Jump to content

- - - - -

Mechwarrior Online 2021: Maps

2021 maps

219 replies to this topic

#121 yrrot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 188 posts

Posted 24 November 2020 - 02:18 PM

I'm not even sure why we're talking about respawns in this thread anyway, other than the fact that respawn mechanics in QP would require map redesigns to be viable.

#122 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 3,601 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 24 November 2020 - 04:13 PM

View Postthievingmagpi, on 24 November 2020 - 12:30 PM, said:

Lmao, which is why it occurs more on some maps than others. Lmao, which is why the best qp map is the only one which was the only one specifically designed as a MP map which is the one where Nascar is least common
No map is going to fix right-handedness and instinctually trying to find a better firing position.
And likewise no map is going to fix sheep following flankers without having a clue as to what they're doing or that they're undermining the entire point of the maneuver.
Can't fix stupid.

Quote

Matchmaker is entirely separate from the issue. Respawns in MWO qp would be absolute hot trash because it would be constant spawn farming

View Postthievingmagpi, on 24 November 2020 - 01:53 PM, said:

And instead of jumping into a new match they'll spend the next 29 minutes getting one shotted without ever leaving their spawn.
Unfortunately, I have to agree on this.
It's been five years, but I still remember the fresh catapult who hid in a tunnel on Mining because the pilot was afraid his mech would get shot at.

View Postthievingmagpi, on 24 November 2020 - 01:53 PM, said:

And it gets boring for the people getting farmed, and for the people doing the farming, which leads to more people leaving.
Yup.

#123 War Steiner

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_15
  • @ui_title_%s_Rank_15
  • 93 posts
  • LocationTerceira, Azores, Portugal

Posted 25 November 2020 - 02:50 AM

Every planet should have a unique map with X number of capture locations.

Maps could be created by the community and submitted for approval and inclusion by PGI.

Maps do not need to be symmetrical. One rarely ever chooses where they will fight.

#124 Mercu

    Member

  • Pip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 12 posts

Posted 25 November 2020 - 10:19 AM

Put simply, the lances have to drop together.

#125 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 25 November 2020 - 10:33 AM

At the moment Mechs are spawned outside the battlefield in Dropships and than moved by dropships to the drop zone.
This system is more flexible than the classic spawn points (used on Canyon Network and other small maps.)
I don't see a any reason why changing the location of the drop zone should be a problem.

Regarding "one hour farming with respawns":
There are some ways to prevent that.
  • Time limit of 15 or 20 minutes (depending on map size)
  • Limited Respawns, for example only 3 or 4 Mechs.
  • Limited Tonnage, smaller Mechs get killed quicker
  • Game modes with objectives instead of Team Deathmatch
  • Multiple dropzones
Regarding NASCAR:

It's not map design, it's not following the flankers.
In the disorganised "Teams" of Solo Quickplay following the rest of the team is the only viable tactic for players with slower Mechs.
It would be different if some one would coordinate the team and tell each lance what to do, but that don't happen in Solo Quickplay. Even if some one would try that he would have no info about the speed & role (who is the flanker, who is the brawler, ect...) of his team mates to do it right.

Oh, and Solo Quickplay has respawns.
Most players leave the match ASAP after death to respawn with a new mech in a new match to grind XPs, C-Bills & match score.
If you realy want to make the "no respawn" a gameplay feature in Quickplay remove joining a new match while the old is still running from the game... Posted Image

Edited by Alreech, 25 November 2020 - 10:33 AM.


#126 Nightmare1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,628 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeeking over your shoulder while eating your cookies.

Posted 25 November 2020 - 03:23 PM

View PostBig-G, on 19 November 2020 - 01:33 PM, said:

That's not a bad idea... a big savanna style map might actually be cool given tall grass of course Posted Image

View PostSheridan Mackison, on 19 November 2020 - 06:54 PM, said:

Polar is exactly what I have been thinking about since making the post. So, just like we have Forest Colony Snow we would have Polar Highlands Summer. Tall prairie grasses and a rushing river flowing through the lower valleys. I don’t know if the game physics can handle it, but having the flowing water push against the mechs and affect different weight classes like hill climb does would be great. The impact would be opposite of hill climb...light mechs might get swept downstream (or be unable to advance upstream) while heavier mechs would have an advantage. To make dominion a bit different the current beacon could be a small island in the middle of a lake surrounded by prairie grass and the hills could become small islets.


