62 replies to this topic

[Jables McBarty]

MeiSooHaityu, on 25 May 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

Plus, on large maps light mechs can, and often do, actually scout! It might only be the first few min of a game, but they do run ahead and spot the enemy for the team.

That right there is a bonus ( even if a small one).

As a light pilot, this is one major reason why I LOVE Polar. At last, room to stretch my legs!

MeiSooHaityu, on 25 May 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

Frozen City for sure, but is that due to size or temperature? I still wonder if it would be as popular if it was hot like Caustic or Terra Therma.

As for Canyon Network, I don't consider that map very small. It isn't Polar big, but it also isn't Frozen City small either.

Mining collective I think is more map design than anything. Lots of elevation, good for sniping, brawling, or LRMing. Just a good map all around.

Besides, Crimson Strait still seems to be pretty popular when I play. I'd consider that a bigger map too.

I think there is a lot more to this than map size.

Based off these four that you mention, looks like six is the "magic" number for popular maps (note that these are not necessarily my favorite maps)

Frozen is the smallest simply in terms of area in play--fights seldom go beyond the 6 squares in the middle of the map. These squares only have one major dividing feature--the dropship--so once teams engage it's just a continuous free-for-all. This is why this one feels so small even though it's geographically no different from the next two.

Canyon has pretty much the same area of play, but the vertical aspect makes it feel much bigger: even though there are 6 squares usually in play, it's more like 12 squares due to the different elevations; barriers divide play such that opposing teams in the same square might not even see each other; also we DO use the fringes, whereas the East and Southern fringes of Frozen never get used.

Mining collective is, like you say, good map design. Again, six squares in play, but active fringes, and the sight lines and barriers break play into several different sectors of combat that don't bleed into one another unintentionally.

Crimson has a lot more room to run around in, but most battles are still in six squares--the B4-D4 line and half a square in either direction. But this map IS actually bigger than the previous three, so there is more room to skirmish, to flank, and when we are playing Conquest or Assault the entire map comes into play.

Dawnstealer, on 25 May 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

NO - YOU SUFFER.

In all seriousness? While it's a ginormous map, Polar Highlands is a really great map - it doesn't play the same way twice and there's a lot of cat and mouse in the initial engagement. Sure, things usually happen near the middle, but not every time. It's not like Caustic, where the action is always counter-clockwise around the caldera; or River City, where the action is always at the Citadel or Upper City; or Frozen City, where the action is always at the Crow's Nest or B4 city.

Big, open maps give scouts a chance to scout, planners a chance to plan, and Rambos their glorious death.

Holy ****, it is always counter-clockwise!

Delta 62, on 25 May 2016 - 08:28 AM, said:

I should have put in my OP that I'm talking about quick play. If you want big maps with objectives and stuff then maybe Community warfare would be your cup of tea.

I'm not afraid to voice what kind of game play I'm looking for, and neither are you guys. I think what we can take away from this is that the mwo community has a variety of tastes.

When I drop in pug matches through quick play, I'm looking for fun and maybe some laughter.

[shudders]

From the expansive-gameplay angle (again, my favorite map is Polar), FW takes everything that is bad about QP and just jacks it up. Deathballing, concentrated areas of combat, min/maxing on loadouts, no need to scout.... It is literally "go to the big X and start shooting things."

Yes, an idealized FW concept would have the expansive, objective-oriented, tactically diverse maps we are talking about. But as built (and as I expect it to remain), it doesn't provide this experience. Large QP maps can and do.

For the record, I'm on board with leaving small maps and just adding bigger maps as those are developed--maybe get a good balance of each so everyone is satisfied--but we definitely need more Polar Highlandses.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Jason Parker, on 26 May 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

That is true in theory. It was the reason why we wanted bigger maps and more players in a match in the first place. In practice though, caused by combination of the current balance, TTK and the way the game modes work, we still do not see much dynamic in gameplay. The overhauled maps are the best example for that: Forest Colony, River City and Cautsic Valley still work the same as before the overhaul. But even on the maps that started out big there isn't much dynamic going on. It's two big blobs of mechs first hiding and shooting it out from a distance then going into NASCAR mode to see who leaves more mechs behind to be outnumbered by the other team.

There are things that affect dynamic gameplay other than map size. A huge map that squeezes to a single choke point will always play the same, despite its size. (FW maps, anyone?)

The maps that you listed, especially Forest Colony, suffer greatly from poor design and what should have been a great battlefield was reduced to usable area little bigger than the original.

Good map design trumps size, to be sure. But part of good map design is providing lots of options for points of contact and that is much easier with larger maps and actually impossible if a map is too small.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 26 May 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[jweltsch]

Bigger maps COULD be fun, but really are not, largely because of two reasons: 1. No real reason to visit anywhere on the map but where you meet the enemy team 2. no reason to seperate from your team unless you want to loose because, gasp, no respawns.

The reason larger maps are largely useless and the fighting rarely happens outside of certain areas is the same reason why every game mode boils down to death match, and is the same reason why no xp or cbill incentive will change that, you only get one life, and the easiest, quickest, and ALWAYS best way to win a match is to make the other side dead. The only way the current game modes and objectives and larger maps will work is to allow some way to respawn, otherwise deathball/fireline will ALWAYS win and will ALWAYS limit the game.