34 replies to this topic

[XX Sulla XX]

All of this stuff going on about Polar Highlands has got me thinking more about map design and what works best for over all for the most amount of people.

Here are a few things that should be true of all maps.

1. Maps should not have small objects like sharp rocks and roots and bumps to get your feet hung on. No one like to get killed because the foot of their mech is hung on a root they cant even see. There is no reason to have this kind of thing on maps.

2. Maps should have many options for game play instead of forced central game play.

3. Maps should be even for both sides so one set of spawn locations is not better than others.

4. Personally I believe visibility should be good on most maps.

5. Maps should be able to support different ranges and play styles and should not be to specialized for short or long range play.

More ideas of things all maps need let me know.

Specific map changes.

Alpine Peaks - This would be a good map if it did not have the one key hill in the middle. If the center was filled with small hills that were balanced for both sides much more of the map would be used and it would be a great map.


Canyon Network - This is a very good map already. The one thing it could use would be many more ramps where larger mechs can get out of the Canyons.


Caustic Valley - This is better than it was in many ways. And maybe it should just stay the one map with a central feature for variety. Exceptions to rules now and then are not bad for the game.

Crimson Strait - This is not a bad map but it could be much better. I believe it was a mistake to limit crossing the center of the map to the saddle or going around the end of the mountain. If the entire middle of the map was open and he boundary pushed back there would be many more places to fight and to flank etc.

Forest Colony - The main problem with this map is the big mountain in middle that cant be crossed. Because of this almost all fighting happens on one side of the mountain and huge amounts of the map are just wasted. There is no good reason to take a big chunk out of the middle of the map with the mountain that is there.

Frozen City - This is another map like Crimson Strait that needs opened up more. The mountain with the tunnel in it should be changed or removed so that all movement is not shifted just to one side of the map. The heart shape really hurts this map I think. And again like Crimson and Forest Colony it would open up a lot more of the map for use.

HPG Manifold - This is another map that might be a good exception. Yes it has a central feature but as long as every single map does not have this its not to bad. Over all a fun map although a bit repetitive on how it plays.

Polar Highlands - This map is very very divisive the way its designed now. But I do not think it had to be that way. Being able to move over all of it is great. Visibility is good and size etc is fine. But what holds it back is how flat it is. If it was a cold version of Canyon network with a lot more ramps and gentle slopes but the same depth of canyons and cover as canyon network I think it would be the best map in the game. But as it is its a map half the people love and half the people hate.


River City - This map has gotten better with the new cover and larger size. But there are still many things that could be done to make it better. There are lots of little ramps and short sharp elevations in the buildings to hang your feet. Many buildings are to close together. But over all it is much better than it was. I do look forward to a real city map at some point though.

Terra Therma - I think this map is a prime example of how a central point can ruin a map. If this map just did not have the huge central "castle" type point it would be a much funner map.


The Mining Collective - This is one of my personal favorite maps. I like how it has several levels that can be used. And I like how the central point is not so good as to control the entire map.

Tourmaline Desert - This is an over all fun map. The cover placement is not perfect but over all not a bad map.

Viridian Bog - This map has been a prime example of pointless things that catch mechs. These things do not make play more fun just more frustrating. It has gotten a bit better but there are still more roots etc that could be removed. Except for the roots it can be a very fun map with its random cover and no central point.



I saved the CW maps for another day.

Edited by XX Sulla XX, 27 January 2016 - 05:12 PM.

[Accused]

I like polar the way it is. If anything it needs giant crabs that randomly drag your mech through the ice, and wompas.

[XX Sulla XX]

Accused, on 27 January 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

I like polar the way it is. If anything it needs giant crabs that randomly drag your mech through the ice, and wompas.

I do agree on the Wampa. Just every so often grab a Commando and eat it.

[adamts01]

Not Commandos, they aren't the problem. If anything, wampas should be attracted to the sound of LRM fire. There you go, balance restored to the universe.

[RedDevil]

Polar Highlands is like may favourite map. We need a flatish map finally.

