63 replies to this topic

[Damocles]

9erRed, on 05 June 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Until PGI can offer a solid working version of the game

agreed sir

[Darian DelFord]

Hades Trooper, on 05 June 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

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


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

Ummm He is not pulling numbers out of his ass. That is what we were told by Paul / Russ a while back.

Mystere, on 05 June 2015 - 04:54 PM, said:

I'm not one of those "people".

That makes two of us. I want Mechwarrior dammit, not this arena death match that we have which has gotten so damn monotonous its not even funny anymore. There really is NO point at all to the combat.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Darian DelFord, on 05 June 2015 - 06:01 PM, said:

Ummm He is not pulling numbers out of his ass. That is what we were told by Paul / Russ a while back.

Then they are pulled out of AN ass, just not the other guys'

[DuSucre]

Hades Trooper, on 05 June 2015 - 05:27 PM, said:

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

Well....Khobai is right...
Russ (or Paul ? Bryan ?) gave us that exact number : 250 000 $ / MAP...
It was a long time ago... Before the "Island" crisis and the "3PV" riot...

[LordKnightFandragon]

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

We have small maps because people claim alpine is walking simulator as they think mechs shouldn't move faster than 40kph.

I'd love bigger maps but there are too many in the community who wants pure pew pew and zero tactics.

I think Alpine is a perfectly sized map for 15v15. It just sucks that every map has a section where both sides agree to meet, line up Revolutionary War style, stare at each other a little, lob a few cannon balls back and forth then each side takes turns shooting till one side stops wiggling....

If MWO had alot more depth, Alpine would be a great map.

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

At one of the 'Town Hall's', Russ noted that with the current 'time on task' for the Artists on map creation, their ever increasing library of objects and terrain elements, reuse of some existing features and colour palettes, that the cost of 'making a map' has decreased considerably.
- Now somewhere in the area of 1/4 original costs, or around $62,500, all costs in.
~ (to the point of 'injecting it into the game and expecting some small 'tweaking' still.)

At that cost, it's quite reasonable, and below most games costing of single map creation.
- That depending on detail and quality levels considerably.

PGI is now, at the point of introducing 'Destructible' objects and rigid bodies elements (required to build destroyable levels for structures and objects.) in the game. This is a major turning point for how complex a map will become, as every element that can be changed needs to be kept in memory (linked library changes) or it's current state linked to the LOS of every 'Mech Pilot. Various detail levels for each item in each state of damage, depending on LOD and its draw distance. (user settings here, mostly)
- This is where Dx11 and Dx12 code shines above the older Dx9 standards, many new elements in the code that are specifically designed for the new series of faster games and high levels of detail. Transparencies, tessellation, bump mapping, and many other improvements and a completely new method to object library storage that speeds up call times for map changes, designed for multiple players on the same map. This requires some major work to the game code and library layout, but returns 300% or more faster results for most maps and players.

If it sounds like I'm pushing for a straight Dx11 and above, your right. There's just so much more functionality for that code and places this game into todays market of graphics standards. (DX11 was introduced in 2008, and has matured considerable since then.) The latest Dx 12 will soon change this standard and produce another leap forward in graphics quality and capabilities.
- With the majority of home systems now updated to 64Bit standards, increased RAM available, 500 to 900 series cards being much more common, SLI pushing multiple monitors, and players wanting eye popping graphics, PGI needs to step forward into todays current Dx11 standards and place there resources into that pipeline.
- Position the money, resources, artists and engineers in 'ONE' branch of Dx code. As long as they stay split neither branch really wins.

9erRed

[Melon Lord]

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

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.

To be fair the only people that complain about getting left behind are the assaults and that's fine. First, that is the trade off you made, increase in firepower at the expense of decrease in speed and possibility of being caught out of position. Second, you rarely see Assaults ask for help in this position, they just die and b****. On the rare occasions they call for help I always run back in my lights/mediums and help (maybe another person or two as well). More often than not these engagements come out with us on top.

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

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.

As a light/medium pilot I almost always call out positions on big maps (why waste time typing on small maps when in 15 seconds both teams will be in a deathball). You know what happens when I mention the fatties are capping the farthest point in Alpine or Tourmaline? Nothing. Sometimes I even mention we should overwhelm the medium/heavy lance capping the center since it's almost 2 lances versus one, and time and time again everyone sits back and waits for the fatties to cap, and move to center. It's kinda depressing to keep giving useful scouting data and having no one use it.

