88 replies to this topic

[Asmudius Heng]

Map design goes hand in hand with game design of many other factors.

I would love larger maps, but i would also love multiple objectives. I think this will go hand in hand, but the current small maps would not work for multiple objectives and really are designs for deathmatch play.

To a point someone map that big maps mean people will not find each other I have to disagree. In MW4 the large maps meant that yes, sometimes you played cat and mouse and scouts become a massive boon. It also meant that you could reposition over and over to gain advantage really showing the power of manoeuvre warfare.

This will be lost on disorganised groups however who just want to hit action fast.

As the game and players mature they will crave more tactical variety and that is many of us here already. For the new streams of revenue (New players) they will love the deathmatch setup from the start I am sure.

IT is about keeping both of those groups happy and the issue is that a great deal of beta testers are MW veterans who expect more.

I am keeping an open mind, but i think that the conquest mode and bigger maps coming will help a great deal - but how they implement them will be absolutely key - there are so many other games out there that do these things well i hope they are paying attention and tweaking existing, working ideas to suite the play of MWO

[mekabuser]

Tuhalu, on 11 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Mechwarrior: Living Legends was first released on 27 December 2009 (taken from their wiki). Some of the assets are taken directly from Microsoft (MechWarrior: Living Legends was created under Microsoft's "Game Content Usage Rules" using assets from the MechWarrior Intellectual Property, © Microsoft Corporation. © 2007-2009). So really, the game is 3 year old, with some assets as much as 3-5 years old (and not actually produced by them).

I hope this has helped you keep your facts straight

sure ok./. show me a list of these assets they didnt create...... just to ,, ya know, keep the facts straight..... sigh..

[mekabuser]

bump.. like an underwater tank on marshes

[ebea51]

MWLL has been around for ages so its going to have a leg up.

PGI has more important things to worry about then day/night cycles and environmental ambiance at the moment (beta anyone?)

Imagine the lag between players on maps that large in MWO.

PGI may be aiming for smaller maps that are more 'interesting' and 'tactical' instead of Tribes-style SPRAWLING, not only to cut down on lag and drop round time down but to make the game more interesting in that you dont have to run 10min before you encounter someone.

Anyone consider that MWO MAY MOVE a little or adopt some features of MWLL but they havent yet because they have much larger issues to deal with right now?

MWLL maps are nice tho

[Tuhalu]

mekabuser, on 11 November 2012 - 05:00 PM, said:

sure ok./. show me a list of these assets they didnt create...... just to ,, ya know, keep the facts straight..... sigh..

If you can prove the creators of the game are liars and didn't use any Microsoft assets despite saying they did, I might care

[Scar]

I bump it, because it's a damn right thread.

Maverick01, on 10 November 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

4. Maps are too small to have variety in strategies and tactics (flanking maneuvers, importance of scouting).

^The Holy Truth.

Edited by Scar, 08 January 2013 - 04:49 PM.

[Taizan]

Those maps look really nice indeed and there are several buildings which I can relate better to than the ones in MWO, somehow they look less futuristic or just slightly styled from what we would would see nowadays.

The MWO maps sometimes feel a bit cramped - but for the two gameplay modes TDM and TDM they are fine because they force confrontation. I'd say they are perfect as a lance vs. lance training ground, but sometimes feel crowded too fast with 8 mechs and for 12 vs. 12 the mechs they are way too small.

As I don't know too much about LL how many mechs/players are fighting on one map?

[Scar]

up to 28

[Zypher]

Tuhalu, on 11 November 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Mechwarrior: Living Legends was first released on 27 December 2009 (taken from their wiki). Some of the assets are taken directly from Microsoft (MechWarrior: Living Legends was created under Microsoft's "Game Content Usage Rules" using assets from the MechWarrior Intellectual Property, © Microsoft Corporation. © 2007-2009). So really, the game is 3 year old, with some assets as much as 3-5 years old (and not actually produced by them).

I hope this has helped you keep your facts straight

Not to derail the thread, but the part (and not actually produced by them) confuses me. They had people submit designs, but all of them had to be reworked, IE remodeled so the engine could handle them properly, which really is just the same as people submitting concept work. The only thing the people in MWLL didn't do was create the engine, and if the actually had access to the source code it would have progressed and been less buggy.

I think you are confused about that statement, legally it meant they were able to use concept designs, IE mechs from the battle tech universe in their game. Microsoft provided nothing but a legal "ok" to make the game using items from the battletech genre.

Edited by Zypher, 08 January 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Icedpyre]

Shiney, on 11 November 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

There really IS no excuse to have 4 maps [no an alternative map doesn't count] after all of these months of development. Seriously.

except for the fact it's beta....how do YOU know how many maps they have finished? For all we know, when game goes live, there could be 12 maps plus their variant "night" versions.