[Y E O N N E]

Polar is hilariously awesome how it is. I don't even think it's too flat; it's insanely easy to stay in cover and make trades from new, random positions with fire-and-maneuver tactics. If there were legit high points, you'd have focus points and focus points are exactly what people complain about.

[XX Sulla XX]

adamts01, on 27 January 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Not Commandos, they aren't the problem. If anything, wampas should be attracted to the sound of LRM fire. There you go, balance restored to the universe.

That could work but with the things from Tremors.

Yeonne Greene, on 27 January 2016 - 05:48 PM, said:

Polar is hilariously awesome how it is. I don't even think it's too flat; it's insanely easy to stay in cover and make trades from new, random positions with fire-and-maneuver tactics. If there were legit high points, you'd have focus points and focus points are exactly what people complain about.

Yes its great if you love hill humping trading as the main form of game play.

[Fiona Marshe]

How to fix maps:

1. Tell players who get killed by the terrain to "learn to play";
2. Proceed to kill all enemy mechs with 'reverse meta' loadouts (ie. LRMs).
3. Profit from their inability to learn.

[Wintersdark]

RedDevil, on 27 January 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

Polar Highlands is like may favourite map. We need a flatish map finally.

I strongly agree with this.

We badly needed a map like this. It's flatISH, but there's ample cover everywhere that allows free, covered movement all over the map with ease.

Many players fail to use that cover, because it's very easy to just walk out, but people doing stupid things is no reason to change maps. PH is absolutely fine for any builds except, perhaps, slow short ranged builds - but those have suffered on a lot of maps for a long time, and are arguably a very stupid design choice.

It's fine for some maps to favor some builds, as long as majority are usable - and on PH, they are.

PH is important for what it is, just like Caustic should be important for what IT is. The more maps we have that bring wholly unique gameplay, the better.

On that note, I don't want to see another map just like Polar Highlands. I'd like to see more big ones, but I'd really love a PH sized multilevel city map. A large map that has long sight lines (down streets, so long range mechs overall aren't gimped) but is somewhat poor for LRM usage and makes brawlers very valuable.

[Y E O N N E]

XX Sulla XX, on 27 January 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Yes its great if you love hill humping trading as the main form of game play.

It's currently the main form of play on every map. Difference between hill-humping and corner-peaking is simply a change in dominant axis. Still, that's as much a problem with the weapons as it is the maps. That said, the abundance of lowland cover on Polar also seems conducive for brawling.

[XX Sulla XX]

Wintersdark, on 27 January 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

I strongly agree with this.

We badly needed a map like this. It's flatISH, but there's ample cover everywhere that allows free, covered movement all over the map with ease.

Many players fail to use that cover, because it's very easy to just walk out, but people doing stupid things is no reason to change maps. PH is absolutely fine for any builds except, perhaps, slow short ranged builds - but those have suffered on a lot of maps for a long time, and are arguably a very stupid design choice.

It's fine for some maps to favor some builds, as long as majority are usable - and on PH, they are.

PH is important for what it is, just like Caustic should be important for what IT is. The more maps we have that bring wholly unique gameplay, the better.

On that note, I don't want to see another map just like Polar Highlands. I'd like to see more big ones, but I'd really love a PH sized multilevel city map. A large map that has long sight lines (down streets, so long range mechs overall aren't gimped) but is somewhat poor for LRM usage and makes brawlers very valuable.

I can agree a big city map with many levels would be amazing.

[XX Sulla XX]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 January 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

It's currently the main form of play on every map. Difference between hill-humping and corner-peaking is simply a change in dominant axis. Still, that's as much a problem with the weapons as it is the maps. That said, the abundance of lowland cover on Polar also seems conducive for brawling.

See but having a combination of hill humping, corner peaking, good cover and open spaces, plus levels etc etc is just much more fun. A flat map with a few shallow ditches is just boring. And a huge flat flap is even more boring. And brawling is also boring on the map. Its flat land stand in a circle and shoot each other boring. Thing I dislike the most is that the map could be great but its just not.

