56 replies to this topic

[Wedge Red Leader]

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?

[Wintersdark]

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.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

They're small because people don't like walking 5 minutes to get to the fight.

Which is a shame because the 2 big maps TT and PH both require lights to do the whole scouting thing a bit.

[Metus regem]

I never really understood this community's aversion to larger maps, as larger maps make more sense from a real world perceptive... I mean we have war machines that are upwards of 18m tall, traveling at speeds up to 150km/h, why would they be stuck into a tiny battle field that is less than 2km long? It's why I love Polar so much, it lets me get my Locust out for a good sprint.

[Master Pain]

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.

[Raso]

I remember the map sizes and complexity found in MW:LL. I loved those maps. They were big and offered multiple paths to make your attack from. Of course there were also multiple objectives along tge entire map including respawn location, repair facilities and other capture objectives. There was a reason to spread out and there was a reason not to NASCAR.... I still swear it was the better game. If only it had the player base...

[1453 R]

The other issue is that after a certain point, largeness for largeness' sake becomes a waste of resources. Prime example: Alpine Peaks. Most of the lowermost quarter of that map sees virtually no play - the vast majority of all games happen within a kilometer or so of Moron Mountain, leaving all map corners, most of the lower portion of the map, and a good chunk of the east and west borders all sitting there undisturbed whilst people are dumb on the damn hill.

I'm one of those who figures map design trumps sheer size, and also someone who recognizes that the ol' MWLL thing of creeping around a three hundred square kilometer map for over half an hour without sighting the enemy is just not going to fly in MWO. Polar is excellent, and really doesn't need to be bigger than it is. Other maps can be smaller than Polar but build to encourage the same sort of games of maneuver, try and get players to use all the available space. Mining Collective is a pretty cool example of a smaller map that nevertheless feels larger because more of its space gets used. It's not as maneuver-y as Polar, but then nothing is.

Either way. We don't need to do the Battlefield thing where maps are hundreds of times larger than they need to be just for because. What we need are good maps, not just big maps.

[Master Pain]

Conquest mode needs to have the resource points closer to the edges of the maps. Alpine is huge map, but in conquest mode all the cap points are 2 feet apart making most of the map useless. Maybe conquest on larger maps like alpine should have 7 cap points instead of 5.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Master Pain, on 04 March 2016 - 02:23 PM, said:

Conquest mode needs to have the resource points closer to the edges of the maps. Alpine is huge map, but in conquest mode all the cap points are 2 feet apart making most of the map useless. Maybe conquest on larger maps like alpine should have 7 cap points instead of 5.

They used to be but all the assault and heavy pilots bitched and bitched about how unfair it was that if you didn't have any fast mechs you'd automatically lose.

I mean sure... they could have just gone the opposite way they normally do and kill the enemy cappers... but that'd involve thinking about things besides herpaderp imma shoot that until it falls down derr.

[Wintersdark]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 04 March 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

They're small because people don't like walking 5 minutes to get to the fight.

Which is a shame because the 2 big maps TT and PH both require lights to do the whole scouting thing a bit.

It's lovely to see scouts actually being useful, even in solo queue play. On smaller maps, they're pretty much pointless

Metus regem, on 04 March 2016 - 02:09 PM, said:

I never really understood this community's aversion to larger maps, as larger maps make more sense from a real world perceptive... I mean we have war machines that are upwards of 18m tall, traveling at speeds up to 150km/h, why would they be stuck into a tiny battle field that is less than 2km long? It's why I love Polar so much, it lets me get my Locust out for a good sprint.

So many awesome matches on PH that have stretched over kilometers of battlefield.

Sure, you can get mobile matches on small maps, but they're stupid NASCAR races around a small central feature.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

It's lovely to see scouts actually being useful, even in solo queue play. On smaller maps, they're pretty much pointless

Not useless... just relegated to a more supporting role.

Or in the case of my oxide, jenner IIC, firestarters, JR7-F, and cheetos assassinating some fools after the main battle has gotten under way.

[Wintersdark]

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

The other issue is that after a certain point, largeness for largeness' sake becomes a waste of resources. Prime example: Alpine Peaks. Most of the lowermost quarter of that map sees virtually no play - the vast majority of all games happen within a kilometer or so of Moron Mountain, leaving all map corners, most of the lower portion of the map, and a good chunk of the east and west borders all sitting there undisturbed whilst people are dumb on the damn hill.

I'm one of those who figures map design trumps sheer size, and also someone who recognizes that the ol' MWLL thing of creeping around a three hundred square kilometer map for over half an hour without sighting the enemy is just not going to fly in MWO. Polar is excellent, and really doesn't need to be bigger than it is. Other maps can be smaller than Polar but build to encourage the same sort of games of maneuver, try and get players to use all the available space. Mining Collective is a pretty cool example of a smaller map that nevertheless feels larger because more of its space gets used. It's not as maneuver-y as Polar, but then nothing is.

Either way. We don't need to do the Battlefield thing where maps are hundreds of times larger than they need to be just for because. What we need are good maps, not just big maps.

This is true. Certainly can't argue it. But I'd like to see maps of Tourmaline size being the default size, going up to about PH size.

Spending 5 minutes positioning and finding the enemy leads to diverse battles (assuming an open enough map, something that TT fails at) and isn't particularly onerous. Going bigger than PH would be in very real danger of creating maps with massive dead zones (alpine, which is a tragedy because the south of the map is actually very cool) or maps like Terra Therma where if you don't go middle, it's entirely possible to wholly miss AND be unable to spot the opposing team, so you spend ages wandering around.


