24 replies to this topic

[FlipOver]

Some people have been complaining about turrets on Assault mode of a few maps, saying there is no space for tactical maneuvers.

To me:
Turrets are not the problem.

The real problem lies on very short maps.
I mean, maps like River City, Frozen City, Caustic Valley and Forest Colony should just be removed from the game and added their larger versions or just new maps to replace them.

This could also be good for the game as some of those maps are notoriously flawed (seeing shadows on water when the enemy is behind a structure, that's just one example of the poor quality of the maps), so replacing them with new ones, even if it were larger version of the old ones, would most probably do more good than bad to the game since now we play 12v12 and not 8v8.

Your thoughts?

Edited by flipover, 14 April 2014 - 05:08 AM.

[fandre]

There should be an option in the poll for "Keep them like they are and add a larger version/new maps".

There is no reason to remove maps. It would only take diversity from the game, making it more boring than beforen.

[FlipOver]

fandre, on 14 April 2014 - 03:19 AM, said:

There should be an option in the poll for "Keep them like they are and add a larger version/new maps".

There is no reason to remove maps. It would only take diversity from the game, making it more boring than beforen.

Didn't place that option because this poll isn't about adding new maps. We all agree the game needs more maps.
It's about the ones that seem obsolete to the actual gameplay and what to do with those.
So we eather keep them, remove or replace the existing ones for larger versions or other maps.

[Karl Streiger]

i really like Caustic Valley because of its map design.... thats Mech Territory - not those citys...where the infantry is king....

.... but i really would like to see them much bigger - or in case of River City - Urban Mechs would help too

Edited by Karl Streiger, 14 April 2014 - 03:28 AM.

[FlipOver]

Karl Streiger, on 14 April 2014 - 03:27 AM, said:

i really like Caustic Valley because of its map design.... thats Mech Territory - not those citys...where the infantry is king....

.... but i really would like to see them much bigger - or in case of River City - Urban Mechs would help too

I understand, that's why I placed an option "Remove the old ones and replace them with a larger version of them"

[fandre]

flipover, on 14 April 2014 - 03:26 AM, said:

Didn't place that option because this poll isn't about adding new maps.

As far as I can see, there is an option for "Remove the old ones and replace them with other new maps". IMO, your poll is also about adding new maps and you are contradicting yourself. So what is your point?

Keep the old maps and add new variants (larger, different wheather ...) and sometimes a total new map. Maybe they can make very large maps and per match there is a randomly choosen part from them used.

[FlipOver]

fandre, on 14 April 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

As far as I can see, there is an option for "Remove the old ones and replace them with other new maps". IMO, your poll is also about adding new maps and you are contradicting yourself. So what is your point?

Keep the old maps and add new variants (larger, different wheather ...) and sometimes a total new map. Maybe they can make very large maps and per match there is a randomly choosen part from them used.

Seems you need me to explain this in a very simple way:
What I mean by that is to remove those maps and replace them with new maps. Not asking to get more new maps, everyone wants that, only asking to remove those little ones and replace them with some other new ones. When removing the old ones, adding new maps in number and format (night, fog, day, etc.).

So in a way, like a bulk replacement. I.e. Remove River City and adding a new map called [fill this with any name you imagine] in the formats day and night having little to nothing in common to River City as we know it.

Edit - Your idea at the end sounds like a good one though. To be implemented in new gigantic maps imo.

Edited by flipover, 14 April 2014 - 05:06 AM.

[Bilbo]

How about instead of removing the maps, they remove the turrets.

[Bobzilla]

River City seems like the only map that needs the bases moved around a bit.

What's wrong with small maps every now and then? I really don't what the problem is at all.

[Karl Streiger]

Bobzilla, on 14 April 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

River City seems like the only map that needs the bases moved around a bit.

What's wrong with small maps every now and then? I really don't what the problem is at all.

Well what was the shortest time for you ingame?

I started after one of the latest patches on Frozen City....after those weapon groups got an reset.
While i don't use simple builds it last some time to reconfigure them (maybe 10-15sec?)

Than I made a single step - and suddenly i was swarmed by enemy lights....i died only some seconds later... because when i tried to brake off - i ran into heavys...and a additional artillerie strike and i was done....

so 1 1/2 min waiting - while searching for a game- 50sec for the ready screen.... 15 sec for reconfiguration the weapons maybe 20 seconds fight time and knock down.

Thats the problem with dynamical start locations and maps that are much to small.

[FlipOver]

Bilbo, on 14 April 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

How about instead of removing the maps, they remove the turrets.

The turrets add strategic depth to the game as it should be.
Larger maps are needed and that shows when you play in a large map with turrets, they don't seem to be as effective because you have more space to maneuver.
Well at least that's how I and people from my unit see it and that's why I came here to suggest these options.

