10 replies to this topic

[MauttyKoray]

So I grew up playing the campaign MW games which used a blank background radar for target acquisition. I honestly prefer that style over the whole over-detailed minimap we have (as well as the massive view range it gives instead of the old 1000m max). Though, I don't mind having the detailed Battlemap which would be far more useful for tactical planning in combination.

I was wondering, what does everyone else prefer?

Edit: Old/New MWO 'Minimap' is lumped into the same category. Its simply a question of 'Radar' versus 'Minimap'. Understandably the new MWO version is fairly messy and the old 'simpler' one was preferred.

Pics for reference of the 'blank background' radar.
MW4

Spoiler

MWLL

Spoiler

Edited by MauttyKoray, 21 December 2016 - 09:09 PM.

[El Bandito]

It could be simpler, yes, but I do like the terrain feature on the minimap. Especially when going around hills.

[Snazzy Dragon]

I liked the old minimap we had before they did 0 testing and forced the new one on the community, after which months of complaining finally got it to a passably usable state. I mostly ignore it and play by my eyes and ears now, only checking seismic bubbles and blips behind me from friendly UAVs/locks.

[RestosIII]

Snazzy Dragon, on 21 December 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

I liked the old minimap we had before they did 0 testing and forced the new one on the community, after which months of complaining finally got it to a passably usable state-

-for people with good eyesight. The minimap is still unusable for me. Can't tell what is what with the terrain, and I can't see enemy icons because of a the color mixture and how zoomed out it is. I actually liked the old minimap with terrain more than the really basic MW4 one, just because it's a PvP game that requires you to know all of the terrain to not get ruined. MW:LL gets a pass on that for me just because I'm an aero pilot.

TL;DR: Give back the old minimap and/or give zoom functions!

[razenWing]

The concept of exclusive radar and minimap has been blurred ever since the introduction of Google Map.

The fact is, the pursuit for more "user-friendly" design dictates that the more visual cues that conform with reality and expectation, the better.

In terms of MWO, it's not that radar is gone; it's that the radar has a map overlay, similar to all modern game minimap/radar designs. That's why during the last map change, and I was the first to voice protest, one of my main point was to always remember that very important fact: even though it's called a "mini-map," it's still inherently a radar with terrain overlay. (And that's why that initial change sucks balls, because it's trying to make your "b" key into that tiny little display)

Now, logically and in real combat, it makes sense also. Before starting a planetary invasion, you would send a probe to do a fly over to have an idea of installation and terrain. That is where you are going to get your terrain overlay used in your "radar." We see this in MW3 with the pre-battle briefings. (At the time, computers just don't have enough polygons to maps a terrain overlay onto your radar) In that context, the only time that a pure "radar" with no overlay (like in Living Legend) would make sense would be to go into a contested zone blind, which in modern warfare is the equivalent of the Rebel Alliance sending the entire fleet without first knowing that the Death Star shield is down.

(Though how they still won is by pure miracle, as by all accounts, the lore material clearly states that Star Destroyers have far more fire power than Rebel Cruisers. The moment the rebel fleet decided to mix it up close with the entire Imperial fleet, they should have been shredded.)

By the way, I know a lot of people are clamoring for Living Legend like it's the greatest thing ever. It's really not. The only thing it's got going for it, is that it's not made by PGI. The upper left coordinate is clearly a duplicate of the lower central radar. Basically, it's a 90s emulator with far less customization and graphics, less of an idea of how modern gaming works, and yet... high praise among fanboys because... it's not PGI. So yea, there's that.

Edited by razenWing, 21 December 2016 - 10:27 PM.

[Tristan Winter]

I love the high-tech combat sim look of the HUD in MW:LL, and I love the minimalist HUD in MW5:Mercs. The HUD in MWO.... it just looks too arcade-y. Too many colours, too many obvious game elements. It doesn't have the functionality and retro look of MW:LL, and it doesn't have the slick, elegant look of the MW5:Mercs HUD.

The radar has a map on it, but the readability is so crappy. So very, very crappy.

razenWing, on 21 December 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

By the way, I know a lot of people are clamoring for Living Legend like it's the greatest thing ever. It's really not. The only thing it's got going for it, is that it's not made by PGI. The upper left coordinate is clearly a duplicate of the lower central radar. Basically, it's a 90s emulator with far less customization and graphics, less of an idea of how modern gaming works, and yet... high praise among fanboys because... it's not PGI. So yea, there's that.

Never even played MW:LL, and many of its merits are plainly visible to me. So....

[razenWing]

Tristan Winter, on 21 December 2016 - 10:33 PM, said:

I love the high-tech combat sim look of the HUD in MW:LL, and I love the minimalist HUD in MW5:Mercs. The HUD in MWO.... it just looks too arcade-y. Too many colours, too many obvious game elements. It doesn't have the functionality and retro look of MW:LL, and it doesn't have the slick, elegant look of the MW5:Mercs HUD.

The radar has a map on it, but the readability is so crappy. So very, very crappy.


Never even played MW:LL, and many of its merits are plainly visible to me. So....

Cute. Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm saying it's a inferior game. But I understand the misunderstanding, as English comprehension is not your first strongest suit.

[Tristan Winter]

razenWing, on 21 December 2016 - 10:40 PM, said:

Cute. Anyways, I'm not saying it's a bad game. I'm saying it's a inferior game. But I understand the misunderstanding, as English comprehension is not your first strongest suit.

No, you're saying that the only thing MW:LL has going for it is that it wasn't made by PGI. See?

razenWing, on 21 December 2016 - 10:24 PM, said:

By the way, I know a lot of people are clamoring for Living Legend like it's the greatest thing ever. It's really not. The only thing it's got going for it, is that it's not made by PGI.

^

Maybe you should stop being so rude to people who disagree with your views. It doesn't really make you come off any better or make your argument appear stronger.

Edited by Tristan Winter, 21 December 2016 - 10:55 PM.

[razenWing]

Tristan Winter, on 21 December 2016 - 10:54 PM, said:

No, you're saying that the only thing MW:LL has going for it is that it wasn't made by PGI. See?


^

Maybe you should stop being so rude to people who disagree with your views. It doesn't really make you come off any better or make your argument appear stronger.

Oh, but what's the fun of the forum if not to be insulting toward those that post lazy meme gifs?

I concede that the wording is in poor choice. What I meant to say, is to add a "in comparison to" at the end of that value statement, because the other 75% of the paragraph was clearly highlighting a comparison between MWO and LL. Though I still maintain that in context, I did not say LL is a bad game.

Edited by razenWing, 21 December 2016 - 11:48 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

Well if the clan could ever get hold of "Google Map" tech it would be the end of FW balance as we know it.


(wait for the - "snort technically" explanation of how the maps are not as important in FW because of the predictable choke points that caused them to uninstall)

[Scythe Kagato]

TBH, the only thing I really want to do with the minimap is to lock it so that cardinal directions can be used to identify targets and movements.