234 replies to this topic

[TyphonCh]

MauttyKoray, on 01 January 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

The new map is a semi-replacement for Alpine I believe. The problem with Alpine is that its a great map...but not for MWO in its current state. While I think it should be 'kept' it does not work for the PVP arena combat we have right now. I'm hoping in the future it gets retooled or reworked, but Russ'/PGI's stance was that it would be quicker/a better idea to create a new map using the Alpine assets.

Even more, it would be great if they used the map for a future PVE setting, as it has a lot of great locations for objective based missions.

The major thing about Alpine is the hill is a horrible central fighting location that leaves a large portion of the rest of the map unused, and it needs a facelift being one of the older maps. Possibly in the future they will in fact create an updated version of Alpine, hence why the new map isn't named Alpine. Its far too open with the ridiculous ranges we have so I hope once they get around to it, it will be a far better map for the wait. Plus 1/3 game modes being any good on it (and the least played mode) means that its rarely ever a good map to play.

The thing is though, there doesn't HAVE TO be a replacement. In the roadmap they said they'll flat out remove it... I hope not. I fail to see how rebuilding a new map around Alpine's assets is faster than tweaking the one we have. Don't get me wrong, a new map is much appreciated... but like I said in the OP it's a perfectly functional map.
Removing content that works is bad. We need content that is not mech packs.

Edited by Team Chevy86, 01 January 2016 - 08:32 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

Team Chevy86, on 01 January 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

The thing is though, there doesn't HAVE TO be a replacement. In the roadmap they said they'lol flat our remove it... I hope not. I fail to see how rebuilding a new map around Alpine's assets is faster than tweaking the one we have. Don't get me wrong, a new map is much appreciated... but like I said in the OP it's a perfectly functional map.
Removing content that works is bad. We need content that is not mech packs.

I don't consider functional being 1/3 game modes making it worth playing (the least played) and that is a *********** on the hill EVERY game otherwise. That sounds like a broken map to me. There's a reason Caustic got its remake, and it created a lot more usage across the map. I've fought in at least 3 times the area on the map in the rework as I have on the original. Meanwhile Alpine has very limited options without simply removing the hill, which then brings up the problem that A LOT of Alpine is completely open and barren.

Like I said a 'semi-replacement'. Its not REPLACING Alpine, and its even named something different, its not replacing Alpine unlike Caustic and Forest Colony. HOPEFULLY we get Alpine back as a rework in the future, but in its current state, it is a DETRIMENT to the health of MWO's gameplay. Meanwhile we have a new map to keep us busy. Yes it will suck losing Alpine, but for the future of MWO I'm willing to for now.

[TyphonCh]

MauttyKoray, on 01 January 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't consider functional being 1/3 game modes making it worth playing (the least played) and that is a *********** on the hill EVERY game otherwise. That sounds like a broken map to me. There's a reason Caustic got its remake, and it created a lot more usage across the map. I've fought in at least 3 times the area on the map in the rework as I have on the original. Meanwhile Alpine has very limited options without simply removing the hill, which then brings up the problem that A LOT of Alpine is completely open and barren.

Like I said a 'semi-replacement'. Its not REPLACING Alpine, and its even named something different, its not replacing Alpine unlike Caustic and Forest Colony. HOPEFULLY we get Alpine back as a rework in the future, but in its current state, it is a DETRIMENT to the health of MWO's gameplay. Meanwhile we have a new map to keep us busy. Yes it will suck losing Alpine, but for the future of MWO I'm willing to for now.

