80 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

SmithMPBT, on 06 January 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

World of Tanks map designers avoid the central landmark problem by making each side of the map a distorted mirror image of the opposite side. Keeps things fair, generally avoids deathballs & circling, plus it creates multiple attack lanes. Granted the line of sight and camo mechanic greatly effects map design, but something in the WoT style could be a nice change.

Kjudoon, on 06 January 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

Current level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 3x3

---|---|---
---|---|---

Needed level of map strategy possible: Tic Tac Toe 5x5

---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---
---|---|---|---|---

Go ahead, take the middle square. You are still a long way to victory and still have many ways to lose.

These two things are basically why Canyon is arguably the best map in MWO, despite its tiny size. If you just made a 4 times bigger version of Canyon, copy-paste the current Canyon into a 2x2 grid, it would be a fantastic map.

Canyon is basically a big 5x5 tic tac toe, which is almost symmetrical in both the x and y axis. It's not completely symmetrical, unfortunately, which means that the southern spawn has very limited options. But it's close to being a truly great map. There are no huge central features, so you can basically be attacked from all sides no matter where you go.

The weird thing is, Canyon is one of their oldest maps, and they never really managed to replicate its success. Mining Collective seems to have been an effort to do so, but Mining Collective has far too few paths to move, so it becomes predictable. It's much, much harder to flank on Mining Collective than on Canyon.

[Mystere]

SmithMPBT, on 06 January 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

World of Tanks map designers avoid the central landmark problem by making each side of the map a distorted mirror image of the opposite side. Keeps things fair, generally avoids deathballs & circling, plus it creates multiple attack lanes. Granted the line of sight and camo mechanic greatly effects map design, but something in the WoT style could be a nice change.

Yuck! Yuck! Yuck!

It's a war(game). Screw fair! A symmetrical map is not what I am interested in.

Edited by Mystere, 06 January 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[ShadowFire]

Sadly whoever at PGI that came up with the highly limiting "choke point"/"arena" one trick pony map designs really, I mean, REALLY!!! screwed over our MWO game play. My best guess was that they simply wanted players to get to the fights quickly. Sadly they have been slow to learn this is a terrible idea on so many levels. The latter maps have improved somewhat but someone at PGI still does not seem to be fully convinced that these restrictive map designs lead to very boring game play.

Either that someone at PGI better either get over their ego/stagnant stance and start aggressively 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 rather fun and has been steadily improving since the beginning.) The redo of River City and Forest Colony were a great start on PGI's part but map generation should be happening at three times its current rate. Truly as many posters have mentioned, PGI's decision to not involve its fan based talent in this endeavor has been a colossal mistake. Maybe there is some legal/technical restrictions involved but most all of the best maps of MW4 and MWLL were fan developed. Could not PGI allow map modders to submit 80% completed maps so PGI could finish them to their liking thereby adding content at a much faster rate?


Anyway, my wish is for PGI to make larger maps, with less constrictions, less out of bound areas, multiple options at ever corner 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. CW should have a strategic plan, somewhat like the old mechwarrior league play with logistics, economies and dropship movements affecting what drops are possible on what worlds and what rewards are given.

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. Games should started with multiple different mission objectives (and possibly different scoring goals) leading to greatly varied game play. That is what will keep this game fresh... Not simply dozens of new mechs with quirk rehashes every year or so. (Though new mechs, modules, weapons, the progressive technology of BT lore, will certainly help too.) Thanks.... Someone else can have the soapbox.... I want to play a couple of MWO games now.

Edited by ShadowFire, 06 January 2016 - 08:20 PM.

[Rampancy]

TBH this is primarily a player issue

Players refusing to use non-standard approaches to maps in MWO is like the people voting Dust II nonstop in Counter-Strike. People don't like having to change.

[Imperius]

#IfObjectivesMattered2016

[V O L T R O N]

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

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.

Thanks PGI!!!! Love the new map

[Lykaon]

Funky Bacon, on 06 January 2016 - 08:32 AM, said:

Still waiting for a proper city map with a whole huge city being in the middle on top of a hill or down in a bowl. And no open rivers or big parks going through it. Imagine River City without the river and fill it with more buildings. Huge city with huge buildings. Cover frigging EVERYWHERE! Would maybe suck for LRM Boats's and snipers the same way Alpine sucks for brawlers, but myeeh, smart pilots could still make it work.

If you had some large open lanes like a few crisscrossed super highway lanes there would be points where snipers and LRMs would be useful for area denial and point control.

[Noxcuse]

pgi dont know how to design a proper map witout center focus..all the time since 3 years..so no hope for an working map...

[Hawk_eye]

Noxcuse, on 23 January 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

pgi dont know how to design a proper map witout center focus..all the time since 3 years..so no hope for an working map...

Um, Polar Highlands might want to argue with you on that

[Anjian]

Mystere, on 06 January 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

Well, I asked for River City but PGI seemed to have lost something in translation:

That looks like Hong Kong to me.

Most people don't seem to realize it but River City is a rough image of Vancouver, B.C. That's PGI's hometown, and home to many Scifi TV shows where making it is like an industry.

The winding river in River City has roughly the same shape as the narrows, the location of the two bridges are somewhat correct, and the citadel is Stanley Park and downtown Vancouver. The bridge that connects the citadel to the upper north city is the Lion's Gate Bridge.

The old and the new Forest Village reminds me of the rocky coastlines in British Columbia.

Edited by Anjian, 25 January 2016 - 03:26 AM.

