80 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

V O L T R O N, on 06 January 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

They are center focused. They all have a huge structure in the middle and causes these circling brawling matches.

Alpine has a huge mountain that everyone rushes too and it becomes a hill hump fest.

Forest Colony most of the clutter is in the middle or over the bridge pass. Not as drastic as the other maps but ya.

Caustic, do I need to explain? Also has a bad spawn point on Skirmish mode

Frozen City/Night Drop ship along with Jenner alley being the lower surrounding. High ground being C3 where most of the pushing is centered around.

River City is better with its remake than it was before, but the Citadel is still one of the main focus's. I do think the Rocks help for breaking that up a bit.

Veridian Bog has two huge mounds instead of one focused center, but still you have to go to the middle to find the enemy and to remain out of line of site, it creates circling.

Crimson Strait, has a huge mountain in between two starting areas, but still a fairly balanced match. Still has nascar matches occasionally, and has other alternative as a tunnel and pass. Also on Skirmish it has the lone lance that often gets caught on the island side.

Canyon Network, another pretty balanced map, but still has a center focused feel to it. The highest point of high ground is RIGHT in the middle.

HPG one of my favorite maps, but has a center to it, and bad spawn points that creates instant push and no time for formation. Pretty balanced thou and much like an arena map. I do enjoy.

Terra Therma - Dont need to explain here too much, One team has a quicker route to the middle, has a Volcano in the middle. Usually I have lopsided matches on this map when or lose.

Many of these maps I find better on Conquest just because it breaks up the standoffs or circle fiesta.

I like all the maps, I enjoy every single one of their differences, but I pointed out their similarities However most of my matches last 5 minutes of less for a decent que time when matches are suppose to be 15 minutes max.

Solution to making future maps? More clutter on the outside, more open space in the middle and raised elevation in random areas, not just the middle. It will create longer games, more stradegy and thought process to finding attack positions rather than rushing a position and then figuring out if your enemy is going with plan a or b.

Agreed
Most battles take place on "Theta" in almost every map and it's because of the map design more than anything else.

[Moldur]

Many a time, people have gone on with how PGI doesn't have dedicated map makers, and that many of the maps are poorly designed for gameplay. Looks pretty. Neat building in the very corners of the maps. Plays like crap.

[Sandpit]

Moldur, on 06 January 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

Many a time, people have gone on with how PGI doesn't have dedicated map makers, and that many of the maps are poorly designed for gameplay. Looks pretty. Neat building in the very corners of the maps. Plays like crap.

It's not that they play like crap, it's that the easiest paths for the mechs to follow all seem to funnel into theta area.

That's not to say there aren't many, many, many other places to stage fights and firing lines, it's that the easiest path is the path of least resistance. New players glob, vets know it's easier to lead them through certain areas if they don't know the maps well and the areas where they can climb up hills and such.

[Pardo Kerensky]

minimally viable maps for a minimally viable product™

[V O L T R O N]

Pardomaru, on 06 January 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

minimally viable maps for a minimally viable product™

This isnt a pgi bashing thread or product bashing, if you dont like the game, quit playing.

[SilentWolff]

One of the main weaknesses of the game are the maps for sure.
If we could just import the MW4 maps, sigh.

[Imperius]

V O L T R O N, on 06 January 2016 - 08:13 AM, said:

They are center focused. They all have a huge structure in the middle and causes these circling brawling matches.

Alpine has a huge mountain that everyone rushes too and it becomes a hill hump fest.

Forest Colony most of the clutter is in the middle or over the bridge pass. Not as drastic as the other maps but ya.

Caustic, do I need to explain? Also has a bad spawn point on Skirmish mode

Frozen City/Night Drop ship along with Jenner alley being the lower surrounding. High ground being C3 where most of the pushing is centered around.

River City is better with its remake than it was before, but the Citadel is still one of the main focus's. I do think the Rocks help for breaking that up a bit.

Veridian Bog has two huge mounds instead of one focused center, but still you have to go to the middle to find the enemy and to remain out of line of site, it creates circling.

Crimson Strait, has a huge mountain in between two starting areas, but still a fairly balanced match. Still has nascar matches occasionally, and has other alternative as a tunnel and pass. Also on Skirmish it has the lone lance that often gets caught on the island side.

Canyon Network, another pretty balanced map, but still has a center focused feel to it. The highest point of high ground is RIGHT in the middle.

HPG one of my favorite maps, but has a center to it, and bad spawn points that creates instant push and no time for formation. Pretty balanced thou and much like an arena map. I do enjoy.

Terra Therma - Dont need to explain here too much, One team has a quicker route to the middle, has a Volcano in the middle. Usually I have lopsided matches on this map when or lose.

Many of these maps I find better on Conquest just because it breaks up the standoffs or circle fiesta.

