57 replies to this topic

[jaytar]

I wonder how much revenue this new map has cost them, and how much it will continue to cost them. I think the map sux and when you change something that is a downgrade from what you had and keep it, you have fools for leaders.

[Xetelian]

They need to make the markers different enough to not confuse mediums and heavies.

I liked the zoomed out minimap, I want to be able to toggle between the two, that would be really good for spotters, instead of just "Enemies E6" you could say "Enemies North, E6" and I click a button and have a full map and an idea where I am relative to the grid and N/S/E/W.

We dare to dream.

[MadcatX]

jaytar, on 24 June 2016 - 08:47 PM, said:

I wonder how much revenue this new map has cost them, and how much it will continue to cost them. I think the map sux and when you change something that is a downgrade from what you had and keep it, you have fools for leaders.

That applies to most feature update, maps. mechs, pretty much anything that gets rolled out. You'll have folks who love it and folks who think it was a waste of resources. For example in my opinion implementation of inverse kinematics is a waste of resources. It's something I'll barely even notice in a fight since most mechs arn't polite enough to just stand still as we exchange fire. However I know plenty of folks who really like the fact it's coming back for both sim reasons, making some good vids and other reasons and I'm not about to rain on their parade about it.

[Kubernetes]

ScarecrowES, on 24 June 2016 - 01:30 PM, said:

Does anyone really care which direction the feet of the mechs around you are facing? Those doritos some folks seem to miss never showed you what a mech was looking at, only where its feet were pointed. That's what caused so many people problems with the old new minimap.

What good is it to know if an enemy's feet are pointed away from you, if their torso is pointed right at you and you can't see that?

The new icons are vastly more useful.

I never noticed before that the new level of terrain detail can obscure elevation data. I suppose that really only applies to certain dense maps with significant overhanging features like Viridian Bog and Forest Colony. I'm wondering if it'd be possible for a pure terrain elevation map to be used instead. That might be more useful data to have than how dense the trees are in your area.

Yes, directional icons are useful for me. The map is more zoomed out, so if you want to see where your team is moving you have to stare at the map longer and watch the icons. Solo games seem slower and more deliberate than before because it's harder to get that deathball inertia going. Group movement, especially without a lot of comms, is a weirdly dynamic thing. In the past you could see the big mass of your team all pointing one way and know where to go. Now it's "are we moving? where are we moving?"

[Dino Might]

I like the new minimap. I think it looks a lot nicer. While some may dissent on principle of usefulness, I have found it very intuitive so far, and I generally rely on visuals for the important info. I use the minimap like an RWR. Just give me the bearing and estimated range, and I'll make the decisions on who to turn hot on.

[DarthHias]

I prefer it about the old one. It gives a much better overview which enemies are where. Not just doritos but class of mech.

[The Mech behind you]

I had to get used to the new icons first but now I like it better than the old one. The only thing I'm missing is an indicator for the directions the mechs are moving / looking.

Edited by The Mech behind you, 25 June 2016 - 01:13 AM.

[AnTi90d]

The Mech behind you, on 25 June 2016 - 01:11 AM, said:

I had to get used to the new icons first but now I like it better than the old one. The only thing I'm missing is an indicator for the directions the mechs are moving / looking.

These would fix that.. as well as allowing the icons to be more noticable.

[Death Proof]

I'm totally ok with the minimap change.

I just want to option to zoom in and out on the minimap with the mouse scroll.

[Johnny Z]

The new map is a nice change and looks better. The added functionality is great to and is even getting some use in quick play. I guess there is some more improvements on the way to maybe.

[DAYLEET]

I like the new map better, just the weight icons makes it a better option for me. As with many other thing in mwo, it's part of a bigger plan which i want to believe in and yet give more time*sight* to develop. The problem with these updates is they remove stuff people are used to and they will always be met with resistance. I think it's best in the long run.

