PGI should keep all the smaller versions and use them for 4v4 and 8v8 type modes.
Silly to ditch all the work that went into them even if they were never good for 12v12.
Exactly this
I actually like some of the old maps
It would be better to try and find a way to make 4vs4 and 8vs8 workable money wise for PGI (had something to do with hosting matches on servers something something)
the maps are already there anyway
Who knows, maybe the matchmaker would like the option as well
Aside from the fact that 4vs4 can be so much fun anyway
Smaller maps provide progressively less options for points of contact between teams. This is simply because the smaller the map is, the less room there is to move around. That is, on smaller maps teams run into each other at the same places because there aren't any other places.
Conversely, the larger the map, the more possibilities there are for points of contact. That directly translates into a more dynamic gameplay experience. That is, on larger maps teams can choose not to run into each other at any particular place because there are lots of places to choose from.
There is probably a point where a map becomes to big for a given number of players. However, we haven't hit that size yet (Polar Highlands probably comes close).
So, for a more dynamic gameplay experience we need more big maps, not less!
Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 26 May 2016 - 03:32 AM.
Brandarr Gunnarson, on 26 May 2016 - 03:31 AM, said:
Smaller maps provide progressively less options for points of contact between teams. This is simply because the smaller the map is, the less room there is to move around. That is, on smaller maps teams run into each other at the same places because there aren't any other places.
Conversely, the larger the map, the more possibilities there are for points of contact. That directly translates into a more dynamic gameplay experience. That is, on larger maps teams can choose not to run into each other at any particular place because there are lots of places to choose from.
There is probably a point where a map becomes to big for a given number of players. However, we haven't hit that size yet (Polar Highlands probably comes close).
So, for a more dynamic gameplay experience we need more big maps, not less!
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.
Actually back in 8v8 there was much more dynamic because during the phase of distance shootout a pair of mechs or even a single mech breaking loose undiscovered and flanking the enemy could be a game changer. Those maneuvers don't really work anymore in 12v12 because that flanker is immediatly chased by at least a full lance and the other two lances are still enough resistance for the remaining team.
I understand the need for some big maps.... but are they really trying to redo all the old ones into giant maps? Forest colony and river city go on for sooooooooooooooooooooooo long. It gets boring fast.
This is what I like, just good old fashioned fun.
Wow really? what do you want the enemy to spawn on top of you? or maybe right in front of your guns?
Forest colony dropzone at I10 time to traverse to furthest grid from the initial drop point C7 is 4:28 seconds at 48.6kph (non speed tweaked 100 ton mech with 300 engine probably the slowest mech commonly used by anyone).
Of note however is the actual point of intrest on forest colony is grid G8 or 9 where we will generally see enemy contact and the battle joined. that takes 1: 28 seconds to reach in the slowest mech in common use.
88 seconds is unreasonable for you to expect THE SLOWEST mech to reach combat?
Conversely a 170 engie non speed tweaked Locust can reach the furthest attainable possition from it's initial drop point on forest colony in 1:32 seconds. The Locust will also reach the relevant grids G8-9 where the battle will actually be in 26 seconds.
So somewhere between .5 to 1.5 minutes is the time it takes to reach combat on one of these so called "huge" maps.
Yet under 2 minutes is too long for some people apparently.
And here is the thing about my opinion, I think the largest maps we have are half the size they should be.
You see the smaller a map is and the closer objective are the less relevant several interesting factors become.
Recon is nigh unto unneccissary on our current postage stamp maps. As such pretty much all light mechs are built to be specialist attack platforms and rarely ( like nearly never) do we see any mechs built for actual recon duty.
Why do we need recon if the enemy has so few options for manuver that they will 99.9% of the time be in grid G8 and 9 fifty seconds into a match on forest colony.
So recon as a role is deminished by small maps.
Next up is skirmishing and fast strike roles. If the slowest of mechs can reach the relevant areas of the current "huge" maps in around a minute and a half (20-30 seconds after a peppy medium would) why do we bother with these mechs? wouldn't a heavy or another assault mech be preferable almost always? The role of medium mechs as the units deployed to engage and hold an objective until the heavy hitters get there is pretty farcical if the heavy hitters are just around the corner.
Now for assault mechs. There isn't much of a penalty for having slower speeds if you can easily correct poor possitioning in under 30 seconds.And since we always know where the objectives are and where the enemy will be marching is there any need for information from recon and spotters to tell you were to head?