[General Taskeen]

Zypher, on 08 January 2013 - 05:31 PM, said:

Not to derail the thread, but the part (and not actually produced by them) confuses me. They had people submit designs, but all of them had to be reworked, IE remodeled so the engine could handle them properly, which really is just the same as people submitting concept work. The only thing the people in MWLL didn't do was create the engine, and if the actually had access to the source code it would have progressed and been less buggy.

I think you are confused about that statement, legally it meant they were able to use concept designs, IE mechs from the battle tech universe in their game. Microsoft provided nothing but a legal "ok" to make the game using items from the battletech genre.

It is the 'woe' of all Mods. They have no funding (except if people donate), do work in their free time for no profit, yet make a pretty outstanding Total Conversion mod that really has a great MechWarrior feel to it. It feels more like I am playing MW3 on crack in that game. Some people don't like it, some do. Eventually it'll have a MechLab, but I could care less, playing with stock Mechs is challenging and fun. I also like that Narc/TAG actually do what they are supposed to, probably some of favorite equipment to use in that game. I'll continue to play it alongside MWO, since I play a huge variety of games as it is.

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 January 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[CrashieJ]

https://soundcloud.c...nctuation-remix

seriously, by this rate we should have a BOSS FIGHT in the middle of november

[pcunite]

Asmudius Heng, on 11 November 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I would love larger maps, but i would also love multiple objectives. I think this will go hand in hand, but the current small maps would not work for multiple objectives and really are designs for deathmatch play.

To a point someone map that big maps mean people will not find each other I have to disagree. In MW4 the large maps meant that yes, sometimes you played cat and mouse and scouts become a massive boon. It also meant that you could reposition over and over to gain advantage really showing the power of manoeuvre warfare.

This will be lost on disorganised groups however who just want to hit action fast. As the game and players mature they will crave more tactical variety and that is many of us here already. For the new streams of revenue (New players) they will love the deathmatch setup from the start I am sure.

Well stated.

[Yokaiko]

Icedpyre, on 10 November 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Because it's MECHWARRIOR online... not Battletech online.

Mechwarrior was a tabletop RPG. This games doesn't even have a player lobby....I think you are drawing the wrong parallel there.

[Davers]

Maverick01, on 10 November 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Before sharing my biggest complaint about MechWarrior Online to the community, I would like to communicate that these suggestions are geared towards making MWO the best game that it can possibly be, and ultimately, becoming the “flagship title” for the BattleTech Universe. With that said, let’s talk about my biggest complaint, maps. The maps currently in the game are lackluster for a number of reasons and are listed below:

1. Maps are uninspiring in design, lack color, and needs an overall lift in aesthetics.
2. No ambient environmental sound that would otherwise benefit player immersion.
3. Environmental destruction is nonexistent (trees catching fire/crushed, destroyed buildings/bridges).
4. Maps are too small to have variety in strategies and tactics (flanking maneuvers, importance of scouting).
5. Maps lack day-night cycles (makes night vision almost useless).

1. I think the maps look pretty neat.
2. I don't know how much sound you would hear 30 feet off the ground in an environmentally sealed war machine.
3. Planned.
4. Chessboards are small too. The standard 8 on 8 TT battle is on 3 maps (Only 1530x1350). 12v12 would be on 2040x1800.
5 Having day/night cycles instead of set day/night maps would help it from feeling that they are forcing the mode on you to justify it being in game.

[ReD3y3]

If you watch those vids and think the maps made on MW:LL are not much better than you dont have eyes.

I was really inmpressed by those videos and derpressed by what I am playing on here at MWO.

I really hope PGI gets their **** together. Game is stale right now... like 3 month old pringles with no lid stale.

[mekabuser]

wow, Just dropped by mwll forums and the boys have been busy... content? u want content... ? what these guys have planned for their .7 release looks amazing. Heres a link to one of their latest pre release threads.

http://forum.mechliv...ic,18898.0.html

Its scary how few of you have tried this game, at least according to the RL thread going in GD> Yeah, no Mechlab, but that has its advantages, plus theres only 100+different assets to try out .
Enjoy.

[pcunite]

From a technical perspective only, MWO is much better, hands down. MW:LL maps are not better they're just different with more creative liberties taken to make them come alive. I think if PGI and the MW:LL teams would work together we could have a fantastic game both visually and tactically speaking while still having the look of a simulator.

[Vassago Rain]

Less sand and open, empty space in MWO.
Case closed.

Go a blo blo blo blo about your dead mod somewhere else.

[mekabuser]

Vassago Rain, on 11 January 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Less sand and open, empty space in MWO.
Case closed.

Go a blo blo blo blo about your dead mod somewhere else.

GO turn on your sunlamp. This is a bad time of year for you guys from a mental health perspective.
Look at the poll numbers and despair.