Why such hate for polar?
One of the better Maps with nicely done trench warfare.
For semi enjoyable play on Canyon on need mech with JJ.
I Really do not like Mining and Manifold.
Mining and HPG are my two favourite maps, imo they're both very balanced with room for all playstyles.
Polar on the other hand heavily favours one or two playstyles and punishes the rest.
a lot o fthe maps are fine to play but have environmental isses that people don't want to deal with...HEAT.
Why not simply get rid of these environmental issues then? If it's detracting from the game, it can go.
And I think Terra Therma's or Caustic's biggest probem these days are not really the heat, it's the visibility.
Quote
Most of the maps are HUGE and have lot of space and interesting areas to go fight but they always boil down to the same 10% being used. So the maps aren't so much the problem, the players are for never wanting to do anything but the same old junk.
If there is no reason to go to the "cool" stuff, they aren't cool enough, or the map objectives and spawn points are poorly chosen.
I think it's quite natural that on many maps, combat focuses on areas with open terrain or clear choke points.
The choke points naturally funnel the traffic. Mechs have no choice but go there, so of course these will be fought over.
The open areas are zones you don't want to be in - but man, if someone is in there, he's screwed, and you want to be there to do the screwing. So you better watch out for easy targets. And on the non-open sections, it is difficult to even find a target. So both sides will probably miss each other often in the areas with a lot of cover, but there will always be some people lurking at the edges of the open terrain from both sides, and eventually, they'll see each other, shoot each other, and attract the rest of the team.
100% random on maps and game mode... and also add the old maps back into the rotation...
Would be my vote!
I've watched a video on youtube recently showing a battle between 12 Atlases and 12 King Crabs
on the old Terra Therma... wow how "beautiful" it was compared to that "thing" we've got now :/
the problem is less the voting system than it is 1/3 of the maps are terrible; combine that with a general player bias against hot maps and you get the result we're all used to: everyone voting for the same 3-4 maps pretty regularly.
therma is actually pretty decent now imo; I assume most people are voting either on the basis of bad memories or the heat thing. I still get caustic decently often.
...the heat thing.. yeah, and why?
Because they can't handle their high dmg/high heat alpha strike builds and chainfire is
something they never heard about. So everybody is chosing the cold/colder maps.
Or they "boat" Gauss/PPC and choose the open fielded/wide ranged maps like grim plexus...
Bah i'm getting sick of that. The only thing to make it fair for everyone and forcing everyone
to deal with every map wich is currently available in the game, no matter what loadouts they drive and
prefer is to make it random.
...the heat thing.. yeah, and why?
Because they can't handle their high dmg/high heat alpha strike builds and chainfire is
something they never heard about. So everybody is chosing the cold/colder maps.
Even if you heard about it, and could do it? If you can avoid doing it, why not do that? No need to make your life harder than it has to be.
Especially since the penalty for too much heat is shutdown, aka "briefly stop playing the game and watch stuff happen to you". I suspect that most people don't fire up MW:O to not play the game.
MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:
Even if you heard about it, and could do it? If you can avoid doing it, why not do that? No need to make your life harder than it has to be.
Especially since the penalty for too much heat is shutdown, aka "briefly stop playing the game and watch stuff happen to you". I suspect that most people don't fire up MW:O to not play the game.
They aren't forced to play macintosh style so that's not an argument. If it's random you will get maps that suit your build and sometimes maps that don't or you could horror of all horrors pick a balanced loadout and/or excercise restraint.
They aren't forced to play macintosh style so that's not an argument. If it's random you will get maps that suit your build and sometimes maps that don't or you could horror of all horrors pick a balanced loadout and/or excercise restraint.
Or just avoid the maps that force you into a play style you don't enjoy.
There is no mythological "balanced" loadout" in MW:O that doesn't perform worse on a hot map. Unless Dual Gauss Rifle is your idea of a "balanced" loadout, I suppose.
People vote for the maps they want to play :shrug:. I'm sorry you have to be a snowflake.
People vote what People want and their voting shows they want the most success with the least effort at the highest chance of no fightback.
The question is - is this type of voting behavior (which is fully predictable bcs it is the same way in every game with voting) healthy for a long term fun gameplay that keeps the old Players playing and attracts new Players to it?
Imho the games that be the most fun challenge the Player in regard to his skill and experience with fresh Tasks that each time a gamemaster (be it AI or Human) sets up for them - in a combat game that would obviously be a different combat situation in different circumstances.
And the outcome of the combat should not be all or nothing - there should be a variety of minor objectives that can make a combat even in a loss a logistic, strategic or moral victory.