Using that logic, every map in the game is broken. Every map has it's strengths and weaknesses per game mode.
River city and forest colony got reworked because they were simply TOO small for the current 12 v 12.
Caustic got a beautification pass because it promoted bad gameplay and was shallow for tactics besides playing ring-around-the-rosy and poke each other in the ***. Which still happens btw.
So why can't the same happen to Alpine? Why scrap it entirely? Because reading Russ' roadmap that's what I got, and why I started this topic. We need more maps, not less. I won't be against it being removed and coming back later (confirmation would be nice) when it's ready to go. But for reasons withstanding I think it should stay

Edited by Team Chevy86, 01 January 2016 - 08:42 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

Team Chevy86, on 01 January 2016 - 08:39 PM, said:

Using that logic, every map in the game is broken. Every map has it's strengths and weaknesses per game mode.
River city and forest colony got reworked because they were simply TOO small for the current 12 v 12.
Caustic got a beautification pass because it promoted bad gameplay and was shallow for tactics besides playing ring-around-the-rosy and poke each other in the ***. Which still happens btw.
So why can't the same happen to Alpine? Why scrap it entirely? Because reading Russ' roadmap that's what I got, and why I started this topic. We need more maps, not less. I won't be against it being removed and coming back later (confirmation would be nice) when it's ready to go. But for reasons withstanding I think it should stay

From what I remember either Russ or Paul saying, they couldn't think of how to rework Alpine in the amount of time they had. Instead they created a new map with the Alpine assets and hopefully we'll get a reworked alpine later.

Alpine was BAD for gameplay, why are people so hellbent on keeping it in its current state? Oh wait I forgot, most of you run GG META-SCRUB builds which benefit from humping the hill until you get a reward on your face at the end.

Do you think the reaction would have been any better to a reworked Alpine? I can hear it now "WAAAah, WHERES MY HILL?!?!" and "#SaveOldAlpineNewOneSux". I'll respect the opinion that Alpine needs to not 'go away' but I support the decision of its removal at least until it does finally get reworked.

Edited by MauttyKoray, 01 January 2016 - 09:05 PM.

[Anjian]

HollowBassman, on 01 January 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

If the mountain is such a problem just make it slippery. Momentum may carry you partway up but then you slide back to the bottom.

However, I think just changing the spawn locations would really help the map.

Alpine should have stayed with the original spawn locations as it was originally intended, not the multispawn monstrosity as it is now.

If anyone remember when Alpine was first introduced in the game, the spawn locations were totally different. The teams all spawn in one spot respectively.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...eaks&m=conquest

The original spawn spot for Team 1 would be where Sigma base is right now for conquest.

The original spawn spot for Team 2 would be where Gamma base is right now for conquest.

Now guess where the teams would converge for combat.

F7, G7, F8, G8

Team 2 would start sniping off F8, F9, with a group heading to F7 to shoot from there.

Team 1 would advance, using G7 and H7 as cover as an assault team heads to F7.

Whoever wins at F7 is going to outflank the other. If Team 1 wins the assaulting team would get behind the defenders at F8 and F9. Team 2 would retreat F10, and the shootout will continue around the F9 and F10 area. If Team 1 breaks through, they will be pouring through the passage to Gamma base.

At times Team 1 would also assault through the slot between F9 and G9, which is also where Team 2 would be setting up a defensive line.

IF Team 2 wins the F7 encounter, Team 1 would retreat to H6 and H7, while Team 2 would pour down from F7 to G6, headed to Sigma base.

Quite often, fast mechs are skirmishing behind the F6 area as it will give you a sniping firing line to F7 and behind the F8-F9 ridge.

I have played this map on the original spawn locations so many times its easy to replay them in my memories.

You can all see how much more dynamic the combat tends to be compared to how it is now.

Edited by Anjian, 01 January 2016 - 09:37 PM.

[Hades Trooper]

Team Chevy86, on 01 January 2016 - 01:57 AM, said:

Plain and simple...
It may not be the greatest map, but it does have merit.
Our selection of maps is limited as it is, so why remove it entirely?! Sure, rebuild it. I won't argue there
*cough*Frozencity*cough*
Alpine's only real flaw is the massively OP goat-**** mountain that controls the map. If we're going to rebuild this map from the 'ground up' why waste it's potential? Seriously, nuke the mountain and revise the spawn points and -BAM- another map alongside the new one. Conquest is actually a lot of fun when you can actually utilize more than %20 of it!
Making a poll in Suggestions asap.
http://mwomercs.com/...to-save-alpine/

SAVE ALPINE!!!