It's bland and it's just smash em up robots in a tiny arena and not a flowing battle with a critical need for recon and info as well as proper possitioning. This is why on so many maps the only real question is what direction will the mob NASCAR on the next skirmish (oh the answer is RIGHT they almost always go right)
Brandarr Gunnarson, on 26 May 2016 - 03:31 AM, said:
Smaller maps provide progressively less options for points of contact between teams. This is simply because the smaller the map is, the less room there is to move around. That is, on smaller maps teams run into each other at the same places because there aren't any other places.
Conversely, the larger the map, the more possibilities there are for points of contact. That directly translates into a more dynamic gameplay experience. That is, on larger maps teams can choose not to run into each other at any particular place because there are lots of places to choose from.
There is probably a point where a map becomes to big for a given number of players. However, we haven't hit that size yet (Polar Highlands probably comes close).
So, for a more dynamic gameplay experience we need more big maps, not less!
Yep that is 100% correct except that polar is actually smaller than Alpine in actual area available to move around in. In actuallity it's fairly common to see 50% of available surface area of the larger maps being under used or out right ignored.
Many will point at that as proof of the maps being too large but what is the actual problem is map design reducing options and static placement of objectives in areas that are not taking full advantage of the map's potential.
Big maps are fine, just need anti-hiding objectives so that the match can be ended without having to search.
Domination works well for that.
Needs randomised capture zone so there is more dynamic map use.
Perhaps dont start the timer until both teams have entered a mech into the zone (Crimson Im looking at you), perhaps a secondary minute to allow that to happen (so teams cant refuse to enable the zone)
Zone could be bigger sometimes, still prevents hiders but allows for a less bunched up fight.
Agree with keeping the old maps in rotation. Votes will decide if players want them played or not.
Only delete them if they start to present a maintenance problem, eg incompatible with engine changes.
I prefer the larger maps. If you like smaller maps, then wait, as the Solaris maps will be small arena style maps, however big maps are great for FW and 12 mans.. 24 mechs crammed onto a small map isn't fun as the spawn points are way too close together, especially on Frozen City-Frozen City Night. Larger maps mean having to think a little more strategically which is much more fun than getting lucky and spawning close to the enemy.
Bigger maps is supposed to mean there will be more areas you are likely to fight, instead of always fighting in the same 500 meter square.
Of course it only works if said big map doesn't funnel you with terrible terrain obstacles *cough* Forest Colony *cough*, or central "come fight near me" centrally located landmarks *cough* River City *cough*.
At least the new snow map seems to vary more where people fight, and I can appreciate that, so maps more like it in that sense (but some decent cover and some interesting non-centrally located landmarks).
No! Bigger maps, more time. For example 30/ 45 minutes for big and gigantic maps, the ordinary 15 for small to medium maps could stay.
Also double or even triple the C-BILL, XP and GXP (counting those who dont have premium time) gains on the larger maps. Wee DO use time of our lives playing and should be rewarded accordingly.
Reintroduce the older maps in addition to a combination of new maps that are both large and small. Then adjust sensors on battlemechs to allow for more mystery in fights.
No! Bigger maps, more time. For example 30/ 45 minutes for big and gigantic maps, the ordinary 15 for small to medium maps could stay.
Also double or even triple the C-BILL, XP and GXP (counting those who dont have premium time) gains on the larger maps. Wee DO use time of our lives playing and should be rewarded accordingly.
This is the antithesis of what should be done with an unorganized, blind Quickplay mode. How can anyone prepare for this unless they just hope they get lucky with what build they bring and which map gets picked?
To a certain extent, it is like that now with Alpine Peak and Polar Highlands. How is anyone supposed to anticipate that they are going to get the huge, open map that might render their or their teammates' builds useless when it works fine on all the other maps? They can't. No one can. Once again, all anyone can hope for is to get lucky and hope whatever mech they are taking into queue will work IF they get one of the maps that is a total outlier to everything else, unless of course, they are the 1 in however many people that takes 4xerLL and lrm builds into every match hoping, just hoping that they can get into Alpine or something, so that they can actually do somehting while the other 99% of the time, they are throwing the game with their highly specific builds that barely works on half of the other maps. It doesn't promote mixed builds. It polarizes players. Nobody is going to make ****** builds that sort of suck on every map when they could make a build that works really well on all of the maps except 2 or 3. It just makes those 2 or 3 maps completely out of line with all the others which would be fine if we didn't randomly get thrown into them with no foresight (which is exactly what quickplay is.)
