134 replies to this topic

[NextGame]

Ted Wayz, on 04 January 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Alpine, HPG and Terra Therma are actually fun for Conquest. Even though I hate Conquest and only play it when we lose the mini game.

Be nice if PGI would figure out why certain maps are better with certain modes and exploit that by maybe adding them into CW somehow.

I always pick assault (if its available) if it looks like its going to be therma so i can just go and cap rather than play.

[smokefield]

lets bring back the old maps too. even with their flaws it will be much better to have more maps not less.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Mystere, on 04 January 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

It's a people problem: zombies being attracted to that non-existent pile of human brains on Mt. Derp.

Well, that assumes zombies are still people.

Thing is, redesigning the map to not have such an obvious magnet like Mt. Try hard is the way to correct it. Telling people to use different strategies or complaining about the flock to the mountain changes NOTHING.

You can criticize the hive mentality about how teams flock to the mountain (like a moth to a flame), but that is what is going to happen regardless of how much people say to do otherwise. Complaining in an occasional post doesn't magically persuade the population of MWO to ignore the mountain.

So, you really want people to develop other strategies and try something different? Then you want the mountain gone. It is the only at that is going to happen with any regularity. Just hope a new spot doesn't become so overwhelmingly important that it becomes the new Mt. Tryhard.

[Kotzi]

Well that didnt work for any reworked map. River City, same fighting spot, Forest Colony, mid again. Alpine without central Mountain. People will still walk there, cause its the fastest way to get to fight.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Forest Colony isn't as bad IMO. I agree that the "Arch" is commonly the meeting place, but I have seen water flanks and large fights occurring in other places. Still, even with the Arch gone, I can still see that general area being a common fighting location.

River City definitely should have had the Citadel leveled. It could have been a small pile of ruble with limited cover and it would have helped change the map flow. Still, part of me wonders if upper City wouldn't be the new meeting spot if the Citadel was gone.

Really, regardless of changes made, people will always gravitate to certain spots. Eliminate one spot, and a new map position takes its place. I think it is more human nature than anything.

[Lupis Volk]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 January 2016 - 05:00 AM, said:

I think it is more human nature than anything.

Any place with a perceived advantage will be fought over.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Lupis Volk, on 05 January 2016 - 05:30 AM, said:

Any place with a perceived advantage will be fought over.

Yeah.

Remove that advantage, and another one will rise to take it's place. Even the maps that are perceived as better still have very common spots both teams always seem to gravitate to.

In anycase, it doesn't hurt to remove the current hot spots and see how the meta changes for the map. One would just need to hope that the new spot isn't too advantageous and unfairly closer to one team vs another.. A good map designer should anticipate that though and account for it.

Still, until a map is extensively used, guessing a map's meta locations is tricky I'd imagine.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 05 January 2016 - 06:18 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Fix the spawns in Conquest to where they were before the Dire Whiners "I can't be bothered to walk to a battle!" QQfest got it turned into defacto skirmish. I'd really like to see some of the beacons put very far out forcing lance on lance fights.

On assault, move the "high side" base to different location like that small set of buildings in an open area by the 12/13 line while the low side base is decent for now but could be moved up higher into that snowfield.

[Scar Glamour]

Alpine has to go, okay? Because it's 2016!

[Kjudoon]

Nah. doesn't HAVE to go... it needed minor tweaks is all. I still want Polar Highlands or whatever it's replacement was called. Moar SNOWSTROMSES!! Moar Nighttiem! NAOOOOOOO!!!

[Novakaine]

There's nothing wrong with Alpine Peaks.
The only thing wrong is the utter lack of imagination pervading here.
But everybody wants to charge up Candy Mountain.
Then complain when they get their collective heads handed to them.
Sheesh.

[Gas Guzzler]

Novakaine, on 05 January 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

There's nothing wrong with Alpine Peaks.
The only thing wrong is the utter lack of imagination pervading here.
But everybody wants to charge up Candy Mountain.
Then complain when they get their collective heads handed to them.
Sheesh.

I don't know I've seen it go both ways.

[Almond Brown]

Gas Guzzler, on 04 January 2016 - 02:10 PM, said:

What is the problem?

The "Lemming" mentality seem so often on most of the MWO Maps?

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 January 2016 - 07:54 AM.