From the January roadmap:
http://mwomercs.com/...nuary-road-map/

I understand when they rebuilt Forest Colony and River City the old versions were removed entirely because they were dysfunctional. Alpine however, is a perfectly functional map. It doesn't make sense to remove that content from the game when all it requires are some changes to make it more fair.

I wish to save Alpine just as it is. you have no need to fight up that stupid hill if u don't want but the common noob, rushes the hill as they have this delusion high ground wins games.

tactics win games not high ground. unless it's assault there is no reason why you need to fight on the hill.

i expressly make an effort to get my puggers to do something out of the box on skirmish alpine as we have the choice to fight anywhere we feel, so why go to the hill, like how morons always go to the citadel in river city, you need to stop being sheep and try something different.

[Hades Trooper]

Khobai, on 01 January 2016 - 04:42 AM, said:

its definitely unfair because one team starts closer to the mountain than the other.

again I think the best solution is to turn it into a CW map

unfair cause one starts closer to the mountain? seriously wake up, you don't need to fight on the mountain so if your only reason is it unfair is the mountain then u really need to find spots to fight that suit you not your enemy

[JC Daxion]

OMG...its my favorite map.... I just wish people would fight in other placed outside of thinking, king of the mountain.. tower... J line.. the back base... the awesome brawler area in the lower right corner..

why people don't like this map is beyond me...


tourmline, and canyon are the next 2 on the list... I think the desert is the best though

Hades Trooper, on 01 January 2016 - 10:03 PM, said:

unfair cause one starts closer to the mountain? seriously wake up, you don't need to fight on the mountain so if your only reason is it unfair is the mountain then u really need to find spots to fight that suit you not your enemy

no kidding.... Why on earth everyone wants to play king of the hill is beyond me... so easy to pull people off.. Or just push it. It is basically a map that people play wrong all the time.. It's almost like playing Pug Zapper in terra...

Edited by JC Daxion, 01 January 2016 - 10:11 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 January 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Id rather brand new maps than recycling old ones but thats me

But the feedback page from Viridian is from november of last year. So does it take them a year to create one new pubbie map?!

One year and 250k.

[Deathlike]

I honestly don't care if Alpine stays or goes. I will offer one idea that needs to happen, because the map really is bad for the most part..

It simply needs multiple spawns.

I forget when, but sometime after the "lance separated spawns" that occurred by 1.5 years ago, it was claimed by PGI (for Alpine, but my memory sucks) that "we have the opportunity to change the spawns, to make the map play out differently and change the meta". I call BS on this, because they didn't really do that for Alpine (or really many other maps for that matter), outside of Conquest.

This was true for something like River City... to a degree, where spawns used to be the "upper base" vs "lower piers" (it didn't have a name, but I'll just nickname it that for now). The Citadel was a significant place and it still is in the newly revamped version, but it was used differently.

The thing was that ultimately the spawns are FIXED.. in that there's no variation.. .we can predict where everyone spawns from if you play it enough, so it never created any dynamic gameplay. It's all stupidly static. Take a look @ Conquest for the older Caustic and the new Caustic... the base caps are more or less the same as the original... zero variation on what ends in ultimately happening.

If the caps and spawns would be a bit more randomized (eg. not static or fixed) it would at least change some of the decision making that occurs. If a team spawned in a position closer to an uncapped spawn, they are probably going to take it over a different drop where the cap is much further than they'd like.

While it won't change the maps ultimately, it wouldn't be as predictable... you'd have somewhat of a reason to scout to see where players will congregate, instead of making a pretty easy predictable guess.

Alpine would be best served to be a testing ground for PGI as a multiple spawn map... having at least 4 spawn points for each side (ideally, it would be 6 or more), using multiple sections of the map.

While imperfect, this is an opportunity to actually code for ALL maps... because the variation is virtually non-existent. Having spawns that aren't in the same relative location (for both teams) is just dumb.

This is the kind of stuff that shouldn't be Lostech, but yet it is.

