are sometimes 'iffy'. (although it would be fantastic if that library of objects could be used with MWO!)

PGI is somewhat being held back by CryEngine currently, as there latest and newest engine drop has eliminated any support for Dx9 codex. And PGI 'at this time' would still like those older systems running Dx9 to be able to play the game.
- Dx11 still needs additional work within MWO as many of it's features are still not being used, and we have Dx12 arriving shortly. (for those with the cards that can support it)
- If you don't know, some of the best effects from Dx11 actually speed up the graphics pipeline and produce some great eye candy to boot. But that normally requires dedicated engineers and artists considerable time working on every item and object to bring out the best for each environment and map.

Until PGI can offer a solid working version of the game in Dx11, with as many features 'turned on' as they can get. The servers keeping step, and lower ping players still able to play at good FPS, with hit detection, collision, and sometime soon Ai units, all operating as it should, having a larger playing area may not be the best 'bang for the Engineers' buck.
- Now don't get me wrong, I do like and want those big tactically workable maps, but we are at this engines version limits now.

Either we drop Dx9 only, card systems and concentrate the time and resources at Dx11/Dx12 level engineering, keep the older Dx9 and need to build a 'special CryEngine' mode to allow for other updates, (which could be problematic later), or just keep the status quo and 'expand all the maps a bit'. (as seen with the new 'River City')
- We are still limited with this Engine and it's current code. It's upgradable, but at a significant cost.

9erRed