32 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

Here's my take on it. Eliminate the biggest peaks so that neither team has an overwhelmingly commanding high ground. The map becomes about maneuvering and flanking, because anywhere you have a sight line now, they have a sight line on you. Unlike polar highlands however, there is cover, there is low ground, there are still instances of smaller high ground and theres plenty of choke points if you're willing to make use of them. G10 base (where one of the team bases on assault would be) is the best on paper to defend, however the three approaches are far apart and the base is actually on low ground if you approach from E9 or G9. The J5 base is wide open, but difficult to approach because if you want to directly attack it, you will have to expose yourself on approach, so pick your poison.

[MoonUnitBeta]

TheArisen, on 20 February 2016 - 10:50 AM, said:

The team on the right seem to have an advantage because they're closer.

yeah, they're a smidge closer, but they also have the hills to go around/ascend, which slows them down. figured it would work out. Red team has relatively level terrain or straighter paths.

sycocys, on 20 February 2016 - 07:22 AM, said:

Well your cap points make conquest incredibly worse. There's direct sightline and range between 2 of them, an nothing in the form of any cover to make any sort of move between them.

The only thing this long rectangle will accomplish is faster matches than Frozen City, which are already boring as hell and played out to death.

That's intentional. I figured it'd be interesting to be able to see the two points while capping either one. It would make fighting over them more spread out, rather than just everyone meeting around one point. Two teams can fight over them, both with risk/reward. I thought that would create an interesting dynamic on this map and the two points would be constantly in trade with each other.
Who ever controls and defends the lowest cap point will put pressure on the team that doesn't control the other two in the middle. And depending on who has what, will dictate who is defending or attacking, or both. I figured it'd be a neat experiment at least Nothing wrong with moving the point around, or adding some cover in between if it doesn't work out.

ExplicitContent, on 20 February 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

I would not be opposed to PGI doing several alternate variations of the larger maps to force gameplay to different areas. Even if the did as you suggest and changed the borders for the map/game mode seems like very minimal work and would add even greater variety. Good suggestion OP

Thanks! Yeah I'd be down for various "preferences" so to speak for the same map that changes all this kind of stuff around and force people to play in different areas. You'd vote on forest colony, but the preferences would be random chosen from a bunch of preset variations.

El Bandito, on 20 February 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

Yes! Glad someone saw it. That's all people do on on this map, and it's all on the same "peak"

Kira Onime, on 20 February 2016 - 05:42 AM, said:

Looks very interesting.

Thanks.

pbiggz, on 20 February 2016 - 11:24 AM, said:

Here's my take on it. Eliminate the biggest peaks so that neither team has an overwhelmingly commanding high ground. The map becomes about maneuvering and flanking, because anywhere you have a sight line now, they have a sight line on you. Unlike polar highlands however, there is cover, there is low ground, there are still instances of smaller high ground and theres plenty of choke points if you're willing to make use of them. G10 base (where one of the team bases on assault would be) is the best on paper to defend, however the three approaches are far apart and the base is actually on low ground if you approach from E9 or G9. The J5 base is wide open, but difficult to approach because if you want to directly attack it, you will have to expose yourself on approach, so pick your poison.

Looks good! Should the center out of bounds areas be larger unscaleable mountains instead? Unless you are aware that people still have 10 seconds to run through, and shoot through out-of bounds areas, and that was your intent.

[Kumakichi]

Agree with all thoughts that the huge hill in the middle ruins the map. But eliminating it might make it too close to polar. Maybe just scale back the mountain OR cut it down and split it in half or something. Give players something to use tactically.

[pbiggz]

MoonUnitBeta, on 20 February 2016 - 12:02 PM, said:

yeah, they're a smidge closer, but they also have the hills to go around/ascend, which slows them down. figured it would work out. Red team has relatively level terrain or straighter paths.

That's intentional. I figured it'd be interesting to be able to see the two points while capping either one. It would make fighting over them more spread out, rather than just everyone meeting around one point. Two teams can fight over them, both with risk/reward. I thought that would create an interesting dynamic on this map and the two points would be constantly in trade with each other.
Who ever controls and defends the lowest cap point will put pressure on the team that doesn't control the other two in the middle. And depending on who has what, will dictate who is defending or attacking, or both. I figured it'd be a neat experiment at least Nothing wrong with moving the point around, or adding some cover in between if it doesn't work out.


Thanks! Yeah I'd be down for various "preferences" so to speak for the same map that changes all this kind of stuff around and force people to play in different areas. You'd vote on forest colony, but the preferences would be random chosen from a bunch of preset variations.

Yes! Glad someone saw it. That's all people do on on this map, and it's all on the same "peak"

Thanks.

Looks good! Should the center out of bounds areas be larger unscaleable mountains instead? Unless you are aware that people still have 10 seconds to run through, and shoot through out-of bounds areas, and that was your intent.

Were it my call, the mountains I made out of bounds would be made entirely un-scaleable.

[Tarogato]

Oi, PGI, give us a copy of the heightmap for Alpine and I'll help draft up some easy modifications for you. Pretty plz? It can be lower res if you insist.

[Gyrok]

MoonUnitBeta, on 19 February 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

Well,
I'll be honest. I hate the stupid hill in Alpine. You might as well draw an out of bounds area around that for skirmish or assault and call it a day. You spend 2 minutes to needlessly walk the distance. That got me thinking. Why don't we just take out the hill all together, and re-organize the map?
The lower Alpine area is great actually. It has a bunch of hills and valleys. Not so crazy that you can't get up them, but not so shallow that you can't lose a lock if someone is targeting you.