I'm good with all that - the variety would be neat. I still want my Terra Therma Classic though! :D

#127 Elizander

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 7,341 posts
  • LocationPhilippines

Posted 25 November 2020 - 08:20 PM

View PostGalahad2030, on 16 November 2020 - 09:20 PM, said:

suggestion: stop dropping my mech facing out of bounds or backwards from the map.


This is due to the mechs being in a dropship. 2 mechs face one direction and 2 mechs face the other. The result is two mechs always face away when they are dropped.

As for me, I just want more map optimization or more options to tone down map textures and the like.

#128 Voice of Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 145 posts

Posted 26 November 2020 - 11:19 PM

View PostTamerlin, on 19 November 2020 - 10:32 PM, said:

Suggestion - a QP drop deck of up to four slots (like FP). The angle is that you must pick 'Mech of the same chassis. Not tech base (IS vs Clan), not class (L, M, H, A), not tonnage - same chassis. Each 'Mech in the deck must be fully equipped and ready to drop - no return to the MechLab to load a saved build. This allows players to use a 'Mech build better suited to the selected map and encourage players to own more than one variant of a chassis (like before the Skill Tree).


This is a very bad offer for a players. Be sure that if the PGI decides on the choice of mech after the vote, they will implement it in the way that you suggested. This approach, in the opinion of the management, will allow selling more mechs.
Be prepared for the curses of many players to fall on your head. Because not every player will have a real choice. Think for yourself, in this case (ideally) each player will need to have a chassis option for:
1) long range fight;
2) close range fight;
3) hot maps;
4) cold maps.
Will the mainstream player buy 3-4 Mechs for each chassis they have? Nope.
Will the majority of players have a real choice? Nope.
Will it help newcomers to the game? Nope.
Will PGI sell a more mechs thanks to this? Nope.
As a result, the changes will be implemented, but there will be no real benefit from them. FOR NOBODY. This is quite in the spirit of the PGI.
If the possibility of choosing mech after voting is implemented according to your proposed scheme, I will know who personally I should blame for this.
The PGI is not always to blame for the fact that they make not very smart decisions. Sometimes the players themselves are to blame, who put not smart ideas into the heads of the PGI.

#129 ShaneoftheDead

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • LocationPA

Posted 27 November 2020 - 09:53 PM

View PostDaeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:


In this thread, lets discuss ideas for updating or adding to our current maps in MechWarrior Online, such as:



New Community-Driven Map (Community input from start to finish)







I guess. But, wouldn't a map making tool be better? Just make the tool with all the assets (buildings, streets, graphics, etc.) and let the players make the maps themselves and post them someplace where PGI can check them out. Maybe on the Test Server? Or let Players download them and use them in a Custom Match? Perhaps players can vote on submissions? Sure, you'll get lots of garbage, but you will also get the occasional gem that is worth keeping. PGI gets free content. Seems Win-Win to me.



Though, the Holy Grail here is random map generation. Let the server use the assets in almost countless permutations and find a way to let everyone see the same thing through a seed or something.



View PostDaeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:




Update Unbalanced Maps







Yes, please! Here are my personal issues with a few of the maps:

<ul>

Alpine Peaks - probably my least favorite map and the least exciting to play. I recommend a total re-work or deletion.

Canyon Network - need more access ramps to the high-ground on one side of the map OR take them away from the other side. The snowy re-work of this map, Hibernal Rift, is better in this regard.

Forest Colony - You could chop this map in half and no one would know in most matches. The way the terrain is and where the lances spawn all but funnel both teams to one location. Make changes to the terrain to open things up.

Frozen City - Lots of wasted space on this map. Could use a few terrain changes or possibly a total re-work. Frozen City Classic is better.

Polar Highlands - Lots of wasted space on the edges.

Tourmaline Desert - A good tweak would be to add a viable approach from the other side, away from the valley of death, to give players a choice of left or right instead of forcing the play all to the one side. Could even give some cover to that lance that drops out in the open.

Veridian Bog - the side with 2 ramps still has the advantage. It should be balanced so either remove the extra or add 2 for both sides.





View PostDaeron Katz, on 16 November 2020 - 01:08 PM, said:




Spawn Point Fixes







Yes, please! In general, all maps should have spawn points moved relatively close together. The "encourage lance vs. lance fighting" experiment has failed and it needs to end.



In the very large maps, consider moving spawn points around for the various modes, if possible. For example, Assault mode might start East & West where Skirmish might start North & South.