[Almond Brown]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 January 2016 - 05:00 AM, said:

Forest Colony isn't as bad IMO. I agree that the "Arch" is commonly the meeting place, but I have seen water flanks and large fights occurring in other places. Still, even with the Arch gone, I can still see that general area being a common fighting location.

River City definitely should have had the Citadel leveled. It could have been a small pile of ruble with limited cover and it would have helped change the map flow. Still, part of me wonders if upper City wouldn't be the new meeting spot if the Citadel was gone.

Really, regardless of changes made, people will always gravitate to certain spots. Eliminate one spot, and a new map position takes its place. I think it is more human nature than anything.

So in other words, there is no fix because the players will do what they want despite whatever is presented and then complain they Lost because of what they actually did...

I would so love PGI to create a 16 x 16 squares dead FLAT Map and see how long before the Community ******* about that. It is really what most want right? A Map that has "zero" ability to give the other team any form of advantage at all. Only one Map type will meet that criteria. FLAT!

The QQ and Tears would indeed be delicious.

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 January 2016 - 08:02 AM.

[jss78]

k05h3lk1n, on 04 January 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

Devs are swayed by a vocal minority. 445 votes represent how much percent of the playerbase? Not to mention threads like this specifically rally people which are in favour of the suggestion and not against it. A player who doesn't like Alpine probably doesn't bother to click a thread called "Save Alpine".

Alpine's consistently popular when it's available for in-game map vote though, so it's definitely more than a small minority that enjoys the map. If we worked based on what people like, we'd have several maps removed before Alpine.

[Hawk_eye]

k05h3lk1n, on 04 January 2016 - 07:46 PM, said:

Yeah you made it. You "saved" that sorry excuse for a multiplayer map. It's one-sided and prefers long range setups way too much.

Oh, so because Alpine favors long-range builds, it should be removed?
Well, quite a few maps favor short-ranged brawler builds. Should they be removed too?
Or goes this "favors one kind of build and thus should be removed" only for those maps that favor a build you don´t fancy?

Note: Yes, Alpine needs some tweaking (spawn points and climbable mountain sides have been mentioned a hundred times already), but the fact that the map favors long-range builds is _not_ the issue unless maps that favor short-range builds are _also_ an issue.

If you want more of the map used (which would be good, yes), I would favor the randomized (out of a number of, say 3-6 or so) spawn points, so you never know where the enemy actually starts (this would go for pretty much _every_ map, btw).

[Mystere]

MeiSooHaityu, on 05 January 2016 - 04:36 AM, said:

Thing is, redesigning the map to not have such an obvious magnet like Mt. Try hard is the way to correct it. Telling people to use different strategies or complaining about the flock to the mountain changes NOTHING.

You can criticize the hive mentality about how teams flock to the mountain (like a moth to a flame), but that is what is going to happen regardless of how much people say to do otherwise. Complaining in an occasional post doesn't magically persuade the population of MWO to ignore the mountain.

So, you really want people to develop other strategies and try something different? Then you want the mountain gone. It is the only at that is going to happen with any regularity. Just hope a new spot doesn't become so overwhelmingly important that it becomes the new Mt. Tryhard.

I'm complaining about people flocking to Mt. Derp? I think you're looking at my post from the wrong angle.

I like that mountain just the way it is because other people's predictable behavior make them very ripe for exploitation to my advantage. As such, I'm sharing some tips to like-minded players, while the zombies continue to do what they always do. <maniacal >

[Jon Gotham]

Remains Intact, on 04 January 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Logic and reason tend to pay off.

I have to add here as an observation, where the masses are concerned your statement often rings false. In my experience the more people think the same thing, the more that thing needs looking at carefully.....

[Ryoken]

Happy that Alpine stays! I like the map a lot!

We need more wide open maps for long range combat!

[Mystere]

AssaultPig, on 04 January 2016 - 09:49 PM, said:

it's a **** map

if your team are coordinated enough to all hide in a different place it's still a **** map

the team that gets to the top of the i9 hill first is at a decisive advantage and as long as that's the case alpine will be terrible (on assault and skirmish anyway, it's okay on conq)

It's a decisive advantage if and only if you let them dictate the location of the fight. That is assuming they even know how to use the position to their advantage. But considering many of those same players are mere mindless zombies ...

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2016 - 08:58 AM.