PGI has no gamemode with good minor objectives and given away the little Gamemaster Option they had left via mode/mapvoting and since the start of MWO they struggle to develop a healthy long term businessmodel bcs they failed in all their efforts but selling Mechs.
Premium Time should be a major income pillar aside of selling Mechs and i do not believe that it is anywhere near a comfortable income level for PGI.
But PT lacks severely the worthywhile options/advantages to activate its use and i.e.my banked PT is >4500 hours with no obligation to ever activate it.
Imho map/modevoting should be a premium time Feature.
Mechboni like income boost from Hero Mechs should be a premium time feature (you buy this mech it gives 60 days of PT and a 100% boost on the PT boni but no boost if you have no active premium time).
PT should double XP etc.
Map and Modevoting would works the way you pre select your map/mode and set a timer up to 5 minutes for example and after that Limit you can opt to join any game if you do not want to wait any longer.
Possibilities are legion but PGI now has the problem that the existing playerbase has been teached by them what to expect that they have either moved on or settled with the expectations and that it is almost impossible now to change course without giving the game the deathblow.
We need good new maps, and plenty of them, not just one or two more.
I liked about the map voting that not popular ones like Viridian Bog or Forest Colony now get less selected. Forest Colony used to be simple but good, a snowy forest with a cool tunnel, and people sometimes would actually go water. Now it looks great (specially not the center part) by being another type of forest...but does it commonly plays good? Well, with the common behavior of most people, not at all.
For now, having the same Mining Colony, River City, HPG Manifold or Tourmaline desert over and over again gets somehow boring or limiting. The remaining other maps deserve a chance too. For example, Polar Highlands and Alpine Peaks are great, Terra Therma is good if you can manage heat issues there.
I am not happy with what PGI did to Crimson Strait, which used to be my favorite map. A futuristic city on the beach was great to play until it got filled it with obnoxious vegetation (now it looks like the abandoned Crimson Strait) and the time of day change made it less enjoyable to play. There is a big difference in looks and the actual play-ability of each map. Same goes with River City, playing it at night will make most long range weapons mechs less efficient, on most cases, you better have a short or mid range builds there.
Grim Plexus... that's now the best map in my opinion. Great looks and a good chance to use both long and short weapons in a optimal temperature environment. So if you don't like it, always vote against it.
The thing with the current voting system is that people seem to pick the same few maps every time. And with time, that makes them less enjoyable to play.
The map rotation is not so much the issue as the map selection is. Many maps just suck.
#1: Alpine ****s. I hate this map. Other than being lurm-gauss-ppc-a-geddon, it's ugly, which hills you can walk up and can't doesn't make any sense, it's needlessly large, and many game modes have poorly balanced spawn points that make them unplayable. And LOL if you get escort. You can hit that poor VIPotato from anywhere on the map.
#2: Polar ****lands. Pretty much the same thing as Alpine, only whiter, snowier, and with even less effective LRM cover. Getting narced is a death sentence. The map is too damn big for skirmish while the spawn points are too far apart. Conquest takes hours due to size. Only domination is bearable since it funnels everyone into one area. At least then the agony isn't prolonged.
#3: Frozen ****ty. Another cold, PPC/gauss friendly map. It does have effective LRM cover, but the valley in the center means that all assault games are sniper wars. It takes 5 minutes just for people to buck up the courage to cross the map, and why wouldn't it given that you can see the enemy base from your own. If I'm on my PPC Warhawk it's OK, but being way outside of effective range means the trade game lasts forever since I won't deal full damage, except to those poor idiots who crossed while their teammates were still playing sniper wars. The tunnel on the map may as well not exist. Most new players don't know it's there and it literally goes nowhere. It won't even get you from one side of the map to the other. Completely ignored map feature. And lastly, old Frozen City was the bomb. I was the saddest panda in the galaxy when they changed it to the current, bullcrap iteration.
#4: Crimson LGBTQB(because black is apparently a sexual orientation now). "Saddle or tunnel?" The answer is in the form of another question. "Incursion or no?" If incursion, saddle ALWAYS unless the team who spawned on the backside likes a really fast loss. If no, then anything but saddle because fighting in that funnel sucks, and there's always at least 2 idiots on your team that just love to peak on 12 waiting opponents with guns pre-trained. There's also always at least 2 idiots in the tunnel who are alone, so every brawler on the enemy team and their dog just bum rushes them, sealing their fate and yours.
