42 replies to this topic

[Discount Dan]

I have taken notes on 100 battles, on which maps I ended up in.
Yes 100 isn't a large sample but if I stuck to my original plan of doing a 1000 I wouldn't finish this year, as sometimes I can only stomach 5 battles a day, on the same few maps.

Currently there are 14 maps in rotation in quickplay, however due to map voting this is more like 4 maps.

On random distribution the average map should be played 7,14 times over 100 matches.

The current breakdown (while working on taking notes on another 100 matches) are:

HPG Manifold: 17
The Mining Collective: 13
Canyon Network: 11
Alpine Peaks: 10
Crimson Straits: 9
Polar Highlands: 7
Frozen City: 7
Tourmaline Desert: 6
Caustic Valley: 6
Grim Plexus: 5
Terra Therma: 3
River City: 3
Viridian Bog: 2
Forest Colony: 1

Quite frankly it is boring. Personally I like variety but this map voting excludes that. Yes Terra Therma might not be a very good map but as of late I enjoy it more and more just too see something else than HPG.

It's not that HPG is a bad map (it totally is, symmetrical maps belong in RTS, not FPS) but it gets boring very fast.

I had really decided to not spend anymore money on this due to the map selection but then I went and bought the Stalker Mastery package, I already regret it though, so I guess the jokes on me and PGI can laugh all the way to the bank.

Matches are too large in player numbers, 12 vs. 12 is 4 too much. It leaves very little room for flanking maneuvers and encourages blobbing, as you can't mitigate damage entirely with armor, only spread it around.
There are no zero damage hits unless they are from well beyond effective range, which in turns means that if the flankers run into the main group of enemy they can't retreat and get focused down and no matter how much you twist you can't mitigate enough.
There are no reason to flank to get damaging shots in as concentrated fire will break down an even the front of an Atlas or a Direwolf in less than 30 seconds.

It doesn't require much skill.

In 8v8 there would be more room for tactical maneuvering as the risk would be less.

Faction Warfare is the same joke with blobbing tactics, from my limited experience in it and it makes the game boring for more than a few matches in a row.

There are so few players I frequently notice the same guys from the previous match in the next match I play. Compare that with another vehicle based FPSMMO I've tried where there recurrently are 40k+ players online at the same time (on servers that are not linked between EU, NA, SEA and RU) and quite frankly I fully understand that from the observations I made.

In short; take out map voting and make matches smaller. Or at the very least introduce a lot more maps ASAP.

I like mechs, but the stale meta is pretty boring and it drives players away.

Edited by Northstate, 07 September 2016 - 06:26 PM.

[El Bandito]

Northstate, on 07 September 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

On random distribution the average map should be played 7,14 times over 100 matches.

The current breakdown (while working on taking notes on another 100 matches) are:

HPG Manifold: 17
The Mining Collective: 13
Canyon Network: 11
Alpine Peaks: 10
Crimson Straits: 9
Polar Highlands: 7
Frozen City: 7
Tourmaline Desert: 6
Caustic Valley: 6
Grim Plexus: 5
Terra Therma: 3
River City: 3
Viridian Bog: 2
Forest Colony: 1

Quite frankly it is boring. Personally I like variety but this map voting excludes that. Yes Terra Therma might not be a very good map but as of late I enjoy it more and more just too see something else than HPG.

HPG offers near linear setup, one reason I suspect of its huge popularity. People just do not like maps where one side has the advantage. I for one, do not like it very much. It is not very LRM friendly.

[Idealsuspect]

Interesting post and i have to say i am, since beginning, agaisnt gamemode vote and map vote system.
Well i am agaisnt lots of PGI's ideas but we all know that only PGI know what is good for MWO and we have to say the current game state proove PGI was right ( ofc was more funny than right ) to say this.


Anyway i have something to say about this >>>

Northstate, on 07 September 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

It's not that HPG is a bad map (it totally is, symmetrical maps belong in RTS, not FPS) but it gets boring very fast.

this.


Problem with main part of this playerbase ( and maybe with devs ) they think that MW serie are a basic FPS.

If you think we are playing a FPS coze it's first person view in this case forza motorsport or any simulation game is a FPS right ? But it isnt. >> In our case
MWO can be played as a basic FPS yea you can jump, shoot, walk, turn ( you can't strafe ) ok, but you will have a potato score most of time becose you yolo.


This game have to be played as a RTS in internal view ( minimap can help ). Edit : rest is just a matter of point & click game .
You look your team on map, you see also ennemy units if they move or are static then you will be able to take a good position for maximize yours attacks and your defense cover too. And then you will be able to not be a dead weight that others have to carry.


