109 replies to this topic

[Ragnahawk]

QueenBlade, on 13 January 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

Dang that's like 1200 m apart. Definitely favors light snipers.

[Stingray Productions]

QueenBlade, on 13 January 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

This is the coolest idea yet! Could we please try it like this PGI?! (minus putting a lance right in the enemy's base)

Edited by Stingray1234, 14 January 2016 - 07:04 AM.

[DivineEvil]

My suggestions follows. Can be similar to what other members has proposed, but please don't mind it, I haven't took time to evaluate.

Assault:

Spoiler

- This layout removes the role of H9 hill for protecting either bases. Both bases are in cover from the hill.
- Alpha (assult/heavy) lances are placed assuming direct confrontation across H5-I5 sectors.
- Bravo (heavy/medium) lances are placed assuming trading along the H7 sector with capacity to help Alpha lances.
- Charlie (medium/light) lances are placed to compete for the H9 hill or for direct impact near the ramps in H10-I10.
- All spawn points are weighted by distance from bases and key map points.

Skirmish:

Spoiler

- In this layout, both teams are placed so that they both compete for the H9 hill on equal ground. Running distance to the broad ramp at H8 and climbing ramps at H10-I10 is weighted for both sides. Neither team can climb the hill without endangering themselves.
- Red team is placed much, much closer to the hill, because it takes them a long hook detour to reach it, while Blue team takes straight paths, albeit across the relatively open ground.

Conquest variant 1 (compact)

Spoiler

- This layout significantly reduces the active area of the combat, which promotes more dynamic confrontations, but reduces the role of Light mechs. Distances are equalized, and currently outsided Resource points are placed closer to the action.
- H9 hill plays no role in control of any points.

Conquest variant 2 (expansive)

Spoiler

- This layout on the contrary expands the active area of the combat, which uses the entire map and places the huge accent on the Light mech activities, but reduces the fluidity of control, as any slower mechs take ages to move between the points.
- H9 hill plays secondary role in control of some points, but all of them are either covered or distanced from it to reduce the necessity to hold it.

Edited by DivineEvil, 14 January 2016 - 12:54 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

My biggest complaint is how the assaults spawn SO far away (in solo queue). That lance should be closer.

[Bhodi Li773]

Randomizing spawn points would be great. For conquest it would be nice if K11 , H13,L7, I5 and E6. This would mean teams would have to split up to conquer and varying points around middle of map would become battle area( when travelling to other points across map) while making use of the outer edges of map that people rarely ever go to. Another option too would be a summer version of Alpine(trees for cover). Tunnels in town (G9 to cut through mountains) are already in place just buried. These tunnels could even branch out into I8 or corner of J10( the whole area under Cemetary Hill could be an underground mech or garage area to fight in).You could just melt snow and make Cemetary Hill(H9-10, I9-10) into sheer cliff faces that can not be accessed by anyone.

[clee]

I have no meaningful contribution to make to this topic, except that I think it's a good thing that the spawns are getting some work on Alpine.

I however would like to take this oportunity to tell you, Tina, that I love you and would like to have your babies. That is all.

[Night Thastus]

drunkblackstar, on 13 January 2016 - 11:48 PM, said:

MAKE THE SPAWN POINTS RANDOMIZED. AT EVERY MAP.

THE END OF STORY.

This simple and cheap measure will make the gaming process x10 interesting.

While this was my suggestion too, I made no pretense that it was easy or cheap. I don't have experience in CryEngine, and I have a feeling that it's significantly more complicated than you'd think.

I hope it's possible, sure. But don't make assumptions.

[McBrahman]

With "randomized spawn points" you mean:

multi-set-of-well-choosen-spawnpoint-tripel per map.

if you mean totaly random that will be chaos and absolute desaster everytime. So maybe a better word for randomized is needed.
The other idea of well chosen spawnpoints in differnet parts of the map might be nice.

But is this discussion about more spawnpoints per map not a discussion about more maps??
(make more; not so big as we dont use them full)

[Too Much Love]

McBrahman, on 14 January 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

With "randomized spawn points" you mean:

multi-set-of-well-choosen-spawnpoint-tripel per map.

if you mean totaly random that will be chaos and absolute desaster everytime.