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

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.

This is why I've started to play Conquest almost exclusively. Sometimes my lance will stay together and cap or harass, sometimes all lances will go to the closest point they spawned to and you'll have 3 4vs4 brawls happening, sometimes everyone heads to center to deathball (usually the case in small maps). The mode itself shakes things up because you actually have objectives to complete so people have a reason to split up. A few of the funnest games I've had were ones where it was 3 4vs4 brawls at the beginning of a match when enemy lances fight it out.

[Lykaon]

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.

Many of your concerns are due to poor map design like a central dominant feature (Terra Therma) or a vastly superior tactical location (Alpine) Even River City has the citadel as a central feature and some wide open water to discourage you from NOT clumping around the citadel.

As for players rushing to duke it out on every map this is a direct result of unimaginative objectives.

Assault was systematicly dumbed down for "duke it out" players. Now we have a skirmish game with a inefficent (near impossible) secondary victory condition of capturing a base with painfully long capture timers (discouraging capture attempts) and automated defenses because players couldn't be bothered to actually play defense themselves.Back when a daring backdoor capture could turn the tide of a losing battle there were more nail biter matches now,the match is pretty much done when one team gains the upper hand in kills.Very predictable very unsatifying.

Conquest was also made "idiot proof" by exstending the objective capture timers beyond reasonable limits that further encourage "deathball" tactics instead of the mission goal of capturing points.When a single light could turn the tide of a conquest the game was interesting,now,it's just another skirmish.

Skirmish = deathball...yippie so exciting with all the diversity of a public school lunch grey and sometimes steaming.

The game modes were never ideal and yet instead of evolving and improving we got spoon fed dumbed down game modes that ALL favor the same tactic same mech builds and frequently because of how dumbed down it has all become require only a tiny portion of any given map.

Role warfare and a lack of scouts scouting or whatever...this is a PUG thing not a MWo thing.

I am in complete agreement when it comes to suggesting randomizing spawn points (as well as objective locations) this would go a long way towards improving some role warfare but,only on maps where it would matter due to the map being large enough to not gain LOS on anything anyhwere in 2 minutes or less (Fozen city,Forest Colony,River City,Canyon ...)

[Rebas Kradd]

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

We have small maps because people claim alpine is walking simulator as they think mechs shouldn't move faster than 40kph.

I'd love bigger maps but there are too many in the community who wants pure pew pew and zero tactics.

They have what they want already.

The rest of us don't.

Bigger maps, please. (And thank you, Thad, for starting with River City. Looks great.)

[Bishop Steiner]

Darian DelFord, on 05 June 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

I understand the first maps were small, they were learning the program and it was only 8V8, I really do not have an issue with the earlier maps however.

Is there a reason that the maps can not be made to be 4 to 5 times the size of Alpine, Tourmaline or Terra?

As in system issues memory issues anything?

When you have have mechs literally shoot each other at the start of the match there is a problem.

I believe that larger maps will diversify game play at least a little and hopefully break up the monotony of the center fights. Adjust this and the way radar works and we might actually have better matches?

Thoughts?

Yes. How big do maps need to be for everyone to pucker up and play hide and peek? Big, small, Assault, Skirmish or Conquest, that's all 95% of the playerbase does, so why bother with large maps that actually benefits maneuvers?

[Rebas Kradd]

DuSucre, on 05 June 2015 - 06:56 PM, said:

Well....Khobai is right... Russ (or Paul ? Bryan ?) gave us that exact number : 250 000 $ / MAP... It was a long time ago... Before the "Island" crisis and the "3PV" riot...

It was Bryan at PAX East. March 2013.

About a year later, during the total stoppage of map releases, he gave us this. It later turned out that it was actually IGP that had ordered map production to halt.

[Appogee]

Darian DelFord, on 05 June 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

Is there a reason that the maps can not be made to be 4 to 5 times the size of Alpine, Tourmaline or Terra?

People used to complain that Alpine was too big.

Edited by Appogee, 16 June 2015 - 12:33 PM.

[Smooky the husky]

i prefer big medium maps . small maps are annoying is stress more as the normals big or medium maps . you cant focuse because you got all 12 mech front face

[Anjian]

I don't see the purpose of doing very very large maps unless you are a 100 person battle royale.

