57 replies to this topic

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 28 February 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

No... you absolutely have to fight at Mt. Derp. If you do not to go Mt. Derp, then the enemy does. And if the enemy goes there... then what do you do? They're never going to leave, people know that holding Mt. Derp is a winning strategy in pug matches.

And if you do decide to go somewhere else instead, what happens is one idiot on your team doesn't listen and goes goes up anyways, dies, and now you're down one mech and the enemy has the hill, so all they have to do is hold to win and you're forced to assault their superior position. So the hill just needs to be leveled.

Considering how many times I've convinced PUG team to set up outside Mt. Derp and force the idiots holding it to get bored and start steaming down for the slaughter, no, you really do not have to take that mountain.

I've said it before and I will say it again, Alpine Peaks is a patience game.

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2016 - 06:02 AM.

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

Considering how many times I've convinced PUG team to set up outside Mt. Derp and force the idiots holding it get bored and start steaming down for the slaughter, no, you really do not have to take that mountain.

I've said it before and I will say it again, Alpine Peaks is a patience game.

I mean, I've done it as well, but it's pulling teeth. The amount of effort and frustration and patience you have to put in to get a good result far outweighs the benefits of actually fighting the match that way. Are you basically saying that Alpine is fine the way it is and you see no reason to adjust it because it's the players that are the problem and not the map design?

[rolly]

Juodas Varnas, on 28 February 2016 - 02:50 AM, said:

Why stop at tunnels?
A WHOLE UNDERGROUND BASE-COMPLEX!

Let me guess.... full of cave SCORPIONS?!

[Juodas Varnas]

rolly, on 28 February 2016 - 06:07 AM, said:

Let me guess.... full of cave SCORPIONS?!

I like the way you think.

[Reza Malin]

VorpalAnvil, on 28 February 2016 - 05:56 AM, said:

You couldn't be half as badass as me if you drank an entire case of Brawndo:The Thirst Mutilator!! Get on my level scrub.

Ha ha

Edited by Fade Akira, 28 February 2016 - 06:13 AM.

[SplashDown]

i think tunnels would be nice on alpine..dunno about u guys...but i hate haven to shut down in a cubby hole waiting for enemy to get close cuz i got stuck on alpine in me brawler build haha

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 28 February 2016 - 06:04 AM, said:

I mean, I've done it as well, but it's pulling teeth. The amount of effort and frustration and patience you have to put in to get a good result far outweighs the benefits of actually fighting the match that way. Are you basically saying that Alpine is fine the way it is and you see no reason to adjust it because it's the players that are the problem and not the map design?

Yes, I have always seen it as a player problem, not a map problem.

And just to reiterate:

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 06:00 AM, said:

Alpine Peaks is a patience game.

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[p4r4g0n]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 06:33 AM, said:

Yes, I have always seen it as a player problem, not a map problem.

Gotta agree with this. Regardless of how many paths you put in, the team will either scatter all over the map or deathball and use the same old path every time in solo public queue (can't speak for group public queue since I have not played it in well over a year other than for one short session).

Just look at how rapidly Polar Highlands has devolved into a default counter clockwise movement generally resulting in a fight around I8 most of the time. I enjoyed this map a lot more when people were still trying to figure the map out.

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 06:33 AM, said:

Yes, I have always seen it as a player problem, not a map problem.

If it was a player problem, then it wouldn't be a problem at all, would it? If it was a player problem, then players would have said to themselves "this is silly, let's stop doing it." But no - they're still doing it. Every match, default strat: go to I9 - no alternatives. It's because the problem is rooted in gameplay/mapdesign. The elevation and position of that hill invites players towards it. Sure, it's the players' choice to answer the call and go there, but the problem isn't fundamentally the players. The problem is the behaviour that the map design naturally encourages.

What you're basically saying right know is akin to an argument like this "High-damage alphas are a problem. It's because the players choose to equip high-alpha loadouts."