HPG is maybe the best map i mean the most fair for both teams of the whole maps we have.
Even canyon network is more easy too play on one side...
Terra therma is almost fair but assault spawn zone for one team suck ( ty PGI lots of beta testing before map release i am sure )...
Thats why this game need more symetricals maps like HPG but wait i am not PGI i don't know what MWO need, sorry i did forgot this .

Edited by Idealsuspect, 07 September 2016 - 07:16 PM.

[Foxfire kadrpg]

I kinda take issue with the statement "symmetrical maps belong in RTS, not FPS", especially following a very unpleasant match on Frozen City : Domination. Our opponents arrived to the objective first, and when we finally had view of the situation, I am convinced they had better cover. I wish ALL maps had a line of symmetry between the two teams, and offer the suggestion that the while the geometry need be the same, the texturing and models do not. (Team Fortress's "2Fort" map is a great example)

[Discount Dan]

Only map I know, from my limited experience, where 1 side has an advantage is the western side on Alpine Peaks domination due to very uneven distribution of cover.

[Discount Dan]

Idealsuspect, on 07 September 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Anyway i have something to say about >>>


this.


Problem with main part of this playerbase ( and maybe with dev ) they think that MW serie are FPS.
If you think we are playing a FPS coze it's first person view well in this case forza or any simulation game is a FPS right ? But it isnt.
MWO can be played as a FPS yea you can jump shoot walk turn ok, but you will have a potato score most of time becose you yolo.

HPG is maybe the best map i mean the most fair for both teams of the whole maps we have.
Even canyon network is more easy too play on one side...
Terra therma is almost fair but assault spawn zone for one team suck ( ty PGI lots of beta testing before map release i am sure )...
This game need more symetrical map like HPG.

I try to cover that by saying matches are too large that encourages blobbing. Trying to take 4 mechs and go around is instant loss in most cases. There is no tactics / strategy and HPG exemplifies this by leaving no tactics.

Like it or not it is an FPS with RTS elements and not an RTS with FPS elements.

But a certain other vehicle based MMO I allude to, you need to have better map tactics, due to need of flanking to get damaging shots in. There is no reason to get out of the crowd in this game. Leaving the tactics in base, just driving the Nascar.

[Idealsuspect]

Northstate, on 07 September 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Only map I know, from my limited experience, where 1 side has an advantage is the western side on Alpine Peaks domination due to very uneven distribution of cover.

Indeed very limited experience.
For this reason i will not respond to your next post .

[Discount Dan]

Idealsuspect, on 07 September 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

Indeed very limited experience.
For this reason i will not respond to your next post .

Then don't respond in the first place.

[Besh]

Imho, its not Mapvoting that is the Problem, but People voting .

Many People think "the Fight" on any of the Maps will only ever unfold in one and the same way, and will always move to the very same positions trying to do the very same stuff on a given Map each and every time that Map comes up .

And then complain about stale gameplay .

And if anyone suggests there to be other ways/strategies/younameit, that person must of course be an unknowing, unexperienced n00b who cant say anything about anything cos "limited experience" .

I also think HPG is a favourite cos it is possible to end Matches REALLY quickly if the enemy Team is made of Sheep...and seeing how, as soon as Matchtime starts to exceed 3 mins, a lot of people get disturbingly impatient for whatever reasons, its no wonder to me for HPG being voted for VERY often during certain times of the day . Just like Canyon, for the very same reason(s) I think .

Northstate, on 07 September 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

[...]
It's not that HPG is a bad map (it totally is, symmetrical maps belong in RTS, not FPS) but it gets boring very fast.
[...}

...xcept HPG is not symmetrical .

Edited by Besh, 08 September 2016 - 12:06 AM.

[dervishx5]

It's interesting how in games like World of Warships that very symmetrical maps often have different methods of play. There's some repetitiveness but you never know how each game is going to go, unlike MWO.

[Besh]

dervishx5, on 07 September 2016 - 11:50 PM, said:

It's interesting how in games like World of Warships that very symmetrical maps often have different methods of play. There's some repetitiveness but you never know how each game is going to go, unlike MWO.

Yup .

People talk about boring Maps and stale Gameplay in MW:O, while it comes down to the Players just doing the same thing over and over again, not at all utilizing the Maps, or the various 'Mechs/Loadouts, fully .

Edited by Besh, 08 September 2016 - 12:07 AM.

[Red Shrike]

Besh, on 08 September 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

Yup .

People talk about boring Maps and stale Gameplay in MW:O, while it comes down to the Players just doing the same thing over and over again, not at all utilizing the Maps, or the various 'Mechs/Loadouts, fully .

That's because there's a definitive winning combination of mech, loadout and strategy.
Seeing as a lot of players prefer the path of least resistance, they will default to this combination every single time.

