56 replies to this topic

[SQW]

There was a PC gamer article years ago where someone in PGI explained their map design process.

Basically they have a piece of blank paper with two opposite spawning sites, drew two circles where they want sighting of enemy to happen within 20 seconds and then a big circle in the exact middle of the map where they want brawl to occur within 35 seconds. Then they fill in the texture and stuff. They considered this to be a careful and well thought out process in map design.

Basically, MWO started off as an arena shooter and some of the legacy still plague us now. PH is definitely a big jump in the right direction. I remember when PH was first introduced, because most of the pilots have been playing choke point shooter for years, their first instinct on a big open map was still run towards the middle. *sigh*

Can't wait for the new desert map in March update. =)

[Thunderbird Anthares]

yeah, MWLL has much better maps...

people appreciate tactical depth, its a shame we dont get that much of it

[Kaisha]

I don't like the larger maps at all. 5+ min of straight walking just to see an enemy. Then of course you have another 5m of sniper poking/LRM where you pretty much just hunker down under cover until people run out of ammo. Then 10+ min later you can actually attempt to get within 500m of an enemy. And of course if you're an assault your allies never stick around, so you're always alone stuck trying to fend off 2-3 lights solo, of which you stand no chance.

As far as lights being useless... I have no problem running around core'ing assaults on my lights. I also see alot more teamwork, tactics, and overall strategy on the smaller maps than the larger ones.

[Tom Sawyer]

Maps cost too much

Wanna buy a mech pack?

[Thunderbird Anthares]

Kaisha, on 04 March 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

I don't like the larger maps at all. 5+ min of straight walking just to see an enemy. Then of course you have another 5m of sniper poking/LRM where you pretty much just hunker down under cover until people run out of ammo. Then 10+ min later you can actually attempt to get within 500m of an enemy. And of course if you're an assault your allies never stick around, so you're always alone stuck trying to fend off 2-3 lights solo, of which you stand no chance.

As far as lights being useless... I have no problem running around core'ing assaults on my lights. I also see alot more teamwork, tactics, and overall strategy on the smaller maps than the larger ones.

it comes down to map design
have you played Mechwarrior Living Legends?

[Mystere]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 02:06 PM, said:

No, it's just a very contentious issue.

Maps started out TINY (and team size was 8v8) initially. As new maps have been added, they've been getting generally larger and larger. The oldest maps have been redone as well, to make them larger (and play better) - for example, River City was once a quarter of the size it used to be.

But, it's very contentious. Some of us love bigger maps, others hate them. So, it's something that has to happen gradually.

The obvious solution was to add more maps, not replace existing ones. But I guess it was not really that obvious.

[SQW]

Tom Sawyer, on 04 March 2016 - 04:38 PM, said:

Maps cost too much

Wanna buy a mech pack?

PGI isn't forcing anyone to buy packs. I paid for some MCs and the basic WHM pack and that's it. Even as a Battletech nerd, I'm not interested in any other mechs. They wouldn't get a cent from me until they make the core game better.

[Mystere]

Master Pain, on 04 March 2016 - 02:15 PM, said:

Larger maps are pointless when the community only wants to play skirmish mode. In skirmish mode everyone naturally gathers in the middle to fight. If we want larger maps we need game modes that use the outer edges of the maps more, and the community has to want to play these other game modes.

Alternatively, we could have more players who actually think in what was originally billed as a thinking person's shooter.

[Kaisha]

Thunderbird Anthares, on 04 March 2016 - 04:47 PM, said:

it comes down to map design
have you played Mechwarrior Living Legends?

I do agree that good map design > map size. But a bad small map is easier to deal with than a bad large map. And no I never played MW:LL

[Wolfways]

1453 R, on 04 March 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

Mining Collective is a pretty cool example of a smaller map that nevertheless feels larger because more of its space gets used.

What? lol
Mining Collective is a terrible map. It's just a lot of corridors that funnel everyone to where the majority of the fighting takes place. i.e. the center.

Bigger is better because it opens up more possibilities for tactics and fights break out over most of the map, and scouting is a thing.
The small maps are basically start sequence> walk forward> fire. Although many players like these maps and still complain that for some reason their turret has legs and they have to use them at all.

[Alistair Winter]

The ADD-generation needs fighting to start within 30 seconds of clicking the 'Play' button, basically.

It just looks so ridiculous when our fully armed dropships are putting down both teams within a couple of kilometers of each other, and then basically high five each other as they all fly back up to orbit. All 6 dropships might as well be flying in formation, it's so silly to have them so close to each other. Sometimes they even fly directly past each other.

[Wintersdark]

Wolfways, on 04 March 2016 - 05:19 PM, said:

The small maps are basically start sequence> walk forward> fire. Although many players like these maps and still complain that for some reason their turret has legs and they have to use them at all.

This is why I'm glad the redid FC and RC. Both where so crushingly small - they were small maps in 8v8 - that in 12v12 matches there really wasn't room for this to be a "thinking man's shooter". I mean, you could actually fire at mechs in the opposing drop zone before anyone moved in RC.

I'm glad they kept Alpine rather than pulling it for Polar Highlands, but I don't miss Old River City or Old Forest Colony at all.

[1453 R]

Mining Collective is one of those very rare maps, in my own experience, where every bit of it gets used regularly. Fights often start in the center mosh pit, yes - but they don't always end there. Players maneuver around either side of the central area, groups fragment into two or three smaller fights out trying to flank the flankers, and generally the whole map tends to see battle.