The new game modes and game mode changes, however, should have an impact on this too.

Narcissistic Martyr, on 04 March 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

Not useless... just relegated to a more supporting role.

Or in the case of my oxide, jenner IIC, firestarters, JR7-F, and cheetos assassinating some fools after the main battle has gotten under way.

Well, those aren't really scouts so much as combat lights that you went scouting with =)

[Tyler Valentine]

Raso, on 04 March 2016 - 02:16 PM, said:

I remember the map sizes and complexity found in MW:LL. I loved those maps. They were big and offered multiple paths to make your attack from. Of course there were also multiple objectives along tge entire map including respawn location, repair facilities and other capture objectives. There was a reason to spread out and there was a reason not to NASCAR....

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

The other issue is that after a certain point, largeness for largeness' sake becomes a waste of resources.

Having larger maps with secondary objectives scattered about is one way that MWO could be improved dramatically.

[Mole]

Yes, we need bigger maps. Walking for five minutes to come into contact with the enemy team on Polar Highlands is not a long enough walk. Seriously though, I don't think maps should get much bigger than Polar. I think Polar is probably the sweet spot for map size.

[1453 R]

Heh...honestly, the southern reaches of Alpine feel a bit like an early prototype for Polar. A lot flatter, more rolling terrain, a good deal of what makes Polar so unique, just...not used, because no one can ever convince the grognards not to blitz the damn hill.

Tourmaline as the standardish map size feels like it about works. Some smaller, some bigger, but center the bell curve there and see where it goes. To be honest that feels like it's getting close to where we are already - there's not much 'tiny map' left after River City and Forest Colony got inflated. Maybe Frozen City, but there's other reasons why Frozen City is annoying beyond being smaller than the norm.

Anyways.

Tyler Valentine, on 04 March 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Having larger maps with secondary objectives scattered about is one way that MWO could be improved dramatically.

Debatable. I know people are just pining for Battlefield 3053 and matches where there's so much Objective to be played that they don't ever actually need to engage the enemy to win, but remember - the Conquest points on a lot of the bigger-end maps ended up pulled in towards center because larger machines become increasingly irrelevant in these fights. Choking a map with widely-dispersed secondary/tertiary objectives mostly just means they're either ignored, if they don't contribute enough to the match, or they become primary objectives instead and you may as well not drop in anything with less than a hundred klicks in the engine.

I run mostly mediums, slowish lights, and faster heavies (right around the 90-120 mark is pretty much me), so I'm not as bothered by moving battles as most...but while I don't agree that Whales and other slowbies need preferential treatment the way they always carp on about, I do agree that keeping the full gamut of 'Mech speeds in mind when designing a game is important.

[process]

Large maps for the sake of largeness usually end up being thoughtless maps. There is very little incentive not to rush towards the middle to skirmish.

The real challenge is designing maps that encourage different strategies, and looking at the maps we currently have, that doesn't seem to correlate to size.

I think Viridian Bog is a good example of a map that's not too large, and has enough going on that it doesn't always turn into a death ball/firing line/nascar.

Edited by process, 04 March 2016 - 02:46 PM.

[Tyler Valentine]

1453 R, on 04 March 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Debatable. I know people are just pining for Battlefield 3053 and matches where there's so much Objective to be played that they don't ever actually need to engage the enemy to win, but remember - the Conquest points on a lot of the bigger-end maps ended up pulled in towards center because larger machines become increasingly irrelevant in these fights. Choking a map with widely-dispersed secondary/tertiary objectives mostly just means they're either ignored, if they don't contribute enough to the match, or they become primary objectives instead and you may as well not drop in anything with less than a hundred klicks in the engine.

I run mostly mediums, slowish lights, and faster heavies (right around the 90-120 mark is pretty much me), so I'm not as bothered by moving battles as most...but while I don't agree that Whales and other slowbies need preferential treatment the way they always carp on about, I do agree that keeping the full gamut of 'Mech speeds in mind when designing a game is important.

Good points. I'm looking for the fight to be broken up a little bit and for role warfare to come into play, not for 'mechs never to see each other. Obviously a balance would have to be struck.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

Wintersdark, on 04 March 2016 - 02:32 PM, said:

This is true. Certainly can't argue it. But I'd like to see maps of Tourmaline size being the default size, going up to about PH size.

Spending 5 minutes positioning and finding the enemy leads to diverse battles (assuming an open enough map, something that TT fails at) and isn't particularly onerous. Going bigger than PH would be in very real danger of creating maps with massive dead zones (alpine, which is a tragedy because the south of the map is actually very cool) or maps like Terra Therma where if you don't go middle, it's entirely possible to wholly miss AND be unable to spot the opposing team, so you spend ages wandering around.


The new game modes and game mode changes, however, should have an impact on this too.


Well, those aren't really scouts so much as combat lights that you went scouting with =)

In TT any mech that was quick (6/9) and cheap got chucked into scout lances. Although I suppose most lights in mwo really fall into the bug hunter category more than any other TT role.

[Dawnstealer]

The game needs more maps, period. A lot more, in my opinion. I also tend to agree with you that the maps, especially the earlier ones, felt a lot more like arenas than locations that mechs would be sent in to fight over. Even the "City" maps felt that way.

PGI is getting way better in that regard, though, and even Caustic feels a bit more like we're fighting over something rather than in a spectator sport on Solaris. Still, though: LOTS more maps.

[process]

Maybe PGI could implement something like Mechwarrior 3, where each mission was just a slice of a greater map. Dynamic out-of-bounds. That way you could get the full potential from each map, using different scenarios or team sizes.