[Yosharian]

I can't see anything specific that you guys like aside from the mech class icons which I've already shown are extremely hard to identify in the heat of battle due to them being so small. Once 2-3 mechs pile up in a small area you are not going to be using those icons to determine weight classes. I find it baffling that you guys think this is a useful feature. That aside it's clear as day to me how inferior the minimap is to the old one in all other respects. How you can look at the Bog comparison for example and proudly announce 'I like it!' is just beyond me.

Edited by Yosharian, 25 June 2016 - 05:49 AM.

[SplashDown]

i like this new mini map now..with the darker color i can actuly see grid reff on snow maps.

[Trauglodyte]

I liked the original patch map because I understand the three things that they were trying to do:

• Copy something good from WoT
  
• Give more scope and feel for the game while providing more battlefield information
  
• Start something that will piggy back onto Info Warfare in the future

It was a good attempt that fell short because we didn't need a new mini-map but, instead, needed an added map on the HUD. What I want/need is the original mini-map with the new icons and the old icons for targets that the spotter has complete information on (info warfare here). What I also want is a "big map" (see original patch map) next to my % armor/structure HUD. I also want target-of-target and a yellow indicator for that t-o-t instead of having yellow be the designated color for D/Cs.

There is potential and I really like the direction. The implementation was just bad. But, hey, it is PGI - what do we expect other than good ideas done badly?

[Hit the Deck]

The "map" on the old minimap has better contrast and more simple so it's easier to see.

[Trauglodyte]

The only thing that I don't like about the Bog mini-map is that it shows too much foliage. I don't need to see that. What I need to see is topography. Put that kind of detail on a "big map" to the side. Quite honestly, the primary mini-map should be black with grey lines for separating grid squares and yellow lines to show topographical changes and buildings. You should be able to navigate in reverse going by nothing but the mini-map. Give me both of those maps, and I'm killing it.

[Moldur]

A minimap changes the dyanmic of the game depending on how much information it gives the player. Many modern games pit a lot of situational awareness off staring at the all-knowing minimap. That doesn't necessarily make the game better.

I'm sure the people at Blizzard could have made map icons for units and such instead of different colored generic blocks, but they didn't. They didn't want players to have that much information from the minimap. PGI doesn't want us to have as much clear information from the minimap to change the dynamic of the game by reducing minimap reliance.

[Magnus Santini]

Yosharion, the enemy orientation was never displayed for free. Someone on your team had to look at the enemy or launch a UAV to get it. Nerfing the map discounts that teammate's contribution, which sometimes cost his life. Scarecrow, it is safer to run behind a mech pointed away from you than towards you, even if they are craning their neck towards you because you will run past their ability to turn. Mech size icons are useless because it is not like you really have a different approach to whatever that target may be based on size (open hailing frequencies to mediums?). If there have to be new icons, instead of crop circles, how about "A," "h," "M," and "L." That would show orientation. Or "<-" for light, "<=" for medium, etc.

[Sjorpha]

I like that it is more zoomed out and that you can see different weight classes, i actually find those two things really useful.

I don't like that the terrain is dark and hard to make out, it should be more abstracted with clearly contrasted lines for significant features and not show any unimportant details like foliage and stuff. That part is a big downgrade imo, the old map was much clearer. Directional info was nice to have as well, it should have been possible to base the new icons on triangles instead of squares.

Upsides and downsides sums up to a slight negative for me, if it enables something interesting down the road I might be convinced it was worth it maybe, but I'm still going to think the new map should have been withheld until then.

And nothing can remove the stain from the original catastrophic implementation, I will never think of PGI as professionals again after that.

[adamts01]

New map is better. Seeing the bigger picture helps scouts. The letters are a different color so they're much easier to read. As another player stated though, there needs to be a color blind option. The trees and **** need to go, it's too cluttered. As far as the arrows, they were extra information, but if that is added in later thanks to BAP/CAP, UAVs, TAG ECM on counter and stuff like that, I'm all for it. Information warfare. It just needs tweaking is all.