If it is absolutely random, you could spawn in the middle of the rock. Of cource, I mean pre-chosen locations, like 10 or 20 of them, and then the randomizer can chose it.

[jper4]

spawns do need to be closer together and for assault bases need to be on a north-south line instead of east-west (old epsi/old theta spawns say for ease of base setting since there is already coding for those places as cap points) with spawns adjusted accordingly to keep king of the mountain out of play (epsi is just out of hilltop weapon range I think, forcing them to go into the open- or just slide the base further west to ensure it).

I like divineevil's conquest location setup, either version. more space between caps than the current setup but not nascar-y like the original cap points were, remember theta way out in the boonies by itself in the original setup? instead these designs force people to guard more to the center (new theta) instead of "my lights outrun your lights on the edges and everyone else can fight at epsi or something" if they try that everyone else is close enough to respond.

[100mile]

Skirmish: put one teams spawn points in E5/E6 and the other teams spawn points in M6/M7..this puts them equidistant from the hill and opens attack lanes on the left side of the map.
Assault: Keep the base in J5 and put the spawn points out in front by a grid square and move the other base to K12 with the Spawn points out in front by a grid square. Again this puts them equidistant from the Hill opens attack lanes on the south side of the map and makes taking the hill problematic because it opens your flank to attack.
Conquest: The suggestions of spreading them out a little from the above posts seem like the best suggestion and leave the spawn points basically where they are now.

If you did these 3 things or something similar would necessitate different attack points and ensure a different game play for every game type.

[Evengar Dragonis]

My version:
Please return back the old version for Conquest points and the starting point for 'Mechs.

Edited by Leonid, 14 January 2016 - 11:50 PM.

[LoganVI]

I agree with TygerLily, Conquest is fine, the objectives force people to push off of H9 and the main hill, at least at a certain point. Assault it can be a chore to convince people to get into good positions, the eastern spawns seem to have an advantage with getting into position quicker. Fights only happen in the J line or south if someone convinces one team to swing around, but even then it tends to be in the same area Conquest matches go. In general when done well it gets a tad repetitive as it focuses around the same areas repeatedly and large parts of the map get ignored.

[Kjudoon]

I cannot think of a better way to handle this for conquest than to just return to the old spawn points where you had to run your butt off. Though it would be nice to see maybe a squad spawn in the K/L 2/3 line area or on top of F3. that's a cool spot nobody uses.

Edited by Kjudoon, 14 January 2016 - 12:57 PM.

[LCCX]

It is unclear whether or not Conquest capture points and Assault bases are "spawns" and can be moved, or not. As such, I've included both suggestions for changing and not changing these points. My argument/reasoning for the suggestions is also included.

* Solo queue does organize mechs by weight into lances, but I don't think these lances get assigned specific drop locations. And, in any case, group queue definitely does not arrange lance drops in any such way. As such I think the mech spawn locations should not assume that any particular kind of mech is getting dropped there.
* The suggested location icons are approximate.

IMHO:
Conquest:

• As things stand, the action seems to ignore the farthest capture point >90% of the time, focusing on the 4 points which are within a couple sectors of each other. It is so far away and combat is frequently so important that it is simply too risky for anyone to go there. If a single mech goes, then it may get jumped by 2-4 lights; if a whole lance goes, then the rest of the team may die in need of them back in the main area within a couple sectors of Theta; if a single light does capture it, there is almost never time to re-capture it before the end of the match.
  
• Without moving the points, there is no way heavies or assaults can ever justify the travel cost of going to the outer points initially/first. Without changing that, luring lights or fast mediums out to the outer points is just that - luring them away from fighting with the rest of the team when enough points are close enough together that the fight will decide the match, not running around capturing points. The points aren't far enough apart (see Terra Therma) for "capture points" to be a reliable strategy compared with "murder the other team first, then capture points while mopping up".