Or semi-random spawn areas could be interesting where you don't know exactly where the other side starts.



Also, in Faction Play there are some maps that assist spawn camping if I recall. I think it was Frozen City where you could get on the high ground and shoot down into the drop zone. That sort of thing should be discouraged and not enabled by the map.



Other bad spawn locations of note:



<ul>

Canyon Network - There's always that one lance that has to run for their lives immediately and/or walk so far around (no ramps up) that they are very late to the battle. Not fun. That lance needs to move over to their mates.

Forest Colony - Why drop Battlemechs in the middle of the ocean? Pick a beach and have them drop there.

Polar Highlands - Occasionally, teams lose Domination maps because they simply could not walk fast enough and reach the circle. Maybe move the drop points closer for that mode?

Tormaline Desert - That one poor lance that gets dropped out in the open and always takes lots of fire needs to be moved much closer to their mates.


EDIT: fixed formatting error when posted

Edited by ShaneoftheDead, 27 November 2020 - 09:58 PM.


#130 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,924 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 28 November 2020 - 03:28 AM

Quote

Though, the Holy Grail here is random map generation. Let the server use the assets in almost countless permutations and find a way to let everyone see the same thing through a seed or something.

Without handcrafted Biome Modules thats looking fast veryGeneric and bad,and brings Problems ,and the Engine can not logic Place Bridges or Streets and Problems like Dropzones in impassable Terrain(above a High Mountain) with the MWO Climb system.

It is very rare, but nevertheless in No Man's Sky, for example, buildings are often half in the ground or hovering above the ground, or objectives are inaccessible under the terrain grid

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 28 November 2020 - 11:58 PM.


#131 Alreech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • Little Helper
  • 1,523 posts

Posted 28 November 2020 - 05:13 AM

View PostShaneoftheDead, on 27 November 2020 - 09:53 PM, said:

Though, the Holy Grail here is random map generation. Let the server use the assets in almost countless permutations and find a way to let everyone see the same thing through a seed or something.

Random map generation is great for exploration games like Elite Dangerous & No Mans Sky.

It's terribel for a multiplayer shooter, especially if the teams are made up every match new with some random players that don't communicate or coordinate well.

The middle ground would be more map variations:
Daytime / Night / Dusk
Winter / Spring / Summer / Fall
Different sky boxes for the same map
Special Building on the same map: depending on the defender the map could have a faction typical building in the middel.

#132 ZEEL MadCat

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 88 posts
  • Locationaround Mecatol Rex

Posted 28 November 2020 - 01:52 PM

View PostVellron2005, on 21 November 2020 - 05:16 AM, said:

Let me put my 2 cents in on the subject of maps..

You guys REALLY need to investigate the concept of RANDOM MAP GENERATION.
\...\

Hmmm. So, what you tell about some map variants for vote can have "Randomized" variants of knowed wariants ?
when you may vote for standard, and some variated of old maps - with some known 'patches', but unpredictable with other parts ?

Than we can play and test it in one way - and we told, good \ bad sides of it

#133 Horseman

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 3,601 posts
  • LocationPoland

Posted 29 November 2020 - 12:07 AM

View PostZEEL MadCat, on 28 November 2020 - 01:52 PM, said:

Hmmm. So, what you tell about some map variants for vote can have "Randomized" variants of knowed wariants ?
when you may vote for standard, and some variated of old maps - with some known 'patches', but unpredictable with other parts ?

Than we can play and test it in one way - and we told, good \ bad sides of it
I mean, having some variation in each map (even if there are just a few pre-designed versions) would make things a lot more interesting than now.

#134 Dubstepler

    Rookie

  • Bad Company
  • 5 posts

Posted 29 November 2020 - 04:34 AM

I wanna underwater map! On huge base with a lot of huge windows!)

#135 PCHunter

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 23 posts

Posted 29 November 2020 - 06:49 PM

Some general comments:

1. Review the current maps
  • Decide which are to be kept and which to be tossed based on historical selection and popular feedback
  • Fix the maps to be kept to eliminate impediments to play: lack of access ramps, foot traps, windows
  • Revisit spawn points for balance and competitiveness - now that lances are no longer defined by mech class, this more than ever.
  • Reconsider appropriate match types by map - not all match types work on every map. Either drop certain types from the choices or address and repair causes of inappropriateness.
  • Eliminate FPS killers and repair these maps - that means Solaris, River, Caustic and Crimson.
2. Add maps. The easy choice is a version of the FP maps.