Edited by Red Shrike, 08 September 2016 - 12:39 AM.

[Besh]

Red Shrike, on 08 September 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

That's because there's a definitive winning combination of mech, loadout and strategy.
Seeing as a lot of players prefer the path of least resistance, they will default to this combination every single time.

Yep, and that is somewhat understandeable . What is not is then blaming the Developer for the kindof Gameplay they - the players - produce .

[Discount Dan]

dervishx5, on 07 September 2016 - 11:50 PM, said:

It's interesting how in games like World of Warships that very symmetrical maps often have different methods of play. There's some repetitiveness but you never know how each game is going to go, unlike MWO.

In Warships armor angling negates damage and loadouts are pretty strict. Which makes all the difference, unlike here where armor can be penetrated from any angle. How long it takes simply depends on how well the opponents twists but he will still die.
In Warships and Tanks you can completely negate damage by using your armor right, which forces opponents to flank.

Besh, on 08 September 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

Yep, and that is somewhat understandeable . What is not is then blaming the Developer for the kindof Gameplay they - the players - produce .

Having a game where a certain combo is vastly superior to other combos is bad design. Might as well just take out the other options then, since there is no point.

Then people wouldn't have to be called n00bs etc. as I've seen some people ingame do for bringing a "non-meta" loadout.

Edited by Northstate, 08 September 2016 - 12:51 AM.

[Idealsuspect]

Northstate, on 07 September 2016 - 07:20 PM, said:

Then don't respond in the first place.

With your very limited experience maybe you shouldn't give your limited opinion in first place and shut your mouth

[dervishx5]

Idealsuspect, on 08 September 2016 - 06:39 AM, said:

With your very limited experience maybe you shouldn't give your limited opinion in first place and shut your mouth

[Kirkland Langue]

When players choose mechs before they know what map they will be playing on, it should come as no surprise to anyone that players will "vote" for maps that they view as best for their particular mech and which they feel the most comfortable with.

If you take away the ability to vote, players will just suicide charge on maps they don't want to play - so it isn't as though you've improved the game experience overall.

The correct answer is to have players vote on the map first, then choose mechs, and then for the teams to be formed so that the mechs are balanced (weight/class/something else). Then players would be more likely to want to play on some of the lesser played maps, because they know that they have a mech "perfect" for the particular map/game mode.

[Discount Dan]

Someone just earned a full ignore.

Kirkland Langue, on 08 September 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

When players choose mechs before they know what map they will be playing on, it should come as no surprise to anyone that players will "vote" for maps that they view as best for their particular mech and which they feel the most comfortable with.

If you take away the ability to vote, players will just suicide charge on maps they don't want to play - so it isn't as though you've improved the game experience overall.

The correct answer is to have players vote on the map first, then choose mechs, and then for the teams to be formed so that the mechs are balanced (weight/class/something else). Then players would be more likely to want to play on some of the lesser played maps, because they know that they have a mech "perfect" for the particular map/game mode.

As opposed to now where players forced into bad maps through voting just suicides since they didn't win their vote?

[Lostdragon]

I hate the voting system now. I was ok with it to start with but after using it for a while I too have noticed you wind up playing the same maps over and over and rarely see many of them. I would prefer they go back to random maps so there is better variety, but doubt that will happen.

[Myantra]

Besh, on 08 September 2016 - 12:44 AM, said:

Yep, and that is somewhat understandeable . What is not is then blaming the Developer for the kindof Gameplay they - the players - produce .

The players produce the stale gameplay because they have no real incentive to do anything other than go to X square on the map and play no-respawn team deathmatch, and will win just by killing the enemy team 98% of the time. The biggest score bonus is winning, followed by match score (which is mostly influenced by damage). Why bother capping and holding Conquest objectives? Why bother capturing the base in Assault? Why bother staying in the circle on Domination as long as one Mech in it to stop the timer?

A perfect example would be a round of Conquest on HPG last night. I was in an Arctic Cheetah and focusing on capping objectives, since the other team had several Mechs doing the same. My team ended up having the lead as the resource count neared 700. I was the last one left, against two enemy Mechs. I could fight, do some damage, then die and we lose. I could run, stay alive, and make sure we got 750 and the win. I stayed alive, and we won. We won because I spent most of the round trying to stay on top of objectives so we did not lose due to caps, and then we won because I was the last alive. Without what I did, that round is a loss. I did less than 100 damage, and my match score was less than 100.

The game does not reward people that actually play for the objectives of the game mode. 98% of the time you can win Conquest simply by capping the two objectives on your way to the central one where everyone fights, and then just win the deathmatch. There is usually no need to take the objectives that the enemy capped on the way. The game rewards min/max style of playing more than it rewards anything else.