I like all the maps, I enjoy every single one of their differences, but I pointed out their similarities However most of my matches last 5 minutes of less for a decent que time when matches are suppose to be 15 minutes max.

Solution to making future maps? More clutter on the outside, more open space in the middle and raised elevation in random areas, not just the middle. It will create longer games, more stradegy and thought process to finding attack positions rather than rushing a position and then figuring out if your enemy is going with plan a or b.

I feel like I said this somewhere but was told to shut up lol

Those Reddit tryhards are a great bunch 100% sarcasm

Edited by Imperius, 06 January 2016 - 01:19 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Center focus is a major problem, but it's not the key component. Arena thinking is. The maps are two small by possibly a factor of 10. But on the other hand, player thinking is just as much at fault as designer thinking is for not countering it.

Players generally do not think outside the box. Oh on occasion they'll think pressed up hard against the outside of the box, but often they never venture outside of basic indians circling the main feature while the faster team got inside/on top/entrenched.

So what can be done to help stop this? Designers need to realize that players will play to the fight first, and objective second. When you put the objectives away from the central objects you get messes you currently see now. Why fight between the new bluffs on Viridian Bog? There's nothing there worth fighting over! Nothing! Go for their base! Of course if you chose skirmish, that was your own fault for being silly. yeah, that's a polite word for it... Please devs, remove skirmish from the game or put in a single point to fight over in the middle like other games intelligently chose to do. This TDM crap is for the birds.

Asymetrical maps, mixed drop zones where everywhere you look is enemy is a good way to mix things up too. Another huge boost is multiple variants of the same map with different drop zones, but enough so you can't instantly tell which variant of the map you have so you cannot always tell where the enemy spawned. Multiple routes to the same target leading to a difficult time knowing where the enemy is coming from or what route they took is big... but that needs much much larger maps with the ability to completely hide movement unless scouting is done. And that means a LOT of concealment.

Oh, and add variants that have different effects to weapons like 'metal dust storm' lasers half damage or less... or High winds, missile spread x2-3, and ballistics pull in one direction hard or get a range boost if firing with the wind. Even on the same maps that would really shake things up if favorite builds cannot be depended on. Randomness and inability to for performance to be 100% reliable is a great way to deal with things and force more mixed loadouts, gameplay and behavior with minimal effort.

But again, we as players are part of the problem, but designers need to now take that into account. If you don't, players will get bored and abuse the crap out of the nice map you created.

Edited by Kjudoon, 06 January 2016 - 01:17 PM.

[DAYLEET]

How do you not meet in the "middle"? Both parties are moving toward the other because we want to kill each others.

[Mystere]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

How do you not meet in the "middle"? Both parties are moving toward the other because we want to kill each others.

That is because most players play all game modes as Skirmish.

We need more imaginative game modes. That and maps large enough to compliment them.

Edited by Mystere, 06 January 2016 - 01:24 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Dayleet, let me ask you this, would you just go pew pew pew and try to win by killing if you:
A ) did not get points or Cbills for damage
B ) could not win except by completing the primary (non-killing) objective?

That's the difference between accomplishing a military objective and laying waste.

We have actually way too much laying waste here because of bad design and bad gameplay and bad game philosophy on the part of the gamers and designers both.

Edited by Kjudoon, 06 January 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[DAYLEET]

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

That is because most players play all game modes as Skirmish.

We need more imaginative game modes. That and maps large enough to compliment them.

The middle is the closest place to everywhere and you are not cornering yourself going there. Can't imagine a game mode where taking middle isnt the best idea or a map design that isnt completely frustrating.

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 01:28 PM, said:

Dayleet, let me ask you this, would you just go pew pew pew and try to win by killing if you:
A ) did not get points or Cbills for damage
B ) could not win except by completing the primary (non-killing) objective?

That's the difference between accomplishing a military objective and laying waste.

We have actually way too much laying waste here because of bad design and bad gameplay and bad game philosophy on the part of the gamers and designers both.

Thats a good question, i would definitely not play a fps if i wasnt going to shoot at people. It's the whole premise of this game, get in giant robot, kill people. I used to only have Conq and Assault queued. I played the obj, they are a nice variable in the chaos that a battle can be. I never seeked to win without fireing a shot because that would be pretty dumb in a shooter, might as well not install the game in the first place.

Edited by DAYLEET, 06 January 2016 - 01:33 PM.

[Kjudoon]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

The middle is the closest place to everywhere and you are not cornering yourself going there. Can't imagine a game mode where taking middle isnt the best idea or a map design that isnt completely frustrating.

And that is a Tic Tac Toe level of strategy and tactics. Another issue with this game is allowing this to even be possible.