[Anjian]

SmithMPBT, on 06 January 2016 - 03:42 PM, said:

World of Tanks map designers avoid the central landmark problem by making each side of the map a distorted mirror image of the opposite side. Keeps things fair, generally avoids deathballs & circling, plus it creates multiple attack lanes. Granted the line of sight and camo mechanic greatly effects map design, but something in the WoT style could be a nice change.

In my observation, the maps in War Thunder Ground Forces are so much better than WoT's maps, and they did it without mirror imaging. Though it didn't start that way, the first two maps, Karelia and Ash River in the original forms, were among the worst maps I ever seen, literally allowing people to snipe from spawn to spawn. But they learned quickly, modifying the bad maps or turning them off from rotation without a single word. Each successive map gets better, and more realistic, as they are inspired from actual battle locations. Their El Alamein and Tunisia maps are especially good.

The WT maps feel like they have a natural environment, without the feeling of being an artificial arena. They have multiple attack lines, which means when we attack, we don't have the need to clump together like the WoT Lemming Train or the MWO Meatball. We rush to attack with tanks on a broad front, just like you see in the war movies. Then we will start to engage on multiple points around a large center, so there are multiple small battles simultaneously going on in different locations, and there are areas where you can brawl and you can snipe. And because the environment is destructable, unlike World of Tanks, just because you think you're safe, you are NOT safe, because someone can blow a shell right through the wall and kill you.

WoT has a tendency to say, put a town in one side or one corner. Teams tend to attack by hugging one flank or the other. There is a tendency for two battles going at the same time, each across the map, since usually, a WoT team also tends to try double pincer attacks. WTGF on the other hand, teams tend to flow like water, tanks taking multiple lanes, looking for a weakness across a wide front. If they penetrate that weakness, you will find enemy tanks heading towards your spawn areas. The respawn mechanic, WoT only having a single spawn, WTGF up to three spawns, changes the game since WTGF actually feels more like MWO's CW with multiple waves of attack, and players penetrating the lines heading for your spawn for spawn kills.

Edited by Anjian, 25 January 2016 - 03:54 AM.

[627]

Just want to drop this little Info. Before the great spawn point shuffle, Alpine spawns looked like this:


And despite these don't look so different from today, there was a huge difference how the map was played.

Nearly no one ever conquered Mount Tryhard at H9/H10. Many fights where at the antenna, sometimes on the hill and valley south of it and rarely you could see some action in the south on the 6/7 lane.

I'm all for mixing spawns up again on this map. You can make an asymetrical map fun with a little change, no need to overhaul the whole map, imho.

[MrMadguy]

You are completely wrong.
1) Players gravitate towards cover
2) Players gravitate towards each other

No cover at center - and map turns into stupid snipe-fest, where both teams hide from each other, till some of them won't get bored and start suicide rush. That's why players love maps with some central structure so much. That's why maps without it (Polar Highlands, River City, Forest Colony) - are so terrible.

Canyon Network - is best map in this game. Best balance between open space and cover - it's good for both sniping and brawling. Almost the only map, where you can flank/ambush/get closer in brawler without being noticed. Best size - no map space wasted. Best variance of tactics - you don't have to go to the only viable spot on the map. Fights happen everywhere across the map - at center, at corners, at edges. Every singe match is different. Every game mode is played differently. Only few maps have comparable quality - Frozen City, HPG Manifold and Mining Collective. All have some little flaws.

Conclusion - new maps should look more like Canyon Network.

Edited by MrMadguy, 25 January 2016 - 04:58 AM.

[Red Shrike]

Polar Highlands is the best map to come out in a long while.


As for city maps:

[Bud Crue]

What I would like to see to improving maps has nothing to do with the maps. I thing having drop zones being essentially random (with perhaps a modifier to ensure that most of the time that lances of a given company are relatively close together) would go a long way to spicing things up.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I'm not sure a focal point is a bad thing. In PUGlandia it gives players a general object to form up on and keeps a team relatively together. In group drops, at least a team is more likely to communicate and can simply just pick a different tactic. Yes NASCAR kind of stinks, but having PUG teams wander off all over the place kind of stinks too. I just wish that once a team flocks to that high ground, they would actually make the effort to take it.

I think Polar Highlands will be very telling as time goes on. Polar doesn't really have a focal point like other maps. It is a huge map of rolling planes and crevices. We will see if people tend to like it or hate it as more time passes.

[Mystere]

Anjian, on 25 January 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

That looks like Hong Kong to me.

Most people don't seem to realize it but River City is a rough image of Vancouver, B.C. That's PGI's hometown, and home to many Scifi TV shows where making it is like an industry.

The winding river in River City has roughly the same shape as the narrows, the location of the two bridges are somewhat correct, and the citadel is Stanley Park and downtown Vancouver. The bridge that connects the citadel to the upper north city is the Lion's Gate Bridge.

The old and the new Forest Village reminds me of the rocky coastlines in British Columbia.

It is Hong Kong, and I get goosebumps just imagining an MWO map of that size.

[Anjian]

This is part of Vancouver, British Columbia.

Pretty sure the layout is generally familiar to all of you.

[Anjian]

That look you see in Forest Valley. So Canadian...

[Tripzter]

sycocys, on 06 January 2016 - 08:17 AM, said:

Mapmakers never played a MW game before they got hired? Sometimes seems like Russ didn't either because he greenlights it all.

and now 3 years later they still havent played a single game.