62 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

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).

[MeiSooHaityu]

PhoenixFire55, on 25 May 2016 - 07:13 AM, said:

Frozen City / Canyons / Mining Collective are the smaller maps. People vote for these maps way more often. Nuff 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.

[Chrithu]

The problem is that in any of the four quickplay modes there is little incentive to not meet around the middle of the map and shoot it out.

The OP has a point. Most matches in quickplay are 2 minutes of walking to an area near the middle and then fighting. The fight then usually happens in an area just as big as forest colony used be.

Even in conquest most of the action happens in the central areas of the maps, while the caps far out are left for the light mechs.

This is all due to the fact that the best strategy is to stick close together and outnumber the enemy where possible, regardless of game mode because kill the enemy team is a win in all modes.

What's the point of big maps if that space isn't used???

I still think the game would be much better off wiht 8v8 in quickplay and smaller maps again.

None of the things players hoped for with more players and bigger maps happened. Games aren't more strategic, which was the main argument for people to want 3 Lances and big maps. And on top of it the jump to 8 more mechs on bigger maps had a huge impact on the game's performance.

[Dawnstealer]

Delta 62, on 25 May 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

Ouch me load time. Funny, but I can has ask you to prees put it in a spoiler?

[spo iler] [/spo iler]

just take the spaces out

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.

Edited by Dawnstealer, 25 May 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Goose]

MeiSooHaityu, on 25 May 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

Luckily every team seems to drop with one or more light mechs willing to scout so finding the enemy and converging doesn't take too long.

Clearly, Sir: You are luckier then I.

[Novakaine]

Half life box noobz go way

[Rebas Kradd]

PholkLorr, on 25 May 2016 - 07:04 AM, said:

Most people want small maps. That's why the most popular maps are the small ones. Unless the map selection only allows you to pick from big maps.

I don't like walking 4 mins to play a 900m poke fest, then wait another 4 mins before it gets to midrange.

I want to get to the action faster. I don't like World Of Walking. MechWalker online.

There are a lot of people who have left the game because you got what you wanted. That's why smaller maps are more popular; they drove away a lot of the "deeper gameplay" people. It's not actually the positive sign you interpret it as.

Small maps (combined with badly designed objectives) generated a large number of problems. It made every match predictable. Scouting become useless because people could detect enemy mechs anywhere on the map since it was so closed-in, so nobody would dare go off by themselves for fear of being gang-*****. That meant deathballing, lots and lots of it, and the exact same path from starting point to furball every single time. With spread-out objectives and obscuring terrain, there become more tactical choices

Small maps also meant that role and information warfare, two planks in the game's original vision, were basically a joke because again, there was no need for any of it. You could just find people with your eyes. Small maps really contributed to the whole "shallow arena game" problem that we had.

Now, we need more than just big maps; we need interesting objectives that are spread out and require simultaneous attention so that real strategy is required and the whole map is used. But the large maps are a necessary step forward. I agree with keeping smaller maps in play, perhaps in private lobbies. But the larger maps are good for depth and strategy as a whole.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 25 May 2016 - 07:47 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

Rebas Kradd, on 25 May 2016 - 07:46 AM, said:

Small maps (combined with badly designed objectives) generated a large number of problems.

This, right here, I think is the problem. Everything is team deathmatch, it seems. Even on most Conquest maps, it's far more advantageous to just kill off the enemy and THEN capture points than it is to focus on capping.

In Assault, there's no real point in attacking (or defending) the base. Sure, there's usually a Light or two early (hehehehehee - me) in the match that'll tap the base to split the enemy, or late in the match when it's clear a team won't win on kills.

Dominion is a little more interesting, since you have to hold that circle, but really it's just more of the same as far as funneling the players to one spot with little to play for other than "shoot each other."

Obviously Skirmish is just pure team deathmatch.

These are all fine gamemodes, and the fact that I'm here after over three years shows I'm still having fun, but...

It could have been so much MORE.