Polar is that same style writ large, and so smack-in-the-face obvious that even the turretest of turret-warriors get the idea that they have feet for a reason, but Mining Collective is one of my favorites because it's another map that can really reward mobility and being able/willing to reposition. Not as much as Polar, where it's damn near a requirement, but that's all right.

As opposed to, say...Nu River City. Which is great don't get me wrong, but it went from a small crappy map where everyone moshes around the g'damned Citadel to a much bigger, prettier map...where everyone moshes around the Citadel. UGH. I miss the first few days of NRC's release, where people'd go to all kinds of weird spots just to see what happened.

Don't get me started on Forest Colony, though. Old Forest Colony was horrible...but I'm not yet convinced NFC is actually an improvement.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Some of the maps, especially newer maps, are much better.

PH is a great example of design even more than it is an example of size. The outer trenches and inner peaks and valleys provide a variety of tactical option where there is no single "best" approach to winning.

FC (Forest Colony) had this potential, as well; but they put a huge rock in the middle and made the most of the usable space into a "C" shape around in. If they had made the mountain into more of a gentle, giant-tree-forested hill with a small defendable position on top (but one that was approachable from multiple angles of attack) it would be much more versatile.

New maps need to combine greater area with good design by following the PH precedent.

Two possibilities that I think are interesting are:

Metropolitan Ruins
An urban, city center type environment. I think this would be best implemented not as a single high-rise cityscape, but as a set of high-rise clusters with some suburban/open space between.

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

Archipelago
A volcanic island chain with deep water between them.

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[zeves]

Large maps would make sense for things like CW where you want to use tactics and have a bigger longer battle and over a longer time frame.
not for a quick match, witch is funny since CW has some of the smaller maps in the game.

Edited by zeves, 04 March 2016 - 06:15 PM.

[Hit the Deck]

Wedge Red Leader, on 04 March 2016 - 01:59 PM, said:

I don't understand why the maps are so small in MWO. Is it a CryEngine limitation? For example, in the polar highlands map, I can rarely take a step backwards without hitting someone. Being I'm still newish to the game, maybe it's me. Because I hear all the time how people think its a huge map. Maybe I should post this under the help section?

[HerrRed]

I agree with the majority here that map design is more important than sheer size. However, my favourite maps are those who cater for manoeuvre. Personally, slightly bigger maps would be fine by me. Heck, I would love to see a really huge map where you could have different places where to fight. The only map to do that consistently is PH with some others that sometimes move the area of engagement (like Crimson and Tourmaline) Polar actually forces teams to look for one another and to keep the slower mechs in a central position in the back so they can move to where the engagement is. I want more of that. For those that complain you need to walk too much, welcome to manoeuvre warfare. Something that is essential on the BT universe I should add.

Heck make a really huge map and make it 24 vs 24. That would open up so many possibilities...

[Wintersdark]

1453 R, on 04 March 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

Mining Collective is one of those very rare maps, in my own experience, where every bit of it gets used regularly. Fights often start in the center mosh pit, yes - but they don't always end there. Players maneuver around either side of the central area, groups fragment into two or three smaller fights out trying to flank the flankers, and generally the whole map tends to see battle.

Polar is that same style writ large, and so smack-in-the-face obvious that even the turretest of turret-warriors get the idea that they have feet for a reason, but Mining Collective is one of my favorites because it's another map that can really reward mobility and being able/willing to reposition. Not as much as Polar, where it's damn near a requirement, but that's all right.

I love Mining Colony for much the same reason. It's one of the few maps where you can actually flank, and do so in a reasonable enough timeframe that it's not suicidal to try thanks to the terrain and short distances.

Quote

As opposed to, say...Nu River City. Which is great don't get me wrong, but it went from a small crappy map where everyone moshes around the g'damned Citadel to a much bigger, prettier map...where everyone moshes around the Citadel. UGH. I miss the first few days of NRC's release, where people'd go to all kinds of weird spots just to see what happened.

I'm quite fond of NRC. It does suck when people just want to play Dance Around The Citadel, but I see it mix up a fair bit.

Quote

Don't get me started on Forest Colony, though. Old Forest Colony was horrible...but I'm not yet convinced NFC is actually an improvement.

I don't like NFC. I hated OFC too, but NFC... I can't really say WHY I don't like it, but I profoundly dislike playing on it. I think mostly because the primary engagement area is very, very tedious; but really I don't know why I hate it so much. I mean, Mt. Moron on Alpine is like that, but 10/10 times I'd prefer to play on Alpine than NFC.

Hit the Deck, on 04 March 2016 - 06:19 PM, said:

No accounting for taste. Old forest was just too small, the tunnel was too annoying (slopes and angles that were very fiddly). Sure, it was THE ranged map in Ye Ole Days, but it too was still small even for 8v8 play... for 12v12 it was dumb.

[Beaching Betty]

Srsly? Lol

[Metus regem]

Alistair Winter, on 04 March 2016 - 05:25 PM, said:

It just looks so ridiculous when our fully armed dropships are putting down both teams within a couple of kilometers of each other, and then basically high five each other as they all fly back up to orbit. All 6 dropships might as well be flying in formation, it's so silly to have them so close to each other. Sometimes they even fly directly past each other.

Just more proof that we are already on Solaris VII, in the various arenas....