[Y E O N N E]

XX Sulla XX, on 27 January 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

See but having a combination of hill humping, corner peaking, good cover and open spaces, plus levels etc etc is just much more fun. A flat map with a few shallow ditches is just boring. And a huge flat flap is even more boring. And brawling is also boring on the map. Its flat land stand in a circle and shoot each other boring. Thing I dislike the most is that the map could be great but its just not.

I don't disagree that a mix is more fun, but I'm not yet sure that Polar doesn't allow a mix. The trenches and dips allow you to move almost invisibly, and that's something you can't say for even Canyon or HPG. Those maps allow a brawl simply because they are small, but if they were bigger it would be a complete poke-fests. Polar, on the other hand, doesn't offer any vantage point with which to spot an approach and defend from. You have to have a scout on the ground, running around to find the enemy. Meanwhile, on Canyon or HPG, I can take center and, if I don't see you already upstairs, I can declare your position with reasonable certainty.

[XX Sulla XX]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 January 2016 - 06:17 PM, said:

I don't disagree that a mix is more fun, but I'm not yet sure that Polar doesn't allow a mix. The trenches and dips allow you to move almost invisibly, and that's something you can't say for even Canyon or HPG. Those maps allow a brawl simply because they are small, but if they were bigger it would be a complete poke-fests. Polar, on the other hand, doesn't offer any vantage point with which to spot an approach and defend from. You have to have a scout on the ground, running around to find the enemy. Meanwhile, on Canyon or HPG, I can take center and, if I don't see you already upstairs, I can declare your position with reasonable certainty.

But it really has no mix. You pretty much just run the rough direction of where the other drop ships and and make an adjust ment when you get close. Then do some hill humping then close when one side feels it needs to.

Canyon size Canyons are better because there are some places to poke and some places that do not allow that. There is LRM cover and angles from above and below. Really the worst part about Canyon is that large mechs have to few places to get out but that would be easy to solve.

[Y E O N N E]

XX Sulla XX, on 27 January 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

But it really has no mix. You pretty much just run the rough direction of where the other drop ships and and make an adjust ment when you get close. Then do some hill humping then close when one side feels it needs to.

Are you sure? The map has only been around for about one and a half weeks now. Battle trends are still coalescing. That said, the lack of obvious direction would indicate to me that there's room to implement many possible plans, unlike Bog where the dominant game plans we see today were established after a mere two days in rotation.

Besides, is trading and then closing when needed not already how every map plays? Because that is pretty much how it always goes. You make trades, and then close when it's more advantageous to do so. Some maps make it hard to close, but no maps make it hard to trade. This mode of play already encapsulates every possible mode that currently exists in MWO. Without sufficient incentive to break up the group with objectives, AoE weapons, etc., it's always going to be this way.

[1453 R]

I haven't played a long-range 'Mech on Polar Highlands yet, and it's still one of my favorite maps. What you're suggesting, Sulla, is to eliminate most of the map as usable terrain and focus the fight in a handful of deeper ditches, probably because you've been Gauss'd a time or two too many.

But in my experience, Yeonne is absolutely right. The map is riddled with wrinkles, gullies, ridges, and rolling or broken terrain that let you get all the hizzway over the place with a bit of care and caution. There's no One Spot to Poke Them All, but that's a good thing! In virtually every other map you trashed, you mentioned they'd be better with a single, central, polarizing feature. Polar Highlands is No Central Feature: The Map, and it's kinda glorious because of it.

Fast brawlers/strikers can be brutal on Polar Highlands, simply because they're never far away from an escape route. You can poke on the map just fine. You can maneuver on the map just fine too, work around your enemies,, push rockets up their portapotties, and have a grand old time. So long as you move faster than a 250STD Fatlas. if you play one of those and expect every map in the game to be favorable to a 32kph brawling Highlander (I am not exaggerating. I've seen this, in person), then...well, you've got some re-evaluation to do.

[XX Sulla XX]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 January 2016 - 07:10 PM, said:

Are you sure? The map has only been around for about one and a half weeks now. Battle trends are still coalescing. That said, the lack of obvious direction would indicate to me that there's room to implement many possible plans, unlike Bog where the dominant game plans we see today were established after a mere two days in rotation.