I think that's what really bothers people - while this is a fun game, and PGI has knocked the mechs themselves out of the park (WE HAVE UNSEEN - I'M PILOTING A BATTLEMASTER AND MARAUDER AND WARHAMMER FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1989), it just feels like a grand scrum; kind of a Solaris team battle.

Want to make Dominion more interesting? How about this:

Let's take Tourmaline for example. You know that dropship way over in D3 (near Epsi on Conquest)? The one with the Atlas and other mechs still in it? You know what would be cool? Start the teams out an equal distance from that. Make it destructible. You have to hold the thing until the timer runs out, but...

The catch? It's DESTRUCTIBLE.

A team can deny the win by blowing it up. They may not win themselves, but at least the other team wouldn't win.

Want to make Scout more interesting? Rather than standing on these "beacons" that, for some reason, store intel (which is how most countries do it now, right? Just scatter a bunch of, let's see, 5-meter high GLOWING BEACONS that you can stand on for five seconds and download all the info therein?), how about something else?

How about you have to escort two of these:


They zip up to a building, some dudes run into the building, you have to defend them while they get the intel. Think of the options here - the mechs could run straight at the defenders and attack, they could run to some random building and pull the enemy off, they could split up and thus split up the enemy.

But it has FLAVOR. It has SCALE. You feel like you're fighting for something.

[Captain Mittens]

Players wanted a bigger combat experience. Simply making the maps larger doesn't make the combat any more spread out, strategic or grander scaled. Imagine if boxing was moved from a ring to a foot ball field. The two combatants would still generally spend the entire fight within a few meters of each other, because beyond that, there's no point, just delaying the fight.

Same thing with this. Since the deathball meta is basically the only meta, and most weapons have relatively limited range as compared to each other. The LONGEST ranged weapon in the game is only really 2-3 times longer than the shorter end of the spectrum, and compared to the movement speed of most mechs, there isn't really much strategy involved in rolling long ranged weapons, and having different roles. Pretty much everyone is either medium ranged or short ranged, with damage decay, hit detection etc, basically no one is fighting outside of 1000m. You can scrape each other with ER-LL and waste ac2/gauss ammo, but the combat gets decided at a much smaller distance.

People want a game where there's a reason to spread out, and where team work such as flanks, and L shaped ambushes are worth doing. Right now, the team that splits up generally gets anhilated as the advantage in position rarely substitutes for superior numbers.

[Cy Mitchell]

Dawnstealer, on 25 May 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

But it has FLAVOR. It has SCALE. You feel like you're fighting for something.

I would love to see a convoy escort mission with two or three of these that you have to protect while crossing a big map. The attacking team gets scored for how many they destroy and the defending team gets scored for how many make it to the destination. Make them armored and fairly tough to kill and put them on a big map like Polar or Alpine or Canyon or a new desert or forested map. Give the possibility of multiple routes across the map and maybe the possibility of the convoy splitting up to try to reach their goal.

No. We do not need smaller maps. We need big maps with interesting objectives that force us to use the map to its full extent. Scouting is a step in the right direction but there are many more possibilities.

How about a mode where there is a Star League era weapons cache or knowledge core that must be sought out and recovered. Both teams search for it and the one that finds it and returns it to a drop zone wins. Would be random spawns in the central areas of a large map.

Yeah, big maps with goals and objectives that involve more than deathballing, sniping and brawling. That's the ticket!

Edited by Rampage, 25 May 2016 - 08:27 AM.

[MechWarrior319348]

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.

Edited by Delta 62, 25 May 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

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.

Solaris is coming. That sounds like what you are looking for.

[Morggo]

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.