There is hardly a point in large or even medium map sizes as long as Domination is a gameplay option. Being forced into small, specific area to battle is never fun.
Personally, I think the movement towards bigger maps would be fine, if we had objectives to match.
Ideally, I would like to see FP get all the Big Maps with the Multiple Objective Missions. IF FP HAD THAT, I would spend my time there, instead of ruining your QP Queue by demanding "QQ 2mins to reach an enemy" sized maps (or, in my words, maps that require tactical movement and scouting, instead of deathball at E7).
Right now, FP is a joke of a game type, trying to pretend to be a MOBA, and failing. If they took even HALF a cue from MW:LL for FP, it would greatly improve the experience. "But LoL is eSportz!". So, I guess we're stuck with a terrible FP mode.
Hopefully Solaris will give all you qq Deathmatch players the instant action game that you're after.
And hopefully someday FP will have the scale and strategic depth to make it actually feel like a battletech mission, instead of some derpy MOBA with most of the features missing.
Edit: Copious amounts of salt applied here, sorry. I miss the game that never was.
This is the antithesis of what should be done with an unorganized, blind Quickplay mode. How can anyone prepare for this unless they just hope they get lucky with what build they bring and which map gets picked?
To a certain extent, it is like that now with Alpine Peak and Polar Highlands. How is anyone supposed to anticipate that they are going to get the huge, open map that might render their or their teammates' builds useless when it works fine on all the other maps? They can't. No one can. Once again, all anyone can hope for is to get lucky and hope whatever mech they are taking into queue will work IF they get one of the maps that is a total outlier to everything else, unless of course, they are the 1 in however many people that takes 4xerLL and lrm builds into every match hoping, just hoping that they can get into Alpine or something, so that they can actually do somehting while the other 99% of the time, they are throwing the game with their highly specific builds that barely works on half of the other maps. It doesn't promote mixed builds. It polarizes players. Nobody is going to make ****** builds that sort of suck on every map when they could make a build that works really well on all of the maps except 2 or 3. It just makes those 2 or 3 maps completely out of line with all the others which would be fine if we didn't randomly get thrown into them with no foresight (which is exactly what quickplay is.)
Am I right in thinking that is what PGI is trying to encourage players to do... drop with more mixed builds? (re a previous town hall when the question of changing mechs post map selection came up) rather than dropping with more optimal/situational builds.
If so it kind of makes sense in regard to not fighting teams of extreme builds ie 12 super long range snipers on Alpine. (Which I doubt I would find much fun). But then its not much fun have a run of games in slow assault or brawlers when people keep voting for large maps either.
C-ER-LL ...sheesh its soooo hot and has such a slow burn... don't know if there is any map I wish to use these on!!!
Personally, I think the movement towards bigger maps would be fine, if we had objectives to match.
Ideally, I would like to see FP get all the Big Maps with the Multiple Objective Missions. IF FP HAD THAT, I would spend my time there, instead of ruining your QP Queue by demanding "QQ 2mins to reach an enemy" sized maps (or, in my words, maps that require tactical movement and scouting, instead of deathball at E7).
One, I think that I'd far sooner prefer more, smaller maps that are better thought out, like Canyon Network. We've already taken Forest Colony and made it bigger, but the resulting map has gone from everyone's favourite to being constantly skipped over.
Personally, I think it's a combination of being too big, as well as just outright having too much flora. Running towards each other is going to happen in every map, but with Forest Colony, you now end up missing each other, and the lights just love to run ahead (Presumably to scout) and get creamed.
Personally, I think that while some of the old maps were indeed too small for 12 on 12, they're making things TOO big, now. So many of these maps are just outright getting skipped over. It's rare that we ever drop in Forest Colony or Caustic anymore, much less Therma - though with the amount folks have always griped about "Mordor", I'm not altogether surprised. A lot of these new maps would be well served to just shrink the "Out of bounds" area and make gameplay a little more snug. That, or sub-divide the big maps so that players are brought into areas they'd normally never see outside of training mode or getting lost.
Besides that, I've been saying for ages that I'd prefer to see a number of smaller generic maps to represent specific biomes, in order to give the worlds in CW some real flavor. If it were possible to have procedurally generated maps that would be even more fantastic, as it would keep players on their toes instead of just "Following the meta" for each map.
3
Bishop Steiner, on 25 May 2016 - 06:50 AM, said:
