35 replies to this topic

[SQW]

After a few boring CW games and looking at the poor state of map control of Clans, one can't help to wonder what PGI map designers were thinking?

I sincerely hope this is just the Beta teething issue and not indicative of the thought process behind PGI's decisions. The two CW maps AND the objectives are terribly designed - chock points, lots of obstacles, little room to maneuver - basically fighting in a fish bowl and who can alpha the quickest wins.

Lore wise, the Clan's biggest advantage was range and not actual ton for ton DPS. The map design in CW is so bad, most battle happens within 300-500m. A real Clan commander would be shot for negligence fighting IS in the manner of CW right now.

We need maps, objectives or modes that allows Clans to take full advantage of their range but allow IS to have a chance to survive (not through kill wins) through good tactics, use of terrain and maneuver. Static defense in a tiny canyon bowl forces both side into a meat grinder. And this is coming from an IS player!

My best experience in MWO was when a pub team worked, with limited communication, to instinctively flank an entrenched enemy position leading to a convincing win. CW's current map basically FORCES you play big, slow and dumb.

Edited by SQW, 05 January 2016 - 05:49 PM.

[DarkMetalBlade]

I cannot like your OP enough, as I too believe that the maps need to not be chokepoint central. After all, who in the right mind would attack a base that can only be approached in one direction??

The answer would be, only those who have no sanity.

[sycocys]

Well, more than a few of us have been trying to explain that since early on but the loudest people think that which planet your unit tag is on is far more important than actually having an interesting mode that people would actually want to play.

Edited by sycocys, 05 January 2016 - 07:26 PM.

[ShadowFire]

Sadly whoever at PGI that came up with the highly limiting "choke point" map designs really, I mean, REALLY!!! screwed over CW game play if not the entire game. The latter maps have improved somewhat but someone at PGI does not seem to be not convinced that coke point map designs leads to very boring game play.

Either that someone at PGI better either get over their ego and start modding maps for open game play or someone at PGI ought to be fired before they bury this game in the dirt. (Which would be a shame as the game is fun and has been steadily improving abet at a slow pace.)

Maps should be larger, have less constrictions, less out of bound areas, multiple and even random/chosen spawn points and target objectives. Forts and bases should look like forts and bases and be attackable from wide if not a full 360 degrees of axis. AI elements should be included. Base turrets should be sited like someone cared for their lanes of fire and walls, ditches, towers, cover, interior lines of defense and base static defenses should be balanced by attacker's choice of attack lanes, concealment, cover and possible mobile AI, tanks, missile launchers, helos, artillery.

Mission objectives should be highly variable and NOT specifically attached to any one map. Each map should be able to support dozens of missions and play options. Not the current, one, two or three choices we have now.

Edited by ShadowFire, 05 January 2016 - 08:10 PM.

[SQW]

I got the feeling the PGI map designer's last work experience was at a FPS game. It's like playing de_dust with mechs with all the corners, walls and chock points etc. It's not a bad map - just the wrong one for mechs.

PGI should just watch how World of Tanks (basically mech on track) did their maps, learn from their success/stuff ups and maybe become as profitable at the same time.

Edited by SQW, 05 January 2016 - 08:16 PM.

[StonedVet]

Thumbs up OP. Couldn't agree more.

[vandalhooch]

SQW, on 05 January 2016 - 05:48 PM, said:

After a few boring CW games and looking at the poor state of map control of Clans, one can't help to wonder what PGI map designers were thinking?

I sincerely hope this is just the Beta teething issue and not indicative of the thought process behind PGI's decisions. The two CW maps

The what? Pretty sure that you should get just a little more than 3 days in the game before pronouncing your expert opinion.

Here's a hint. There are more than two maps.

Quote

AND the objectives are terribly designed - chock points, lots of obstacles, little room to maneuver - basically fighting in a fish bowl and who can alpha the quickest wins.

While I would certainly like to see more maps with more variety, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that choke point maps make teamwork essential for success. Kind of the point in Faction Play.

Quote

Lore wise, the Clan's biggest advantage was range and not actual ton for ton DPS. The map design in CW is so bad, most battle happens within 300-500m.

Since you seem to think there are only two maps, I'm not sure that your opinion about where "most battle happens" is really all that valid.

Quote

A real Clan commander would be shot for negligence fighting IS in the manner of CW right now.

We need maps, objectives or modes that allows Clans to take full advantage of their range but allow IS to have a chance to survive (not through kill wins) through good tactics, use of terrain and maneuver. Static defense in a tiny canyon bowl forces both side into a meat grinder. And this is coming from an IS player!

My best experience in MWO was when a pub team worked, with limited communication, to instinctively flank an entrenched enemy position leading to a convincing win. CW's current map basically FORCES you play big, slow and dumb.

Trust me, coordinated teams can play small, fast, and smart. Just ask any unit that has faced up to the NS counter-light rush!

[Mystere]

The problem with CW is not the maps used for the Assault/Defend game mode. Bases should have choke points to funnel attackers into kill zones.