#5 River ****ty. It's really River with some buildings here and there. Way more river than city, which of course, favors our PPFLD overlords. Games virtually always end up with everyone gathering on one side of the citadel or the other, which is severely disadvantageous to the team sitting in the water. Escort only has two paths, both of which involve the VIP walking over a bridge in the open where anyone can shoot him. Only makes it into games because Polar and Alpine come up right beside it.
The best maps are the older, smaller maps which don't support Escort or Incursion, the two least played modes, therefor they come up the least even though they're the most preferred. It's one giant, moronic paradox. PGI wants you to play the maps they like and the modes they enjoyed making, not the maps you like or the modes you enjoy playing. Escort and Incursion coming up side by side essentially means 48 wrists get slit(we all have two wrists). In spite of the fact that everyone keeps telling PGI that PPFLD is a problem, the keep releasing more and more PPFLD friendly maps, or taking better, older maps and turning them into PPFLD friendly maps(see Frozen ****ty). I'll wager the new Civil War maps, if we even get any, will be much the same.
Why do people ask for new maps. Unless the new maps are both cold and wide open people won't vote for them.
As an experiment i want both frozen city and polar change to being a hot map. Change the snow for sand and make them as hot as terra therma. Then see how often people vote for them.
Why such hate for polar?
One of the better Maps with nicely done trench warfare.
For semi enjoyable play on Canyon on need mech with JJ.
I Really do not like Mining and Manifold.
Frankly, guys, I'm not sure if you and I are playing the same game I've been playing my fair share of games since the Skill Tree went live, and there are only two obvious patterns that caught my eye: 1) Grim plexus gets chosen very often, and 2) Terra Therma gets chosen very rarely. So, we have an extremely popular map, and an extremely unpopular one, both for very good reasons. All other maps get their time in the spotlight in about equal share. Well, maybe I see a little less of Alpine Peaks and Forest Colony than everything else, but that's about it. So I'm starting to suspect that all this map voting issue is getting blown out of proportion by people who either love Terra Therma, or hate energy builds (or both), and want to drag everyone else to Terra Therma and watch those laser boats burn...
So I'm starting to suspect that all this map voting issue is getting blown out of proportion by people who either love Terra Therma, or hate energy builds (or both), and want to drag everyone else to Terra Therma and watch those laser boats burn...
I've just had enough of playing Grim Plexus as often as I do. It's not a very good map to begin with, and playing it constantly just makes it that much worse
This gets a bit long, but rather than starting a whole new thread....
The trouble is that a few of the maps are chosen far too frequently, resulting in reduced map variety in the games played.
I suspect that people hope that increasing the maps available would help that situation.
(imagine, for a moment, seeing the choice of 4 maps where none of the most popular choices were in the list; no Grim, Crimson, Polar, Tourmaline. Right now that just isn't feasible because there are only 14 maps total, and the most popular maps are available for all game modes.(chicken/egg?))
As mentioned above, a big reason for the popular choice problem is certain maps (colder, more open, lighter) present less of a challenge (or complicating factor?) than others.
I take the position that each of those variations adds spice to the game.
Hot maps let me improve my heat management.
Vision impaired maps (dark, rainy, foggy, whatever) let me work on using other vision modes to great effectiveness (often an advantage for me, since many people don't like using the night or heat vision). I'd personally LOVE a cold map with a snow storm that cut visibility range way down.
I prefer maps that allow for good play by multiple styles (brawl, snipe, etc.) and loadouts (short, medium, and long range). That way, every player can be effective on the map. It's a good theoretical preference, reality causes some issues with it.
I find most of the popular maps tend to heavily favor one combination of the above over others, while some of the unpopular tend to actually be more balanced. Odd that.
Of course, even a map favoring long range builds (like polar can end up in close range, but unless the close range fight is forced (by domination, for example), the short range builds are punished first, and if they meet a determined, focused, and skilled foe they'll never close the gap. Vice versa, on a short-favored map, a long range build might be able to find a few spots to make use of their range advantage, but they are likely to be closed with.;
Part of the problem, which both helps and hurts the situation, is that in any PUG drop, and many group drops (esp. where it isn't mostly a single group making up the 12), you won't have any significant unity of build on your team, so you can't coordinate strategy (and map choice) effectively. For example, you always have a few brawl/short range builds on Frozen that frequently cross the valley by themselves, often resulting in a split team.
The maps-favoring-certain-builds problem is one reason why people suggest the weight-class drop deck solution, about which I have mixed feelings.
What range are the maps? How did I make the determinations below?
Spotting range. Start with the typical range at which you can reliably see the enemy approaching. 1K+ long, 500+ mid , <500 short.