Besides, is trading and then closing when needed not already how every map plays? Because that is pretty much how it always goes. You make trades, and then close when it's more advantageous to do so. Some maps make it hard to close, but no maps make it hard to trade. This mode of play already encapsulates every possible mode that currently exists in MWO. Without sufficient incentive to break up the group with objectives, AoE weapons, etc., it's always going to be this way.

I am sure maps tend to fit patterns. This pattern normally involves finding the enemy and or getting to the best spot as fast as possible. Since most spots are about the same on Polar highlands its normally take a long walk directly to where the enemy is. Maybe you veer off left or right little as you get closer. You will not see most games going to some far flung corner of the map etc. There would need to be a reason to go there.

The difference with other maps is having a bit more options because of size. On a smaller map like mining collective you can go left right or center. There are reasons to go each way. Also if you go far left say and the other team goes far right it does not take 8 minutes to find each other and get into range. On polar if you went far left and far right there would be really no reason for the teams to do so. Really a map like Mining collective lets you explore options more than polar highlands.

Also what you are seeing on polar highlands now is just it being new and people feeling it out a bit. But thats about over.

[XX Sulla XX]

1453 R, on 27 January 2016 - 07:11 PM, said:

I haven't played a long-range 'Mech on Polar Highlands yet, and it's still one of my favorite maps. What you're suggesting, Sulla, is to eliminate most of the map as usable terrain and focus the fight in a handful of deeper ditches, probably because you've been Gauss'd a time or two too many.

But in my experience, Yeonne is absolutely right. The map is riddled with wrinkles, gullies, ridges, and rolling or broken terrain that let you get all the hizzway over the place with a bit of care and caution. There's no One Spot to Poke Them All, but that's a good thing! In virtually every other map you trashed, you mentioned they'd be better with a single, central, polarizing feature. Polar Highlands is No Central Feature: The Map, and it's kinda glorious because of it.

Fast brawlers/strikers can be brutal on Polar Highlands, simply because they're never far away from an escape route. You can poke on the map just fine. You can maneuver on the map just fine too, work around your enemies,, push rockets up their portapotties, and have a grand old time. So long as you move faster than a 250STD Fatlas. if you play one of those and expect every map in the game to be favorable to a 32kph brawling Highlander (I am not exaggerating. I've seen this, in person), then...well, you've got some re-evaluation to do.

No not at all. I am suggesting the entire map should have ditches like canyon network and it would be amazing. With many many more ways up for large mechs. And if you did so without a strong central point it would allow more movement. Although it would always be subject to the basic problem of just hiking across and finding the enemy quickly.

No I mentioned the would be better WITHOUT a central feature except for an except now and then. Not having a central feature on Polar is fine.

Yes I have a fine idea how to win on the map thanks. Both with fast high DPS brawlers and long range mechs etc. Its not really a complicated map more of a boring map.

[William Mountbank]

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for:

XX Sulla XX, on 27 January 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

4. Personally I believe visibility should be good on most maps.

HPG Manifold - it has a central feature

Polar Highlands - ...how flat it is.

I actually wish for more weather effects that block long range visibility. On some maps its far too easy to catch glimpses of the enemy when they're far outside sensor range.
The interesting thing about HPG I would say is that it has two central features. It's not always a good idea to go below, but a lot of combat does happen there and it allows mechs to sneak behind groups holding the high ground. The main problem is that AMS and seismic penetrate the structure unnaturally.
Polar is only 'flat' if one spends the whole time on top of the hills and not in the ruts.

XX Sulla XX, on 27 January 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

The Mining Collective - the central point is not so good as to control the entire map.

I guess you could say that the 'central feature' of MC is actually a basin, or low ground, so it encourages movement around the periphery rather than directly to the middle. Maybe this is something PGI can use in future maps to inhibit centre rushes.

[TexAce]

Polar is great and doesnt need any change.

Only change needed is in players not being able to see UAVs in clear sight. A UAV is the most dangerous thing on the battlefield in Polar, but still no one pays attention and then gets lurmed to death.