I enjoy the openness, so expect to bring AMS if a light has you lit up or narc'd to fend off LRM showers.

So here we go.

As per PGI in the Jan. Road Map:

The idea is to make simple changes to Alpine. Changing spawn locations, cap points, and boundaries is probably the simplest. Minor changes to geometry will probably be fine with PGI.

So, taking simplicity in mind, I quickly altered Alpine Peeks' boundaries and spawn locations to take advantage of the openness found in the lower part of the map.

Thoughts?

I despise this idea...I LOVE Alpine exactly as it is...and would prefer to see more maps similar to Alpine, and Polar.

I hate small maps with lanes to funnel people like a MOBA. This is not a MOBA, and never will be...so please stop trying to make mech combat close to LoL.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Gyrok, on 20 February 2016 - 03:16 PM, said:

I despise this idea...I LOVE Alpine exactly as it is...and would prefer to see more maps similar to Alpine, and Polar.

I hate small maps with lanes to funnel people like a MOBA. This is not a MOBA, and never will be...so please stop trying to make mech combat close to LoL.

I understand that, and I like large maps too - but either PGI: A.) gives us something more to do on these large maps than kill each other, or B.) trim the map down to a manageable size.
After the modification, it's still on the larger side with plenty of moving space, and unlike Polar Highlands, there's less likelyhood of nascar in the lower area of alpine peaks.

[Macksheen]

I'd like to keep the map as-is, but move the conquest points.

(1) Don't put either where the assault base is - we go there during assault.

(2) Put one at the base of the comm tower hill. There's a structure there, G7 ish. Put another right smack on the top in I10 ... but on the downward slope. Make it so the lower area can fire up there and the capture point has no cover from below. Another J12 / K12. One maybe L7, and the last I5 / H5.

Make it more of a wheel - the theta valley will see play anyway, but as people move around swarming for points it could pull the battle into other areas we don't see in assault or skirmish.


For Terra Therma, I'd like to see Theta (inside the caledar) removed, and instead a wheel as well around the outside. Make it a quick but costly short cut. Ensure there are capture points quickly reachable from the inside - maybe even visible from the entrances to the caldera. Again, use conquest to change where we fight on that map.

[Mystere]

MoonUnitBeta, on 19 February 2016 - 06:53 PM, said:

Well,
I'll be honest. I hate the stupid hill in Alpine. You might as well draw an out of bounds area around that for skirmish or assault and call it a day. You spend 2 minutes to needlessly walk the distance. That got me thinking. Why don't we just take out the hill all together, and re-organize the map?

This is a public service announcement.
You do not have to fight on the hill.
I repeat. You do not have to fight on the hill.
This is end of the public service announcement.


Whenever I have successfully convinced a PUG group to ignore the hill, we almost always won.

Alpine peaks is a "patience" game.

[Gyrok]

MoonUnitBeta, on 20 February 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

I understand that, and I like large maps too - but either PGI: A.) gives us something more to do on these large maps than kill each other, or B.) trim the map down to a manageable size.
After the modification, it's still on the larger side with plenty of moving space, and unlike Polar Highlands, there's less likelyhood of nascar in the lower area of alpine peaks.

If Alpine had an elevated plateau that was less drastically diverse from the surrounding terrain it would be more interesting. Hell, if they changed the spawn points so that it was typically possible for teams to take H11 from one side and H9 from the other...that could even be interesting. That, or they could change the terrain dynamics a bit.

I like the hill in Alpine...it makes for an interesting feature of the map. To be honest, there are lots of ways to attack to and from that location. You can also force your opponent to play in another area of the map by drawing them out as well.

[MoonUnitBeta]

Mystere, on 20 February 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

This is a public service announcement.
You do not have to fight on the hill.
I repeat. You do not have to fight on the hill.
This is end of the public service announcement.


Whenever I have successfully convinced a PUG group to ignore the hill, we almost always won.

Alpine peaks is a "patience" game.

Yeah, -I- don't have to, and I'd like to. But I'm not as convincing, or even bothered enough to stress about herding sheep, and if I don't follow the horde, I'm flagged as a non-participant.
More often then not, you end up with split teams from the J side. One half completely ignores you and sits on the hill, waiting to get over-run, and the other half going the long way just gets mopped up down the road.
If you start in F then it's a little easier to get people to go some where else because you can easily access both high or low ground, and you have a bunch of cover in various points. But really, I've found just guiding players how to work the hill results in an easier and simpler win.

Going from j10 to i7 almost always results in your team getting shot at from above, mindlessly walking to i7 and ignore the problem, and then camp h7. And everyone has the attention span of a fruit fly so some people just stop dead, forget about what the plan was and use their medium lasers to snipe a spider at the top of i9...

J side doesn't have much options.

Edited by MoonUnitBeta, 20 February 2016 - 04:52 PM.

[Wolfways]

Ultimax, on 20 February 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

They did this already and called it polar highlands and you have to walk more than 2 minutes for combat.

Good. At least there's one map where scouts are needed.

[Johnny Z]

I have no problems with Alpine peaks as it is. Improve the looks a bit and add dropships and be done with it.

That there is a mountain everyone goes to 90% of the time is just the character of that particular map. New maps shouldn't have similar objectives or what ever they are called, maybe, but nothing wrong with a couple having such points.

I am looking forward to entirely new maps like a sand dune map and tunnel map myself, rather than to much effort being put into what I consider good maps. Obviously when Alpine peaks was first made it wasn't considered a bad map. Some complained it was to big is about it. As far as I know they had to move the cap points closer together as a response.

Also, there are many matches where the game play takes place in other areas than the mountain.

Edited by Johnny Z, 20 February 2016 - 07:32 PM.