Level of cover. Next, does the map permit only brief glimpses due to cover, or more prolonged views (allowing sustained fire on an approaching mech). A map with long sight lines and decent cover results in a mix of long and mid range.
Pathways. Finally, is movement channeled into only a few paths, or are there many options. In either case, how easy is it for a team to position to cover those approaches (and then the level of cover comes back into play)
Vision Choke. Some maps have vision choke points. Sight lines are actually good on either side of the vision choke, and/or from the right position, so getting to the right position early (or waiting in the right spot) let's you see/fire from a decent distance. (cover is a small obstacle to movement and sight, a vision choke is major feature that changes sight lines significantly, but can't be dodged around)
Firing range. Once you know where the enemy is, how far away can you be to reliably fire at your opponent?
Spoiler
Alpine: Long, very
extreme sight lines, no cover, few paths, (vision chokes would be present if the sight lines were not so long)
Polar: Long (and it is NOT trench warfare)
very long sight lines, no real cover (keep reading), many paths, 'trenches' as vision choke (in the right spot, it is like the trench isn't there, no cover provided), long range engagement a big thing, huge map with much unused (not that you can really tell)
Canyon: Mid-short (but balanced in some ways)
good sight lines, limited cover, few paths, vision chokes (canyons), variable firing range, but it is a small map...
HPG: Mid
long sight lines, some cover, few paths (or many big open ones?), vision choke from all the obstacles, elevation changes, and stuff, fighting often devolves to the furball
Frozen: Long
easy (long) sight lines, good cover, multiple paths, in theory simple to keep shifting to keep an enemy at range and have a snipe-fest but often devolves to the close furball, big parts of the map go unused
Crimson: Mid-short
sight lines vary, lots of cover, a few paths, vision chokes (platform and mountains). once the enemy is generally located, firing at a reasonable distance is very possible. a lot of unused map
River: Balanced, sorta (the chosen fighting spots often render this moot)
some very long site lines with plenty of cover, many paths, firing distance could vary, but... furball, big time. big unused sections
Viridian: Mid-short
prominent vision chokes, but somewhat open beyond that, little actual cover (big obstacles, yes, but...), furball
Caustic: Balanced
long sight lines, some cover, multiple paths, but the caldera itself usually serves as a massive vision choke, nascar furball.
Forest: Mid-short (actually balanced, but the fighting takes place in such a small, constrained part of the map...)
sight lines give you glimpses, but a mix of cover and vision chokes result in closer engagements, biggest offender on unused map space
Tourmaline: Long-mid
huge sight lines, no cover, limited paths, vision chokes all over, this is kinda hot alpine, but with better terrain in some ways
Terra: Mid-short
mid sight lines, limited cover, limited paths, some vision chokes (in some ways this is not VFR, but instrument, if you understand the analogy)
Grim: Mid-Long
long sight lines, decent cover, multiple paths, vision chokes. In some ways, grim is very close to being a balanced map, but the sighting is such that longer range shots have the advantage, so....
Mining: Mid-Short (of all the maps this comes closest to being short)
sight lines are actually good, but because of the vision chokes spotting range is actually sometimes short (at least initially), some cover, only a few paths to take, once spotted, engagement at medium range is totally a thing, small map.
MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2017 - 05:23 AM, said:
Even if you heard about it, and could do it? If you can avoid doing it, why not do that? No need to make your life harder than it has to be.
Especially since the penalty for too much heat is shutdown, aka "briefly stop playing the game and watch stuff happen to you". I suspect that most people don't fire up MW:O to not play the game.
So for example...: US Force refused to fight in Iraq in the 90's.. they said "no, it's too hot and sandy
there, we better fight in central europe, it has better climate and we feel comfortable there, thanks.
A soldier has to fight where he's sent to or where he has to fight. There is no "but..but i want to please
fight there because i like xxx better than yyy"... *duckface*
6
P10k56, on 10 July 2017 - 02:20 AM, said:
I've been playing my fair share of games since the Skill Tree went live, and there are only two obvious patterns that caught my eye: 1) Grim plexus gets chosen very often, and 2) Terra Therma gets chosen very rarely. So, we have an extremely popular map, and an extremely unpopular one, both for very good reasons. All other maps get their time in the spotlight in about equal share. Well, maybe I see a little less of Alpine Peaks and Forest Colony than everything else, but that's about it. So I'm starting to suspect that all this map voting issue is getting blown out of proportion by people who either love Terra Therma, or hate energy builds (or both), and want to drag everyone else to Terra Therma and watch those laser boats burn...
