44 replies to this topic

[Ajantise]

1. Cut new maps in half. Nobody uses the size. Its just a performance load, and it does not bring anything good.
Voting proves that. Every time there is a small map, it wins.

2. Make new maps (not too big).

3. Make maps interactive (Explosions, bases with doors, capture of one point that gives radar....)

4. Make every mod of play possible on every map. Streamline the cover and open spaces, make it more simple. So tactics are possible even in random battles.

5. Make different heat on all maps, make mechs move slower in water, mud and lava. Wind for ballistics....

[El Bandito]

And make Solo-Q 8v8, instead of 12v12.

[Methanoid]

Ajantise, on 09 August 2017 - 07:47 AM, said:

1. Cut new maps in half. Nobody uses the size. Its just a performance load, and it does not bring anything good.
Voting proves that. Every time there is a small map, it wins.

2. Make new maps (not too big).

3. Make maps interactive (Explosions, bases with doors, capture of one point that gives radar....)

4. Make every mod of play possible on every map. Streamline the cover and open spaces, make it more simple. So tactics are possible even in random battles.

5. Make different heat on all maps, make mechs move slower in water, mud and lava. Wind for ballistics....

making or modifying maps does not bring PGI ££/$$ so it just wont happen in our lifetime.

[Brain Cancer]

It's worth noting that destroyable terrain (like we get from Incursion) could easily modify maps.

Imagine Alpine Peaks or Polar with lots of walls set up. You've neatly bridged the gap between no cover and too much, and encourage people to move as their cover degrades from incoming fire.

[Gristle Missile]

Methanoid, on 09 August 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

making or modifying maps does not bring PGI ££/$$ so it just wont happen in our lifetime.

thats not true, considering they have modified maps a number of times before.



Anyways...I liked the old forest colony and frozen city - dunno why they are so huge now.
All big maps do is make the walk to the fight take longer - teams generally go one or two routes anyways, so there is no real tactical advantage to a big map.

Going forward with new maps, I would like to see many different pathways to objectives, open areas for longer ranged weaponry to shine and closed off, covered areas for brawling/shorter ranged weapons.

[jss78]

... make new ones.

Methanoid, on 09 August 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

making or modifying maps does not bring PGI ££/$$ so it just wont happen in our lifetime.

This isn't strictly true. Just speaking for myself, for the past year and a half, I've been playing quite a lot less because the game's really felt stale to me. And people who don't play don't spend either.

This game is in desperate need of new content.

[R Valentine]

A way forward with maps is actually releasing some. Something of which PGI knows not of.

[C4NC3R]

El Bandito, on 09 August 2017 - 09:20 AM, said:

And make Solo-Q 8v8, instead of 12v12.

And we gonna wait for... EVER))))))))) No.



Rather do 16vs16 or 15vs15 more sence.

[Athom83]

C4NC3R, on 09 August 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

And we gonna wait for... EVER))))))))) No.

Rather do 16vs16 or 15vs15 more sence.

32v32 ftw.

[Mystere]

C4NC3R, on 09 August 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

Rather do 16vs16 or 15vs15 more sence.

Athom83, on 09 August 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

32v32 ftw.

No, and no.

I want lore-friendly Clan and IS formations, the exact composition of which is tailored to the battle at hand.

[El Bandito]

C4NC3R, on 09 August 2017 - 01:05 PM, said:

And we gonna wait for... EVER))))))))) No.

Rather do 16vs16 or 15vs15 more sence.

Athom83, on 09 August 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

32v32 ftw.

Queue time, and matchmaking will go to hell, and that is assuming there will be enough players with rigs strong enough to handle so many mechs at once. MWO lost a lot of players when they switched to 12v12 due to heavy performance drop. They can get some back if they go back to 8v8.

Edited by El Bandito, 09 August 2017 - 04:14 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Mystere, on 09 August 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

No, and no.

I want lore-friendly Clan and IS formations, the exact composition of which is tailored to the battle at hand.

Never happen, because Paul wanted 1:1 balance. Therefore, 10v12 would be "unfair" because that would require superior Clan robots.

[Mystere]

El Bandito, on 09 August 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Queue time, and matchmaking will go to hell, and that is assuming there will be enough players with rigs strong enough to handle so many mechs at once. MWO lost a lot of players when they switched to 12v12 due to heavy performance drop. They can get some back if they go back to 8v8.

Ahem! MWO lost a whole lot of players because it's just a mere skeleton of the game it was originally cranked up to be.

To claim that 12v12 is what did MWO in is just serving your 8v8 agenda.

Brain Cancer, on 09 August 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

Never happen, because Paul wanted 1:1 balance. Therefore, 10v12 would be "unfair" because that would require superior Clan robots in the futile pursuit of their eSports delusions.

FTFY.