Assault:

• As things stand, the action either ignores both bases or focuses on the G-11 city base >90% of the time. IMHO, the dominant reason for this is that the rewards for fighting, even a moderate loss, are much higher than a clever capture victory achieved through stealth, positioning, and speed. Because of the terrain power of the H/I-9/10 hill (and to a lesser extent, the H-11 hill across the ravine) able to provide cover and line of sight (LoS) to the city base, blue (the city base team) has an extreme incentive to camp in safety so long as it has some range. At most, a stripped mech or a light working on W:L or tier instead of cbills or xp will wander off to start capturing the red base ~2km away.

Skirmish:

• As things stand, the spawns for skirmish are the principle reason for the H/I-9/10 hill's meta dominance. The hills are good, but a sufficiently patient foe can wait in I-6/7 or near the F-8 radio tower.

Not Changing Points/Bases:

Spoiler

Conquest:

• I've approximately spread out the mech spawns so that each team has a lance equidistant from their closest central point and a side point, same for the other side point, and a lance equidistant between the other two lances and also the same distance from the team's closest central point as the other team's similarly situated lance.
  
• The intent is for the travel cost to the farthest points to be less than it is now for the farthest out lances while otherwise leaving travel time to the team's nearest central point and Theta unchanged.

Assault:

• I've opted for a non-symmetric drop/spawn pattern. By placing all 3 red lances together and approximately equidistant to the H/I-9/10 hill and the blue base, they have the initiative to choose whether to stay as a team or split up, and whether to move to the base, to the H/I-9/10 hill, or back around the base taking the northern route around to the H-11 hill. The blue lances are spread out such that they need to quickly regroup on one or the other hill, but generally already have the more defensible location and the farthest blue lance is close enough to the red base to take it if the red team sends no defenders back, doesn't scout out blue's movement, doesn't commit to taking blue's base, etc.
  
• Still, this isn't great because blue will 99% of the time never move to take red's base because it isn't worth doing so if you don't get kills and kill assists first. In all probability, blue will still rush to take the hills and red will have to choose to either race to the hill (hoping to be faster) or ignore the hills and rush the blue base (hoping to not be sniped to death). And of course they will almost always choose the hill because capturing bases is worthless in terms of cbills and xp without combat occurring first.

Skirmish:

• I tried to put the skirmish spawns:
  
  • so that teams are sufficiently close to each other that combat happens sooner if they do not first move to the hill
    
  • so that red can intercept the rear end of blue if blue rushes the hill
    
  • and so that blue gets to the hill first if red rushes the hill

[Goose]

Sereglach, on 13 January 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

As pointed out before, one of the biggest and most glaring issues with Alpine peaks is the entire existence of the layout around "Murder Mountain" (aka, H/I 9/10 quadrant of grid squares). Spawn points should be shifted away from those with the intent of shifting the fight elsewhere. The map is large enough that if a game mode tends to push the fight to a different side of the map, there is still plenty of room for variety.

Conquest

Spoiler

Team 1:
Alpha Lance - D10
Bravo Lance - F11
Charlie Lance - F13

Team 2:
Alpha Lance - K/L2
Bravo Lance - K4
Charlie Lance - J5

Cap Points:
Gamma - SE Corner of F11
Sigma - Center-West of J5
Kappa - Dead Center of M7
Epsilon - NW Corner of K12
Theta - NE Corner of G7

Reasoning: There are a number of small outposts on Alpine Peaks, but they never seem to see any sort of action. This setup makes these all the pivotal capture points for Conquest. It also serves as an added bonus of shifting the battle to the southern half of the map, and away from "Murder Mountain". The typical center of battle on the map has little to no easy access towards the other capture points. While sniper or missile support might want to set up shop to rain down supporting fire on the enemy, it otherwise eliminates the usual sink-hole of combat from the equation.

… I was thinkin' you move the G7 cap up to E8 (still has cover the way), or maybe G4; All the team spawns should be down in the J ~ L rows; And none of the points start capped …

… But that might not prevent deathballing.

… Do we really need to know the score, or what side has which cap, if it's not had someone come within sensor range of said cap, recently?

