109 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

HollowBassman, on 16 January 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

I know there is a push to set spawns in a way that taking the mountain is undesirable, but I think it would be better to embrace the possibility that it will be the go-to spot no matter where the spawns are located.

If the mountain is so needed, why have the rest of the map with all that space?

[Raubwurst]

Wildstreak, on 16 January 2016 - 06:04 PM, said:

If the mountain is so needed, why have the rest of the map with all that space?

Well... same question:
CW Invasion is based all around Omega. Why do the map consists of more than 200m around Omega?

Just because the Hill is a central place to fight, you don't need to go there every time.

[Flitzomat]

HollowBassman, on 16 January 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

I know there is a push to set spawns in a way that taking the mountain is undesirable, but I think it would be better to embrace the possibility that it will be the go-to spot no matter where the spawns are located. The following is my attempt to give each spawn a relatively equal chance of getting to either the face or the backside trails of the mountain.

You play long enough that this is simply not true. The ancient spawn points were usually leading to a F8 Antenna fight. There was so much complaining about the same fighting location that they changed the spawn points. No we complain about the new spawn point, naturally, as this is static and boring.

Only way to mix this up: dynamic spawn points.
(except for Alpine conquest as this is already the best mode/map combination there is)

And as a sidenote for the ones that think fighting for a hill is senseless: Just check the placement of every fortress there is on the world. Oh yeah they are all on top of hils.

[TheArisen]

In assault mode, move the base from G11 to K12. This would force the "eastern" team to have to defend the southern part of the map because if they go to H9 hill they can be easily flanked.

[Mech42Ace]

Happy to see the map itself isn't being deleted, it's got to be my favorite map in game.

In terms of spawnpoints I'd have to echo TygerLily's post on the first page.

[Omi_]

Volkodav, on 14 January 2016 - 01:58 AM, said:

I'm aware that my post doesn't contribute to the intention of this thread, but Volkodav's solution of making the mountain impassable and adding tunnels through it rings as the best idea I've ever heard concerning this map.

I strongly believe that there is no good place to move the spawn points to that will significantly improve gameplay because any change that avoids emphasizing the mountain would effectively use less of the map than we do now and would shrink the spawn-to-spawn travel distance considerably. This solution, at least, requires minimal modification, introduces opportunities for brawlers and might encourage players to swing towards the underused south of the map in order to avoid a bad engagement if they can't brawl.

Edited by Hornsby, 18 January 2016 - 02:14 AM.

[Wildstreak]

Raubwurst, on 17 January 2016 - 02:49 AM, said:

Well... same question:
CW Invasion is based all around Omega. Why do the map consists of more than 200m around Omega?

Just because the Hill is a central place to fight, you don't need to go there every time.

Problem is trying to get most PUGs to do something not built into their programming is like trying to change the color of the sky using a brush with no paint. I feel on some maps like I am watching the nature channel.

Flitzomat, on 17 January 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

And as a sidenote for the ones that think fighting for a hill is senseless: Just check the placement of every fortress there is on the world. Oh yeah they are all on top of hils.

Not all of them, heck a large number of them are not on hills.

[DerMaulwurf]

Flitzomat, on 17 January 2016 - 06:32 AM, said:

You play long enough that this is simply not true. The ancient spawn points were usually leading to a F8 Antenna fight. There was so much complaining about the same fighting location that they changed the spawn points. No we complain about the new spawn point, naturally, as this is static and boring.

Only way to mix this up: dynamic spawn points.
(except for Alpine conquest as this is already the best mode/map combination there is)

And as a sidenote for the ones that think fighting for a hill is senseless: Just check the placement of every fortress there is on the world. Oh yeah they are all on top of hils.

I agree that remembering how things were with the old spawn points is a good thing.

Old conquest was horrible. Despites ostensibly making use of the whole map, the fights still regularly happened at the same cap point. So like in current Conquest/Skirmish the width of the map was lost on walking to the same point most of the time, instead of offering different points to fight over. The one thing it had going in its favor was that playing for a cap win was actually feasible.

And I agree, since the old place to be was the F8 'radio tower' spawn points are proven to affect the fighting location.