[Bilbo]

flipover, on 14 April 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

The turrets add strategic depth to the game as it should be.
Larger maps are needed and that shows when you play in a large map with turrets, they don't seem to be as effective because you have more space to maneuver.
Well at least that's how I and people from my unit see it and that's why I came here to suggest these options.

They add no strategic depth. They restrict movement. In some cases to an extreme. There is no reason to remove maps because of that. I simply don't play assault anymore. Everyone can huddle up under turret cover all they want.

[Bobzilla]

Karl Streiger, on 14 April 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Well what was the shortest time for you ingame?

I started after one of the latest patches on Frozen City....after those weapon groups got an reset.
While i don't use simple builds it last some time to reconfigure them (maybe 10-15sec?)

Than I made a single step - and suddenly i was swarmed by enemy lights....i died only some seconds later... because when i tried to brake off - i ran into heavys...and a additional artillerie strike and i was done....

so 1 1/2 min waiting - while searching for a game- 50sec for the ready screen.... 15 sec for reconfiguration the weapons maybe 20 seconds fight time and knock down.

Thats the problem with dynamical start locations and maps that are much to small.

So let me get this straight, you wouldn't mind if this same scenaro happened to you if you did nothing but walked for a couple minutes?
Seems like your problem is with your team leaving you vulnerable, not the map size.

[FlipOver]

Bilbo, on 14 April 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

They add no strategic depth. They restrict movement. In some cases to an extreme. There is no reason to remove maps because of that. I simply don't play assault anymore. Everyone can huddle up under turret cover all they want.

So you say. They restrict movement by removing a direct path to a base, to me, that's improving on strategic depth.
You are restricted (as you should while approaching an enemy base) but it's manageable, unless you play on small maps.
And that's the real issue here.

[Bilbo]

flipover, on 14 April 2014 - 06:51 AM, said:

So you say. They restrict movement by removing a direct path to a base, to me, that's improving on strategic depth.
You are restricted (as you should while approaching an enemy base) but it's manageable, unless you play on small maps.
And that's the real issue here.

The restrict movement because someone who attempts a flanking movement is subjected to damage the would not otherwise be subjected to. They essentially remove a 1/4 to half of the map from play. If they had placed them on one of the other modes, I would no longer play them. It has nothing to do with the ability to cap a base or not..

[Karl Streiger]

Bobzilla, on 14 April 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

Seems like your problem is with your team leaving you vulnerable, not the map size.

In the battle i did described - there wasn't a fault to the own team... it was a classical meat grinder scenario.... we connected first... and the others where rushing into battle like flies to the flame.

Although i admit that i would like such scenario while fighting for a single "strategic" point on the map - its an acceptable outcome. it doesn't happen to often.

Although some start locations really need reviewing, including maps.... because when you sit in an Atlas at canyon network at the most exposed position....and you can't climb those walls, nor can you run, nor can you stay close to your lance...(nor can you ask them to stay with you - because its obvious that the enemy is coming that way - 8vs4 would be a massaker as 8vs1.

all you can do is to stay - and prepare to die - and deal as much damage as possible....(while the "battle" seems equal - it did feel much better - a single proud lion killed by ugly cowardice hyenas

[FlipOver]

Bilbo, on 14 April 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

The restrict movement because someone who attempts a flanking movement is subjected to damage the would not otherwise be subjected to. They essentially remove a 1/4 to half of the map from play. If they had placed them on one of the other modes, I would no longer play them. It has nothing to do with the ability to cap a base or not..

Hence the need for bigger maps!

[Dawnstealer]

The smaller maps seem to see a lot more brawling, so they're fine. Really, I just want to see a LOT more maps. Seriously, when CW eventually drops, they're going to need way more than...8? maps (I'm not including the minor tweaks like night or snowstorm). I think they should just blow the doors open and have competitions - game modding has been around for ever and I'm positive there's good level designers that play this game.

From what I've seen of the Cryengine, and what I've seen PGI do with it, I'm positive there are people on these boards that could make far more compelling, interesting, balanced maps. PGI could get assets for FREE. I don't get why they're not doing this.

Have a competition, give the top five maps a day or even a week of Premium Time, and then repeat each month.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Seeing as how Alpine is my most hated map then Terra..... big maps aren't that fun 12v12. If they were 24v24 then we're talking and I'd probably always hope to play them.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Its has been part of Mechwarrior franchise to have big maps, to carry our mechs to nav points and engage the enemy. So, in my opinion, they should enlarge the smaler maps. The turrets are a warm welcome to the game, it enhances the tactical indepth but, alas, they limit the maps itself. The problem arent the turrets, they should enlarge the maps. Look at forest colony for example, theres alot of water in the southeast corner, and alot of passes at north. An enlarged forest colony would be great.