[KMCA]

You know, everyone keeps calling it "Murder Mountain" But I prefer "Meta Mountain"

Conquest is actually fine. Don't try to fix it, please.

Randomized dropzones would be interesting, perhaps 6 drop zones per team, although this will make the "my assault lance spawned so far from our team." Much worse. I'd still have to say that THIS would be the map to try that on, It's a very large map open with oodles of opportunities that sadly always just ends up on Meta Mountain.

An entire map that plays like where the current (trio) of caps are on conquest would possibly be the best map in the game. That has been a problem with the newer maps, you guys keep getting too fancy and then it all gets ignored for 1 place. New River City isn't too bad for this but New Forrest Colony might as well just be the arch and 2 squares in every direction.

[Sereglach]

Goose, on 14 January 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

I was thinkin' you move the G7 cap up to E8 (still has cover the way), or maybe G4; All the team spawns should be down in the J ~ L rows; And none of the points start capped

If no one starts with any points capped, then it tends to exacerbate the issue, because there is no sense of urgency . . . there's no score piling up from the get-go.

Also, if you move the proposed G7 cap point all the way up to E8, then it's so far removed from combat that people will mostly (read: 99.9% of the time) ignore it, not unlike what happens now with the current Gamma located FAR FAR removed from combat in F11. I think the only reason anyone enjoys the current setup of Alpine Conquest is because it basically removes the Conquest facet of the equation and encourages a deathball assault, since the remaining points are so close to each other.

Goose, on 14 January 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

… But that might not prevent deathballing.

No, it wouldn't. Again, I think the only reason any people like the current Alpine Conquest is the fact that the points are so close together that capping is a non-issue. The New River City suffers the same issue, because the cap points are basically in the exact same place as the old ones. They're too close together and make death-balling an easy strategy on the map. They NEED to be far enough apart that capping, and the game mode objective, actually become a deciding factor in the battle. Nearly every map really does need to have the Conquest points spread out much more than they currently are. River City would be a whole different experience (and not just feel like playing on a spruced-up version of the old map) if the Conquest points actually utilized the whole map . . . same with the Assault bases, for that matter.

For example, look at Terra Therma. While most people seem to hate the map, it has one of the best Conquest layouts out there. It puts most of the map to use; and the points are far enough apart that the objective truly matters. Lights doing their job and capping out the map have turned the tables in their favor many-a-time, because there's not enough opposition left on the map to secure points towards the end of the battle.

This leads into the next point . . .

Goose, on 14 January 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

… Do we really need to know the score, or what side has which cap, if it's not had someone come within sensor range of said cap, recently?

Yes, they do need to know the score and control of caps. It's part of the strategy of the game mode and should be a pivotal part of the game mode. PGI needs to make the primary objective of these game modes matter a whole lot more than they currently do. If they succeed in doing that, then we'd probably hear a whole lot less of "every game mode just plays like a version of Skirmish" and a whole lot more of "here's the strategy you need to use in this game mode".

Personally, in game modes other than Skirmish, I think the rewards for the match should be pushed away from just killing the enemy and a lot more towards actually completing the primary objective of the match. There are a lot of ways that can be achieved, but that's not a discussion for here.

[Nightshade24]

Why not increase the size of alpine peaks so the meta mountain is much more of to the side?

[smokefield]

They said the map will not be changed in any way..just the spawns !

Another thing I've noticed is some proposals is how people, in the effort to avoid that mountain, are practically voiding half of the map. for example gaSyeraSS proposals....Yes probably no one will ever fight on that mountain...but whow ill ever see that part of the map again ? ...no one will ever go on the right side unless running beeing the last one (nothing personal man..just making a point). We want the map to be used as much as possible not to restrain our own liberty that way.

Best ideas are the ones that make full use of the map and terrain and give the possibility of scenarios that use every road/valley/hill...even if some are less probably than others. those ideas where its clear from the start that one strategy will be used all the time are bad...cause it is the same as the situation we have now. Please have in mind this when you want to propose something. If you want a better map that is...

thanks.