Since conquest is the game mode that works best on Alpine it should be the prime inspiration. It also shows that restricting action to parts of the map can actually work without losing the selling points: long range fights and space to maneuver. The challenge is to fight sets of spawn points for conquest and skirmish where more than two points in between are desirable to hold.

[Darwins Dog]

So right now there are three versions of alpine spawns (skirmish, conquest, and assault). Would it be possible to increase that to 7?

I like the division that Wildstreak came up with (map quoted below). Personally I would like to see conquest spread out over the map (not too far, but enough to spread the action out). For Skirmish and assault, however, why not have three sets of spawn points/bases for each mode? It keeps things interesting, but ensures that you don't have mechs spawning in bad locations.

Here's the map for reference and credit:

Wildstreak, on 16 January 2016 - 08:06 AM, said:

Another idea:

Is it possible to add more conquest points? The map is big enough that it might be more interesting with 7. Then again it might be too many to keep track of during a fight.

[Wildstreak]

Actually what killed old Alpine Conquest is the points were so far apart, one team could wipe all but the enemy Light that was capping and got cap lead. That Light is running around the map edges waiting for the points to rack up and the remaining pack is too slow to move about and find him over all that space.

The days of the old Conquest points.

[DrRedCoat]

I think (and hope) when they say to spread out Conquest points, that they aren't talking about throwing them as far as they were in the original conquest. Instead, I imagine they are talking about stringing Epsilon, Theta, and Kappa out from each other some so you can't shoot one from the other (for instance, Kappa to K9 and Epsilon to G7).
I'd also like to echo the sentiment that the eastern base in assault needs to be further from the mountain. Camping the mountain should not also allow you to protect your base. It's like assault on Terra Therma. If a team camps the cauldron, then fine. Let them have it and go for their base. They can't defend base from the position of power. Same thing should work here. I'd say either move it behind the wind breaks around F11/12 or behind the ridge around F10.

[TexAce]

Is this still on?
For assault and Skirmish make them what they were when the map launched.

For Conquest I like the first idea presented in this thread.

[Duke Nedo]

Tina Benoit, on 13 January 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Hello MechWarriors!

As you know, we are keeping the Alpine Peak map instead of removing it in replacement with the new upcoming Polar Highlands map (which is the next map to come!) and therefore we will not be planning to make any adjustment to the current Alpine Peak map except, for the Spawn Locations.

So I've been looking around the forums for feedback on your thoughts where the Spawn Points should be for Alpine Peak and so far I've gathered some of these concerns and feedback below...

- Conquest points should be more spread around.
- Skirmish spawns = unbalanced travel lanes.
- Team who spawns near the Mountain have a larger field of vision.
- The older spawns for Alpine Peak are preferred than current.
- Skirmish spawns should be rotated clockwise a bit.
- Spawns to avoid fights on the hill.

However I wasn't able to find actual spawn location feedback on where you would like to see these spawn points exactly. That's why I'm posting the map image below, so you can help us pin point and draw on it where you'd like to see them.

So go ahead and grab the image to draw on it and then you can re-post the image in this thread to share it!
Also feel free to just post the approx. grid coordinates if you don't want to use the image. All the feedback is appreciated.

Thank you very much!

Imo the big problem with the map is that the mountain blocks movement too much, that really restricts good spawn placements. Thinking the I8, J9, I10 drops, had they been scalable it would open up many possibilities...

Perhaps something lke:

Assault: Bases in F5/H12
Skirmish: D7/L7ish?
Conquest: don't know, just not any objectives that can be guarded from the top of the mountain and a bit more spread out

[Tina Benoit]

Thank you so much everyone for your feedback on Spawn locations for Alpine!!

After having a meeting with Lead Designer Paul and Level Designer Thad, we've taken a look at all of these together, discussing the strategies and paths on each suggestion and have found that TygerLily's suggestions particularly stood out and work very well for the map.
With the slightest possible adjustments to TygerLily's placements, we will be going to implement those spawn points which you will see change; more than likely; in the next patch!

Thank you very much MechWarriors!