3. Add dynamic characteristics to existing and new maps. Make some of the features in these maps randomly generated - buildings, walls, wrecks, some minor topographical items. That way you could literally have millions of configurations with a handful of maps.

4. Add destructible items, similar to MW5 - structures primarily - that provide temporary cover but can be demolished by incoming fire.

Do not give the community the ability generate maps for match play. Use it for feedback and outsourcing, but on a limited and qualified basis.

Edited by PCHunter, 29 November 2020 - 06:50 PM.


#136 MW Waldorf Statler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 8,924 posts
  • LocationGermany/Berlin

Posted 29 November 2020 - 07:19 PM

Quote

4. Add destructible items, similar to MW5 - structures primarily - that provide temporary cover but can be demolished by incoming fire.


not with this engine and without Experts (seeing old Treads to the theme from Karl Berg)


Quote

Do not give the community the ability generate maps for match play. Use it for feedback and outsourcing, but on a limited and qualified basis.


why ? Mapmaking gave MW4,UT 2004, the old Original Battlefront 1&2 a Long Live and thats with High Quality

Edited by MW Waldorf Statler, 29 November 2020 - 07:19 PM.


#137 Voice of Kerensky

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 145 posts

Posted 29 November 2020 - 09:01 PM

Mining Collective.
Team 1, which is dropped on the 6-line, has the advantage. The snipers and lurm-warriors of this team have the ability to shoot the center of the map from 6-line , and medium-range mechs can shoot in the center from D5-E5 positions. Thus, Team 2, overcoming the E4 ascent, gets under frontal fire from E5-E6, and coming to the center from the ramp, immediately fall under flank fire, forced to disperse fire forward and to the right, and at the same time have practically no cover.
At the same time, the snipers, lurm-warriors and medium-range mechs of Team 2, which dropped on 2 lines, are not able to fire at the center of the map because it is closed from them by a solid wall. Thanks to this, Team 1 goes to the center of the map without being afraid of flank fire at all, this team can focus all attention and fire to the front.
Team 2 is also limited in flanking maneuvers along the F-line:
- on F5, the rise is not in the optimal place;
- the F-line is just as well under shot by snipers and lurm-warriors;
- the descent from E4 to F4 is in an inconvenient place - in case of retreat, slow mechs need a very long time to return.

https://ibb.co/2qcDz2d
Posted Image


Grim Plexus.
On G7, there are poles at the corners of two buildings (lighting trusses?). One of these trusses is very close to the building, so the Assault Mechs cannot pass between this truss and the building's wall. Sometimes you die because of this. Under the fire of a pushing enemy, you retreat, stepping back along the wall, confident that you will be able to hide around the corner of the building, but your back rests against the pillar - that's it, you're a corpse.

Edited by Voice of Kerensky, 30 November 2020 - 01:14 AM.


#138 El Maestro

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 461 posts
  • LocationVleuten, Netherlands

Posted 30 November 2020 - 01:56 PM

not sure if somebody already suggested it but why not bring back the old Terre Therma (classic).
At least at that map you will not see a nascar and it is a quick fix till you have time to sort the other stuff out.

please? ;)

#139 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,495 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 01 December 2020 - 08:55 AM

On the subject of maps, besides the obvious "more new maps", I'd really strongly recommend getting all of the older maps back into the game. I really miss some of them. Even if it's only for private lobby only... But I'm sure a lot of people would love to play on them again anyway.

I also would prefer to have the map/game mode voting removed... but that may be just my own personal preference... Posted Image

#140 LordNothing

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 12,344 posts

Posted 01 December 2020 - 12:37 PM

i already mentioned converting fp maps to qp. though i really didnt specify how that would work.

1. remove gates, gun and all other faction play structures. clean up the area around these. ('gates' shall now refer to the area where they once were)
2. underground access tunnels or overpass networks to bypass the gates (these might even be fun in fp)
3. add new spawn areas to the sides of the gates, valleys connecting both sides. expand this area out a bit. 10-20% new terrain.
4. add some barrier structures to break up the area between the gates. prevent teams from having straight line of sight of each others spawns and also to inhibit nascar.
5. give players an option to chose the more natural terrain on the offending side vs base terrain on the defending side. keep in mind the spawns are inline with either side of the gates.
6. add support for qp game modes (conquest caps, dom caps, incursion walls, etc.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users