97 replies to this topic

[trycksh0t]

I went with static on this one. Defensive forces on planet would all be amassed in certain areas; around major cities or other strategically important areas. That being said, I'm hoping for several planets with multiple areas of interest on each planet, all different. Learning 9 or 10 maps well enough that they're no longer a challenge is one thing, learning dozens is a bit more of a challenge.

[Golgo13]

Static huge maps, is the goal for strategy, know the terrain, all the other stuff random generated

[Silent]

I'd prefer a mix. Important strategic areas like a capital could have handmade, predetermined maps. Otherwise, the maps could be randomly generated to simulate that you are engaging in warfare across a planet that varies, rather than being confined to a handful of maps that everyone eventually knows the layout to.

[Captain Fabulous]

This question is really much more complex than I initially thought. When I think pre-made maps and multiplayer, I think of games like Halo where you get your choice of 10-12 maps (don't quote me on numbers, I've played Halo maybe 4 times), but every single time they're the exact same. It gets too easy to simply memorize the maps and figure out the best places to be. Therefore I voted for the randomization aspect. This of course raises the problem of balancing sides to make sure no one team has an immediate terrain advantage over another. I feel like the best option is for a combination of both: Take premade maps, but allow for a randomized dynamic. For a city level for example, have buildings change heights, roads get blocked at certain points and opened up in others, additional buildings, or even weather.

This could give players like me who don't like grinding through the same maps over and over a decent change of pace while keeping players who DO like the static maps the consistency that they want.

[lichbane]

Not only would I want to see pregenerated maps, but I'd also want to see a persistent campaign played out on those maps. (see sig)!

[xdaikatanax]

This is a good topic. Props, OP.

I definitely prefer random maps. It doesn't necessarily make the game better or highlight anyone's skills by letting everyone memorize the maps they play. I'm instantly reminded of Halo matchmaking...blech.

[CobraFive]

Both.

Randomly generated would be great though, so long as they made a good generator.

Have pre-made city blocks, and field terrain of different types, which are connected like legos. The modules can't be square though, even in a city block, otherwise we'd be playing on a grid.

I don't mind either way but in other F2P games, like WoT and Global Agenda, I do start to wish for more map variety sometimes. But like I said, I don't mind either way.

[zverofaust]

I say predetermined because the capability simply isn't there for making good randomly-generated maps. Predetermined allows them to put a much more artistic, human and interesting touch. That said, in objective-based conquest games, random generation of strategic objectives/capture zones would be great.

[Shrapnel]

Random, I read a lot of you are worry that random may favor one side, THAT'S WAR. Do you think every battle is fought on an even playing field.

Edited by Shrapnel, 01 November 2011 - 06:30 PM.

[Creepy]

If possible, maybe a mix of both?
If various scenarios are being worked out, maybe some map information could be given to one or both sides prior to round start.

Just a thought.

[Paladin1]

I like the idea of predetermined maps for major cities, but I could see random maps for minor cities or towns. Better yet, I'd love to see some various terrain like a city in a mountain pass where not only is the city random, but the underlying terrain could be random as well.

[Silent]

It'd be interesting if the game placed lances based on the a pilots "Tactical" skill or something similar that could be leveled up.

The game could add up a lances "Tactical" skill, along with any bonuses if the lance is defending (I imagine the defenders would get a bonus because defenders in any conflict usually know the lay of the land better and have time to prepare) and place the lance with the highest "Tactical" skill in the most favorable position: higher ground, tree cover, sun behind them, whatever.

[DoubleD]

I see the benefits and drawbacks to both, but I went with Randomly Generated simply for more variety. I played Mechwarrior 4 (and earlier ones) for years and even with the map creator the same old same old got tedious after a while. Though I could see why Randomly Generated might be undo-able. If the maps are static I won't really complain. Especially since they can release new ones as time goes on.

[Paladin1]

Now THAT is an excellent idea! It gives us something else to level up other than our Piloting/Gunnery skills and it makes sense.

[dh crow]

Making a viable random generator will probably cost too much.

[selbie]

You could have significant control points that are static, hand-crafted maps, plus a variety of perimeter maps that are generated with random elements (the varying maps would help with immersion ie. players would feel like the battlefield is shifting location constantly just like in real warfare).

I'm a newb with the BT lore here, but say, for example, one house controls an entire planet/system made up of outer control points (random maps) around one or more capital cities or strongholds (static maps). For an enemy to capture that territory, they would have to conquer each of the outer random maps and then tackle the main control points. So because the main control points are static, players can know what to expect, and therefore victory will be determined more by player tactics than exploiting a random map's potential weaknesses.

EDIT: Or there could be a set of pre-made maps (outer maps) that cycle randomly but which are unique to that planet/system and then you have the main control point which doesn't change at all.

Edited by selbie, 01 November 2011 - 11:03 PM.

[Deathwarrior]

It looks like a lot of decisions will vary depending on how much Piranha can push the technology envelope. From my MW4 experience, I'm wary of pre-designed maps just due to the quick learning factor involved with knowing the various choke/setup points. Random dropzone locations can somewhat mitigate that issue, but it still remains an issue. However, I don't think there has been a great example of a random developed algorithm that provides an indepth and detailed urban/outside environments. MPBT 3025 did a decent job on randomizing open landscapes/climates, but even those lacked things like forests, rivers, lakes etc...

The bottom lines seems to be that there can't be 1000+ different predetermined maps for the various planets within the Innersphere. Also past occurances of randomized landscapes can't live up to the detail level that has currently been seen in premade maps. How far Piranha can push the technology envelope will most likely reveal to us what type of battle landscape we can expect.

[Tyra]

I prefer set maps for two reasons - aesthetics and balance.

Balance so one side isn't heavily favored and the aesthetics that comes when a map is lovingly hand crafted.

However, I think they should have a combination of the two. An online campaign would benefit from combining the two. The 'important' battles and maps should be pre-determined. But they can add a lot of variety to run of the mill day to day meching with random generation.

Edited by tyra, 02 November 2011 - 02:26 AM.

[Skoll]

Static maps, you won't be able to develop decent strategy beforehand. Intel is kinda important...

[Owl Cutter]

In a perfect world, we'd get a mixture of both. There's a world of difference between playing in a place as familiar as your backyard and playing in a place you've never been at all, and they are both experiences I'd like to have in a Mechwarrior game. It's unlikely Piranha is implementing both, so I guess the best that might plausibly be is playfields generated by pseudorandomised arrangement of blocks, probably Sim City-like tiles but hopefully not just squares.

I want familiar places we can all share and refer to like in most online games, such as Unreal's "Deck 16" or Halo's "Gulch," and think it would be really nice for every player to have one of these places as their "home" location, in which they can choose to participate in defense mission. On the other hand, interstellar mercenaries should probably be seeing totally unfamiliar battlefields for most campaigns and vastly varied tile-based maps are a great part of classic tactical games like Starcraft. I'd also like generated playfields for the same reason I like them in MegaMek; it just makes for more replay value.

With Lego-together city blocks, it would be possible to have static configurations for a faction's "home turf" or maybe even an individual guild for more realistic unfamiliarity when attacking some one else on a world you've never been to, and realistic familiarity for a unit stationed right on top of the point of contention.

P.S. Catching up on the thread, I am very pleased to see a strong showing of people thinking the same thing as I. Maybe it's a more plausible possibility than I though.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 02 November 2011 - 04:16 AM.