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 28 February 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:

If it was a player problem, then it wouldn't be a problem at all, would it? If it was a player problem, then players would have said to themselves "this is silly, let's stop doing it." But no - they're still doing it. Every match, default strat: go to I9 - no alternatives. It's because the problem is rooted in gameplay/mapdesign. The elevation and position of that hill invites players towards it. Sure, it's the players' choice to answer the call and go there, but the problem isn't fundamentally the players. The problem is the behaviour that the map design naturally encourages.

What you're basically saying right know is akin to an argument like this "High-damage alphas are a problem. It's because the players choose to equip high-alpha loadouts."

Great deflection there. But, no, it is a player problem if they insist on walking into an expected meat grinder when there are other tactical options.

Patience is a virtue and Alpine Peaks is a patience game.

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2016 - 07:01 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 07:01 AM, said:

Great deflection there. But, no, it is a player problem if they insist on walking into an expected meat grinder when there are other tactical options.

Patience is a virtue and Alpine Peaks is a patience game.

Well, now you're just being asinine.
Can you comprehend the fallacy in your argument, or did you just make it so quickly you didn't bother to put actual thought into the words you're typing?

The logical conclusion of your own reasoning is that no map can be at fault, regardless of its design, because its up to the players to use the map. It doesn't matter if there is a giant feature that offers huge advantages to the side who takes it and encourages both teams to fight over it - it's the players fault for fighting over it.

At this point there really is no reason arguing anything with you in regards to maps. It sounds as if you think randomly generated maps would be fine with you, since ya know, its the players who make the foolish decisions to use imbalances in the map design.

Edited by Mech The Dane, 28 February 2016 - 07:15 AM.

[TELEFORCE]

I think they need to add a Castle Brian to the center of Alpine. They're basically big fortresses the SLDF built with 'mech and aerospace bays, weapons caches, and of course tunnels to get to all of them.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Castle_Brian

Edited by TELEFORCE, 28 February 2016 - 10:19 AM.

[Jarl Dane]

TELEFORCE, on 28 February 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I think they need to add a Castle Brian to the center of Alpine. They're basically big fortresses the SLDF built with tunnels, 'mech and aerospace bays, weapons caches, and of course tunnels to get to all of them.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Castle_Brian

Yeah I like the tunnel and/or Castle Brian idea.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

Jaqir, on 28 February 2016 - 02:59 AM, said:

If you got sniped, that's entirely your own fault. If you got lurmed while supposedly doing everything in your power to avoid being a target for such, there was probably an enemy scout somewhere behind you. Should look out for those.

Anyway, I really don't understand what people who suggest these tunnels think it would accomplish. Are we talking about only a few entrances/exits where everyone'd know where to expect possible sneaky heavies from, leading to very predictable outcomes? Or a whole network, effectively doubling the map size...? In either case it'd do far more damage than good to the map. Which'd be a same, since it actually is a good map.

I want tunnels to stop that damn hill fight every game. ALMOST EVERY MATCH on Alpine is the same game over and over. Rush the hill. At least with some some tunnels here and there it might, fingers crossed, change things enough to get away from the constant hilltop battle. I liked Alpine when it first came out, but now it's become monotonous.

[Mystere]

Mech The Dane, on 28 February 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

Well, now you're just being asinine.
Can you comprehend the fallacy in your argument, or did you just make it so quickly you didn't bother to put actual thought into the words you're typing?

The logical conclusion of your own reasoning is that no map can be at fault, regardless of its design, because its up to the players to use the map. It doesn't matter if there is a giant feature that offers huge advantages to the side who takes it and encourages both teams to fight over it - it's the players fault for fighting over it.

At this point there really is no reason arguing anything with you in regards to maps. It sounds as if you think randomly generated maps would be fine with you, since ya know, its the players who make the foolish decisions to use imbalances in the map design.

The only fallacy is you thinking there are no other viable options on the map.