[Raubwurst]

That was the proposal:

TygerLily, on 13 January 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:

Assault
Terrain features and initial proximity promote people moving more toward each other around the radio tower. Northern most lances are almost within immediate engagement long ranges and sensor sightlines. This initial combat/blips will help consolidate team movement to the north. Neither team is in the Southern "low ground" fighting the high ground in i9.



Conquest (Unchanged)

Fun as is, IMO. The Eastern side lances can capture Gamma, the other two lances race to consolidate and each side has two "easy" points (Eps N, Kappa S) with two contestable points to help push and pull the game (Sig, Theta).



Skirmish
Southern part of the map is like its own separate map. It has generally flat overall elevation with various hills for cover (similar to what Polar Highlands sounds like it is aiming for) which would make it a lot more fun and fair for the various ranges people bring.

The initial proximity will make cohesion in the south more likely with big terrain features blocking immediate access i9 for the Red Team. Blue Team also has long sightlines to attack Red if they attempt that strategy.

Also, Skirmish and Assault play similarly so having them occur on opposite sides of the map will keep the game fresh (much like what variable spawn points would accomplish).

[Kjudoon]

I really REALLY hope that you guys don't go through with Skirmquest points that Tigerlily put up, or the Skirmish points which basically end the use of 2/3rds of the map.

I thought Queenblade /thread with his proposal.

Conquest points should not be within LOS or weapons range of each other. Ever. they should always be distances that are at a disadvantage to big slow mechs who should be forced to plan to go to one or two... or maybe 3 points in a match at most... not be able to cover 3 points at once. That's skirmish. It's why the top four conquest maps in the game are:

Polar Highlands (yes, instantly #1)
Terra Therma (If only you could get players to stop deathballing theta)
Tourmaline (If only you could get players to stop deathballing theta)
Forest Colony (They need to be spread out more, but it's in the right direction.)

Edited by Kjudoon, 21 January 2016 - 03:51 PM.

[Kjudoon]

Hopefully this is not too late for input because what I'm seeing has me nervous.

Spawns. All three lances would drop in their respective circles. They are two grids minimum away from 2 caps. one easily defended, the other contested. Lastly, the furthest one away will be the one of greatest need and hopefully draw lights, and fast mediums and heavies to it.

The orange hexes show the most likely areas of highest conflict. Note also that the west side will be able to bring the highest point into the mix at F3, but only certain mechs could make it up there for tactical use. Also, "Sniper Peak" at H10 would not be a highly advantageous position save for one cap point.

We cannot have the points close to one another, nor the spawns be taken as granted. Lastly, none of the caps would be given automatically to a team, meaning that technically, this match could go the full 15 minutes with zero caps being done.

The goal is to break up the deathball and use portions of the map rarely if ever used. Although a team would start grouped, it would not necessarily be an assured deathball because of the distances put between cap points. If the majority of the team commits to just taking the west or north side (depending on spawn), and pounding the enemy there, they will leave multiple caps uncovered and most likely be unable to flip them if the enemy caps and they lose all their lights. This will force a very precarious decision. You might be able to kill the main force of the enemy then send out by 2s and 3s to baby sit the remaining caps, but it's doubtful you will have time, or the manpower to do so once complete unless it is a total roll.

[TygerLily]

Kjudoon, on 21 January 2016 - 03:46 PM, said:

basically end the use of 2/3rds of the map.

I think the argument is that, well, we already only use 2/3rds of the map... Except one team has an inherent advantage over the other.

The question was "by only moving spawns, how can we fix this?" Without overhauling the map, moving the 2/3rds we play on to a place where no one has inherent advantage is preferable.

I love people's ideas for tunnels under i9, or moving objectives etc... But that isn't what was asked.

Edited by TygerLily, 22 January 2016 - 07:00 AM.

[Kjudoon]

Right, Tiger. For me the question is how to put the whole map into play on all modes. Conquest is the easiest to force the issue. Skirmish isn't the biggest issue, assault sure is. And although I like one part of your skirmish points, I am very nervous of anything that puts play into a smaller area. Player herd instincts is bad enough.

[Omi_]

I'm very happy with the proposed solution, even if it does break up the map as a whole. We don't use the more interesting parts of the map as it is.