[ocular tb]

Cutting maps in half would only work I think on Forest Colony since much of the map goes unused and there's actual variation in terrain. Alpine does seem to get more variety in battle locations between all the game modes so no real need there I think. Polar Highlands is the same no matter where at on the map you are so there would be nothing to gain by making it smaller. All the others I think would add little or nothing by getting smaller and most of them aren't that big to begin with.

An easier way to change things up would be changing spawn, Domination and maybe even Conquest point locations periodically. Not a replacement for new maps by any means but it would at least be something easy they could do to change things up.

[Ajantise]

There is a lot of work to be done. Lots of ideas that can be implemented. Maps are a cheap way of making the game look updated. All the Multiplayer games rotate maps as a way of making a game less boring. I think that current state of maps is not good. They are too big, too complicated, too much unnecessary clutter, too performance heavy for no good reason.
Simpler easy design would make a much better games with much better tactics.
Now its just group all, and murder-ball every time.
There has to be a way to spread the players and make 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 more frequent.
5 vs 1 is no fun.

[Ajantise]

ocular tb, on 09 August 2017 - 08:21 PM, said:

Cutting maps in half would only work I think on Forest Colony since much of the map goes unused and there's actual variation in terrain. Alpine does seem to get more variety in battle locations between all the game modes so no real need there I think. Polar Highlands is the same no matter where at on the map you are so there would be nothing to gain by making it smaller. All the others I think would add little or nothing by getting smaller and most of them aren't that big to begin with.

An easier way to change things up would be changing spawn, Domination and maybe even Conquest point locations periodically. Not a replacement for new maps by any means but it would at least be something easy they could do to change things up.

There are a lot of games that take 5-7 minutes for the teams just to find each other and then all mechs are on 1/20 part of the map to the end. That is not good i think. No maneuver at all.

[ocular tb]

I had some ideas in another thread that I think could make the modes more unique and add some variety in gameplay. If I remember later I'll either post it or link to it.

As for map rotation I think random would be better since it could spread them out more evenly than what we're seeing now with the voting system. Map clutter is annoying I agree but I can usually deal with it and am okay with some being on the maps.

I'm at work right now so I have limited time to post up some thoughts and ideas but I'll try to add some more when I get home in the morning.

Edited by ocular tb, 09 August 2017 - 08:38 PM.

[MrMadguy]

Before creating any new maps we should start using existing ones, i.e. finally disable "bring most terrible maps in entire universe" system. Guess, what I've just got? 3 first matches of the day = 3 POLAR HIGHLANDS IN A ROW. You know, back in old sweet times I would simply stop playing after first one. This map is simply terrible... I don't remember first match. All I remember - is that we lost with many enemy 'Mechs alive. But last two both were 2-10/10-2 stomps. How can we have new maps, if we barely play existing ones?

[Methanoid]

Gristle Missile, on 09 August 2017 - 12:01 PM, said:

thats not true, considering they have modified maps a number of times before.



Anyways...I liked the old forest colony and frozen city - dunno why they are so huge now.
All big maps do is make the walk to the fight take longer - teams generally go one or two routes anyways, so there is no real tactical advantage to a big map.

Going forward with new maps, I would like to see many different pathways to objectives, open areas for longer ranged weaponry to shine and closed off, covered areas for brawling/shorter ranged weapons.

those changes are/were nearly unnoticable to most players and certainly did not bring anything much needed, the increase to map size probably had something to do with incursion at a guess, bit stupid having 2 bases in throwing distance of each other. new maps should always be their main focus but as stated that does not bring in revenue, just being lazy and throwing out yet more unneeded mchs does however so thats the situation we are in.

It's no surprise however, Warframe does the same with their weapons/warframes, eve online does it with ships, the list of games that do the same is endless, you know theres little hope for the game when much needed changes to the game never appear and just new mechs/cosmetic/money earners take priority, in some instances it seems PGI dont even want money by making their ingame shop as annoying, frustrating and time wasting to use as possible and lacks even the most simple of filter options to allow players to easily search for what they want (Filter/sort by price, ecm, IS/Clan, ams, jumpjet, etc), then other simple stuff like a simple basic color costing 1/3 the price of an entire mech makes it a bigger joke...

[Angel of Annihilation]

Methanoid, on 09 August 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

making or modifying maps does not bring PGI ££/$$ so it just wont happen in our lifetime.

Actually this is false or rather a better way to look at it is that making maps or lack of doing so actually costs PGI Money. I mean I am sure there are players quitting due to the fact the lack of maps has made for stale game play.

As far as the map making, it has been brought up several times but the easiest, least expensive method would be for PGI to:

A - Bring back all the old maps. The old Frozen City for example is very playable and enough different from the current Frozen City it would add a bit of diversity.

B - Use existing resources to create new maps. Caustic for example is one of my favorite maps so use the textures from Caustic to create Caustic 2 and Caustic 3 each with new terrain features but using all the resources from Caustic. I mean we are fighting over worlds here, not just a 2km x 2km piece of real estate. They could do this with virtually all the existing maps.