Trick there is, there are many that don't/won't venture into FW and only play in Puglandia. But that doesn't mean they don't crave more "complex" or objective driven modes. I agree with your point that we have a varied audience of players. Disagree on your suggestion and would prefer to see variety put into both sides of the QP/FW fence. That said, I would also welcome the ability to pick match size, maybe have maps available accordingly .. choose 12v12 get the (even) bigger maps. Choose 8v8... maybe roll out the older smaller maps, etc. (I know we have a population issue to fill queues, but I wonder if allowing different match sizes would hurt things much... I suspect you'd have plenty of 12v people, plenty of 8v people, etc.. hmmmmm)

But yeah, there are times I hit QP just for lolz and banter with the mates. But there are also nights I'm in it for a session.. maybe to practice a tactic or work a new mech or whatever.

(I do like this has been a pleasant exchange of ideas BTW.. too many threads quickly devolve into "your idea sucks so you are stupid and your dog has fleas" type threads)

[process]

There is no point to having large maps if there isn't a good reason to navigate them. You have 1 life and fixed spawns, meaning you're going to stay together, and head towards a known midpoint between teams. There's no variety, and few reasons to split up.

As it stands, if you find yourself in a remote part of a large map, your team is probably going to lose.

[Dawnstealer]

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.

But even FW is glorified deathmatch - Invasion and Counterattack, it's far easier to kill the big gun after you've killed all the enemies. Granted, there's gen-rushing, but that's only fun for big units trying to grind out wins to get their tag on the planet: for everyone else, it's a waste of an hour.

[MauttyKoray]

The smaller maps worked fine for things like 8v8, but 12v12 made things really cramped. Certain locations such at Canyon Network still work even as they are because of the added verticality of the map and canyon walls creating fewer straight lines to move in.

[zephoidb]

The problem isn't the size of the map, its that every fight has to occour in exactly the same area. River City always is a fight in the water instead of having the bridge side be completely city all the way to the middle.
Forest Colony should remove the giant plateau in the middle and make it all dense forest rather than having that archway and the area around it being the only fighting lanes.

Arctic is always a fight over the mountain. The side that has the mountain wins 85% of the time. Its not a balanced map and needs redesigned.


The game just needs experienced map developers who sit down and plan out the fighting areas of the map before they design it. Fighting areas should be quick variations of long and short range combat, which is why Canyon is so popular. When you force players into long or short range combat all across the entire combat zone of the map, people dislike it. I could do good map design sketches and even the 3d mockups all day long, but it wouldn't go anywhere. I wish this game had map design tools so the community could submit maps.

[Jiyu Mononoke]

I like big maps, things tend to play out, get into rolling battles etc. Small maps can be fun as well, and I do wish they had kept the old maps in rotation. "How" the game is played often lends to how the maps are treated. and how the battle plays out Example: Paying for rearm and repair can change how people play. It was definitely interesting when we did have it, made you think a little bit more. Add salve (Destroy the part, rolls a chance to get the part) and that could add a new dynamic. as well, there are game modes that could encourage a tactical element: Random Domination location, Escort missions etc.

Solaris will be fun

[LordNothing]

the keyword is variety. pgi has in the past been know for making the same mistake many times (almost every fw map). i think instead of making all them big open monster maps with exactly the same set of features, they really need to diversify the map themes. id actually love to see a large map with tons of cover and more use of the vertical space. or small open maps with no cover. more map hazzards and high/low tempurature zones.

[chucklesMuch]

In quick play there needs to be good reasons for large maps. Not just for the sake of it.

At the moment most maps (except Polar Highlands) you generally end up with combat in the same few places. And one of the game modes, Domination, certainly doesn't promote large maps. (Nor does trying to up-skill slow mechs in pugland).

I just about always vote for small maps these days. Not necessarily because I like these maps more but because I find the medium range weapons are more consistently useful for me (perhaps its that i find it easier to close to within 300-400 meters and engage than remain at distance). Or perhaps the larger maps seem to amplify poor team work and the game is often over faster in the small maps so its doesn't seem as painful when it all goes pear shaped.

Though in fairness... in the occasional games where good communication has combined tactical awareness and the whole most of team has been on-board with, you know actually; being tactical and scouting and re-positioning and setting up firing lines and pushing together then the larger maps are mint.

Edited by chucklesMuch, 26 May 2016 - 12:56 AM.