The purpose of small maps and constricting even the smaller maps is that it takes less time to go from the spawn area to the engagement area, rendering battles faster and to make them last shorter. There is a certain degree that players are known to tolerate long games.


Considering that you have 100 person battle royales on smartphone hardware, I don't think its memory issues at all. In fact the bottleneck on PUBG and Fortnite on smartphones is more on processing power, GPU and bandwidth.

Edited by Anjian, 03 February 2020 - 07:09 PM.

[MrMadguy]

Darian DelFord, on 05 June 2015 - 04:58 AM, said:

I understand the first maps were small, they were learning the program and it was only 8V8, I really do not have an issue with the earlier maps however.

Is there a reason that the maps can not be made to be 4 to 5 times the size of Alpine, Tourmaline or Terra?

As in system issues memory issues anything?

When you have have mechs literally shoot each other at the start of the match there is a problem.

I believe that larger maps will diversify game play at least a little and hopefully break up the monotony of the center fights. Adjust this and the way radar works and we might actually have better matches?

Thoughts?

Several problems:
1) We don't play WalkWarrior Online. It takes up to 10 minutes to actually start playing the game on large maps, like Polar. This time is just wasted.
2) Bias towards Light 'Mechs. Game is very dynamic. Situation changes very fast. But it takes too long to change position for slow 'Mechs.
3) Large open spaces cause bias towards long range weapons. I.e. LRM/ER-LL/ER-PPC/Gauss abuse. This weapons are good enough by themselves. No reason to give them extra advantage. They simply become OP, if they can't be countered.

Overall conclusion - such maps would be unbalanced and biased. We don't need such maps.

Too high speeds - is one of the biggest problems of this game. Some good maps, like Frozen City Classic or Canyon Network, are trash now exactly because Light 'Mechs can start terrorizing other them almost instantly. Back in old times they weren't so popular and overall game speed was much slower. I guess, this is the real reason, why PGI started to implement larger maps, such as new River City and Forest Colony. But this ruined game for slower 'Mechs. Yeah... That "I have 200kph 'Mech, so I want 4x larger maps". We just can't satisfy both at the same time. We should either restrict max speed somehow or allow players to choose 'Mechs after seeing map. If certain map is intended for fast 'Mechs, then may be we should allow all players to have fast or long range 'Mechs? Right? Why it's so bad for game? Why it's considered to be some sort of "abuse"? If you force players to play on AWP map in AWP mode then let all players pick AWPs, not feel useless with their shotguns.

Edited by MrMadguy, 03 February 2020 - 11:09 PM.

[Prototelis]

There is little or no bias toward light mechs; the lowest scoring, least played, worst performing class in the game. Lol

[Aidan Crenshaw]

Holy shikes, that's a nice 5-year-necro!

[PhoenixFire55]

There is zero point in big maps unless there are actually meaningful objectives other than kill every enemy. And PGI clearly demonstrated over the years that they are 1) incapable of doing anything and 2) don't give a ****.

The thing is though, given the absence of any kind of brain process in your general PUG, even if you give them objectives they won't care. Remember old Alpine conquest with cap points actually well spread over a relatively big map? Remember what happened? Yep ... teams would just ball up and walk around the map slowly, at times never even meeting each other before those 750 caps run out. Now turn the brain on and things are already different with what we have. Take 2018 WC for example, where teams were forced to spread more due to slow stock mechs, and remember how tactical matches on smth like Grim Plexus conquest were.

At some point MWO that was supposed to be a thinking-man's shooter was flooded by dumbs. And worst of all PGI catered to said dumbs. Thus we have what we have. No tactics, no brain involved, just your minimally viable generic robo-pew-pew.

[GuardDogg]

To late for large maps. Although in beta, was hoping for some. Noticed most do not have patience, and prefer to run to center (both sides). In conquest, theta is the main cap, no other, or fight first, cap last. Like PhoenixFire55 wrote is accurate. When Polar Highlands came out, players were thinking, planning. Then months later, it began to break down to the most hated map, only to go center, meet up with other team. It is my favorite, but still small.

Edited by GuardDogg, 05 February 2020 - 06:15 AM.

[Prototelis]

It's almost like even if the maps were huge a meta will emerge where both teams will congregate in an area equidistant to their respective spawns.

Weird.

Edited by Prototelis, 05 February 2020 - 03:05 PM.