[LordNothing]

the problem with the maps is simple, they are too small. look at the maps in MWLL and you get an idea of how a big map really helps a stompy robot game.the maps in mwo are designed to be arenas. if they were instead designed to be environments, they would be far more interesting.

second issue is they all have a single stand out feature. the citadel is a prime example. now what if there were two of them? maps need more than one strategic point so that there is some variety.

the third and possibly biggest problem is the game modes. most dont require you to go anywhere else. except possibly conquest. many games devolve into skirmish anyway and so you only go where the red doritos are, and that is usually the middle of the map unless it becomes a camplermfest which is just as unfun as center rushing. game modes are too simple and need diversity.

Edited by LordNothing, 06 January 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Mystere]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

The middle is the closest place to everywhere and you are not cornering yourself going there. Can't imagine a game mode where taking middle isnt the best idea or a map design that isnt completely frustrating.

We don't have to. It's called CW's Attack/Defend mode.

[Kjudoon]

LordNothing, on 06 January 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

the problem with the maps is simple, they are too small. look at the maps in MWLL and you get an idea of how a big map really helps a stompy robot game.

second issue is they all have a single stand out feature. the citadel is a prime example. now what if there were two of them? maps need more than one strategic point so that there is some variety.

the third and possibly biggest problem is the game modes. most dont require you to go anywhere else. except possibly conquest. many games devolve into skirmish anyway and so you only go where the red doritos are, and that is usually the middle of the map unless it becomes a camplermfest which is just as unfun as center rushing. game modes are too simple and need diversity.

One other significant change to this would be to increase match time to 30 minutes. Then, you could have slow mechs waddle to their objectives. The other thing on the player's side is to understand that this is not the 1980's where you drop a quarter in, hit play and then instantly start pew pewing. Time to stop developing for the Ritalin set.

[DAYLEET]

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

We don't have to. It's called CW's Attack/Defend mode.

The fight always happen at the same place. it's a middle btw, just not the topographic middle. CW can be resumed like this: walking in a straight line in a hallway to a choke point. Is that better than the the solo/group queue map where you can go where you want if you want to?

[Mystere]

DAYLEET, on 06 January 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

The fight always happen at the same place. it's a middle btw, just not the topographic middle. CW can be resumed like this: walking in a straight line in a hallway to a choke point. Is that better than the the solo/group queue map where you can go where you want if you want to?

Well, it's supposed to be similar to a siege. So the fight will usually happen in one place ... unless of course the defenders decide to sally and drive the attackers back to their spawn points.

There is a very good reason why I said:

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

We need more imaginative game modes. That and maps large enough to compliment them.

We need variety. The current five total game modes -- and worse, split between CW and the public queues -- do not "variety" make.

[Kjudoon]

Quote

Thats a good question, i would definitely not play a fps if i wasnt going to shoot at people. It's the whole premise of this game, get in giant robot, kill people. I used to only have Conq and Assault queued. I played the obj, they are a nice variable in the chaos that a battle can be. I never seeked to win without fireing a shot because that would be pretty dumb in a shooter, might as well not install the game in the first place.

Yep. totally get what you're saying but we also must be aware of the pair of false premises inherent in the statement "I would not play an FPS if I wasn't going to shoot at people."

False premise #1:
The intent is to avoid all combat.

False premise #2:
That an objective will not go undefended if it is key to winning a match.

Also, something to consider is the amount of cunning and conniving that it takes to actually succeed in completing a military goal without firing a shot. I know I know, you can cap rush on assault! Been there done that dozens of times. Tee shirt is in the mail even. But... what if you bite the bullet and just defend base knowing full well if you are not out there, they will come to you.

How about this for an assault mode, you can't win unless you control (mechs standing on and not taking fire) both bases? Deathball is broken instantly or you're gonna have a lot of boring time. You gotta try and keep alive because you need at minimum 2 mechs to win.

This would work better of both bases were actually built like bases instead of undefended trucks out there in the middle of nowhere.

[Kjudoon]

sorry, that last post I got distracted and the thought kinda fell apart.

The point of the 2 bases/2 mech victory condition is to force smart gameplay that is goal oriented, and put a huge stake through the unholy monster known as skirmish. You will have to defend base and assault base, and if you meet the enemy in the open field, you must try to put them down or stealthily avoid them to then make a full assault on their base. Give them or two turrets as well. Nothing that would stop anything but a single seriously damaged mech but wouldn't act like a force multiplier.

If you decided to stay and deathball, and charge the one base, leaving yours undefended, you then risk losing it all instantly once the enemy team steps on base and takes it while their defenders occupy their base. this would assume that you don't use the "you aren't holding if you're taking fire" concept though but the current capture method that doesn't care. Can you see big changes to the gameplay with this type of assault?

(of course getting rid of mode voting and replacing skirmish mode with a single point caputre 'king of the hill' mode would be required)