This is not a new discussion.

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2016 - 07:28 AM.

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

The only fallacy is you thinking there are no other viable options on the map.
This is not a new discussion.

Then why do people still go to the same location by default every match unless somebody yanks them by the teeth to go somewhere else? And even when you do tell them to go somewhere else you are met with resistance and some people that refuse to listen.

[MeanFacedJohnny]

TELEFORCE, on 28 February 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I think they need to add a Castle Brian to the center of Alpine. They're basically big fortresses the SLDF built with tunnels, 'mech and aerospace bays, weapons caches, and of course tunnels to get to all of them.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Castle_Brian

This would be pretty cool.

[Sorbic]

Jaqir, on 28 February 2016 - 02:59 AM, said:

If you got sniped, that's entirely your own fault. If you got lurmed while supposedly doing everything in your power to avoid being a target for such, there was probably an enemy scout somewhere behind you. Should look out for those.

Anyway, I really don't understand what people who suggest these tunnels think it would accomplish. Are we talking about only a few entrances/exits where everyone'd know where to expect possible sneaky heavies from, leading to very predictable outcomes? Or a whole network, effectively doubling the map size...? In either case it'd do far more damage than good to the map. Which'd be a same, since it actually is a good map.

I would say it's more the snipers fault than the victim. I mean unless the sniper sucks. Same for the spotter esp if the mech being lrm'd is a lrm'er himself. With lrm travel time a quick spotter can bounce in and out refreshing their target decay mod and negating most return fire.

Of course the majority of the time people get smashed there it is because they got stupid/lazy or felt safe when they were not. I also like the map and have a good bit of fun esp when you can convince a team to not rush the hill and do something different. About the only thing I'd like to see changed to help it is a slight reduction in the slow down mechanic for assaults climbing hills.

Edit because this stinking mouse clicker is faulty and it constantly double clicks (and release clicks) on it's on creating two quotes. Makes gauss rifles interesting...

Edited by Sorbic, 28 February 2016 - 07:36 AM.

[Mystere]

Tarogato, on 28 February 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

Then why do people still go to the same location by default every match unless somebody yanks them by the teeth to go somewhere else? And even when you do tell them to go somewhere else you are met with resistance and some people that refuse to listen.

Choose one or more:

• don't want to think
  
• creature of habit
  
• just want to play "Rock'Em, Sock 'Em" robots
  
• no patience
  
• John James Rambo
  
• Banzai!
  
• suicidal play style
  
• desire for quick matches due to lack of play time
  
• lemming
  
• no inclination for tactics
  
• don't care about tactics
  
• no inclination for teamwork
  
• don't care about teamwork
  
• new player
  
• noob player

Edited by Mystere, 28 February 2016 - 07:43 AM.

[Tarogato]

Mystere, on 28 February 2016 - 07:42 AM, said:

Choose one or more:

• don't want to think
  
• creature of habit
  
• just want to play "Rock'Em, Sock 'Em" robots
  
• no patience
  
• John James Rambo
  
• Banzai!
  
• suicidal play style
  
• desire for quick matches due to lack of play time
  
• lemming
  
• no inclination for tactics
  
• don't care about tactics
  
• no inclination for teamwork
  
• don't care about teamwork
  
• new player
  
• noob player

If you're talking about this community, yes. All of those things. All of them.

I'm just flabbergasted that you don't see the problem with the map design. You think it's okay and the players are at fault. That is just incredibly ignorant and in line with a lot of PGI's own train of thought and hands-off approach. Or maybe you just don't see people rush I9 hill every game. You must be a special snowflake, because in my 10,000 (~500 Alpine) matches I've had maybe 20 matches at most that didn't revolve around I9 hill in Skirmish or Assault.

You're not going to fix a problem by ignoring it. And if you don't see the problem you must be part of the problem.

Edited by Tarogato, 28 February 2016 - 07:54 AM.