The problem with CW is that it only has two game modes -- Assault/Defend and Counterattack -- and a limited number of maps. What it needs is more variety, meaning more game modes paired with more appropriate maps, among other things. CW is currently very shallow. It is a mere skeleton of what it can be.

Go here for some of my ideas on how to add more depth.

Edited by Mystere, 05 January 2016 - 10:06 PM.

[Surn]

I have made many mechwarrior maps and it seems the problem is that with 24 mechs, the maximum map size is pretty small. There is very little room to scout or to play in unique ways.

[Commander A9]

We've been complaining about the map design for over a year and 3 beta tests.

No changes.

We're stuck with 'em until we stop buying mech packs. Only THAT will get PGI's attention.

[TexAce]

Commander A9, on 05 January 2016 - 10:41 PM, said:

We've been complaining about the map design for over a year and 3 beta tests.

No changes.

We're stuck with 'em until we stop buying mech packs. Only THAT will get PGI's attention.

No that will make them unable to pay anyone to improve this game.

Edited by TexAce, 06 January 2016 - 04:27 AM.

[SQW]

vandalhooch, on 05 January 2016 - 09:48 PM, said:

The what? Pretty sure that you should get just a little more than 3 days in the game before pronouncing your expert opinion.

Here's a hint. There are more than two maps.

Yes, I'm aware there are a few maps but all of them puts the objectives behind choke points. A coordinated push through a choke is NOT tactics - that's just rudimentary mob co-ordination follow by individual skill (or mech equipment). The amount of clutter at the entrance also impedes LOS so defenders can't focus fire leading to the usual melee brawl in tight confines.

Sure, defenders CAN rush out and meet the attackers in the open and I admit the open ground and ridges in that purple map can make some great mech charges, but then that defeats the whole OMEGA gimmick.

When the most fun way of playing a map is not playing it as intended, then people doing the map design need to go back to the drawing board.

[AlphaToaster]

The maps definitely very linear but they play much better when the appropriate side is as aggressive as they need to be.

They break when the attackers aren't aggressive enough to force a brawl inside that cluttered up gate area, and when the defenders are too aggressive and push out to the drop ships.

When the teams meet with appropriate resistance, then the way the maps were intended to be played shows more clearly, but when a team rolls up into a ball in their drop zone, or refuses to push into the gate, they're putting themselves in really bad terrain, not intended to repel attackers from that direction.

Example - The attacker drop zone on boreal, not intended as a fighting position. Unless min/maxing an IS erLL drop deck, this is a bad place to be.

Defender dropzone on Vitric Forge. This has got to be the absolute worst layout for a spawn area. There are 3 ways out, 2 of which are up bottleneck ramps, where the enemy has elevated positions down into a bowl. One of those ramps the slowest assaults can't climb.

Defender dropzone on Grim Portico. Once the attackers gather in mass, in the center of these 3 drop areas, they prevent the defenders from regrouping for the remainder of the match, so to let the attackers get this far into the base is not ideal. Even the attacker drop zones on Grim Portico are really terrible to fight out of but not as bad as the defending zones. At least the attacking drop zones get cover from the dropships, while the defenders are in the 3 separate little areas.

Edited by AlphaToaster, 06 January 2016 - 05:41 PM.

[StonedVet]

What I'd give to have MW4 inspired maps with multiple linear type objectives

[Javin]

If they gave the player base the ability to make maps, they would have literally dozens of maps. All PGI would have to do is test them. Heck they could even have major units test the maps for them and help debug the maps.

[SQW]

Then how are the vets gonna farm noobs if they can't memorize the best camp positions from all these maps! Sheesh, think of the vets would ya.

[sycocys]

The CW maps wouldn't even be the worst design IF there wasn't respawns and the gates on most of the maps were more spread out.

[Pestilencio]

I agree with most of the points iterated above. The CW maps should be larger, there shouldn't be only 2 or 3 choke points as the only way into a base. I also want to add that the terrain shouldn't be as impassible with zones that you can't JJ over.

The way the maps are currently laid out don't really allow you to flank or JJ over obstacles. Mediums don't have the space to maneuver around and try to exploit opportunities for flanking maneuvers. The matches seem to always boil down to "everyone go here" or "everyone go there" and may the better zerg win.

[Armando]

Here is the thing....with the current maps attackers can win on ANY map, and defenders can win on ANY map.

The one and only exception to this is the E5 Defense on Boreal Vault (which if executed right can NOT be beat), but few know about it and even fewer use it (as it requires a high level of discipline to pull off).

In short: Even if you don't like the maps, please understand that you at least have a chance to win on either side in any mode (not true for all maps in all games).

Edited by Armando, 08 January 2016 - 10:30 AM.

[Tenzuuu]

Completely agree. Lets get the ball rolling on this. The quick play maps are so much better than the cw maps. Why on earth did they get a tower defense game map designer to make the cw maps?