Even back in MW4, there were multiple spawn locations made available... and while in comp play you'd want some control over it (perhaps have some controls in private matches to facilitate this, perhaps in some sort of bidding process), a map plays a bit differently when you spawn in different sections.

TL;DR

Using Alpine as a testing ground for multiple spawn points/caps/drops is the best way of making use of Alpine, instead of what is currently constituted. This will allow for scouting (to a degree) and regrouping a lot more important as there is some randomness to it, but it's better than having all static cap points in Assault and Conquest (let alone spawn points in Skirmish) being totally predictable.

In other words... add actual features to improve maps (night and day for everything is lame) to make things more dynamic. There is a reason why everyone "loves" H9 on Alpine... it's because the static spawns force gameplay that plays more or less the same way. It should not be like that, ever.

Edited by Deathlike, 01 January 2016 - 10:32 PM.

[Mystere]

MauttyKoray, on 01 January 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't consider functional being 1/3 game modes making it worth playing (the least played) and that is a *********** on the hill EVERY game otherwise. That sounds like a broken map to me.

That's not a broken map. To me, that looks like a broken player base.

JC Daxion, on 01 January 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

no kidding.... Why on earth everyone wants to play king of the hill is beyond me... so easy to pull people off.. Or just push it. It is basically a map that people play wrong all the time.. It's almost like playing Pug Zapper in terra...

See above.

Edited by Mystere, 01 January 2016 - 10:58 PM.

[Blarkon]

Absolutely elated that this map is being consigned to the dustbin. It's the best news I've heard in months. I'm going off to buy a bunch of MC that I don't need just because I'm so happy PGI is getting rid of this map.

[Remains Intact]

Alpine is a sweet map. Enemy team had the hill, and through intelligent gameplay we 12-0'ed them. If you QQ about the hill gameplay it just means you are terribad.

[Oberost]

JC Daxion, on 01 January 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

tourmline, and canyon are the next 2 on the list...

Do not dare to touch Canyon...

[patataman]

Lyoto Machida, on 01 January 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

The mountain has always been there...from the map release date:



Amazing how it looks in that video...my computer has never run this game that smoothly lol. Can't wait to finally "get gud" when I upgrade my system.

The video is very interesting to watch. Look how the blue team uses candy mountain: they go there, spot the red team and after 10 or 15 seconds they chase the enemy. No camping, no hesitation of going after the enemies or not.

That simple move of chasing the enemy takes ages in today's enviroment if it happens at all.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 01 January 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

Id rather brand new maps than recycling old ones but thats me

But the feedback page from Viridian is from november of last year. So does it take them a year to create one new pubbie map?!

To be fair, the first half of 2015 they created all the CW maps minus boreal vault and sulfurus rift, and remade FC, RC and CV.

I think it was ok to replace RC and FC, those two maps were too small for a 12 v 12 game mode.
Caustic is played the same way it was, and it has the same size, totally unneeded remake imho, and many players don't like the new smoke.

But yes, the amount of regular queue maps is the same since Q4 2014. Compare it to the amount of mechs released during 2015 and drink.

[V O L T R O N]

I hate map remakes. I lag on all the new maps.

[Khobai]

Quote

unfair cause one starts closer to the mountain? seriously wake up, you don't need to fight on the mountain so if your only reason is it unfair is the mountain then u really need to find spots to fight that suit you not your enemy

why wouldnt you fight on the mountain?

1) clear sight lines to most of the map
2) enemy team has to walk UPHILL to get to you, and mechs slowdown going uphill

so no you dont have to fight on the mountain. but why wouldnt you when you gain every advantage from doing so?

[Rekkon]

If the choice is between removing Alpine and leaving it as-is, leave it. The game is short on maps, and players can choose whether or not to play it via voting.

I am also skeptical that the map is unbalanced without data to support that assertion. Perhaps it is, but people are notoriously poor statistical engines. Show me the global win rate by spawn location.

[Catra Lanis]

Since we have voting I don't see the harm in leaving old alpine alone and let people play it from time to time.

[mikerso]

Alpine is a fun map. if you brought short range weaponry deal with it and get your sneaky on. even on this map you can get very sneaky.