351 replies to this topic

[Nicholas Carlyle]

When I've talked about patches changing the game. This is definitely one of those patches. This map has really made this game a lot more interesting. Good job PGI.

[Noth]

Lee Ving, on 20 February 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

In X limited situation with Y disadvantaged build if enemy team is dumb enough to do Z you can perform well. What a magical formula for success. That anecdotal evidence totally changes my perspective on this argument, or the fact that long range builds are disadvantaged against skilled players on river city.

Keep complaining, the maps should continue to get larger.

7/10, I responded.

Not really the size I'm complaining about. The fact that it is pretty much just an open space with very little if any cover. No disadvantage of taking long ranged all the time (long range has only a small disadvantage on the other maps). In the other maps if you take a short range build you still one the risk of getting picked apart at range by people that knew what they were doing.

I'd rather have balanced maps than any of the maps we currently have, but I still feel that the older maps are more balanced over all. Alpine is boring because it is so easy to just run long range. To me it is not good to just swing from one extreme to the other and call that diversity.

Edited by Noth, 20 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[Dracol]

Noth, on 20 February 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

This balancing feature is as bad as trying to use the economy to balance the builds. Also even on river city you can excel at long range. I was pulling 1000+ damage and 3+ kill games with PPC on the maps including river city even before they got a heat reduction. It was easily doable. It just takes more effort than it does on Alpine.

I agree economy was a bad way to balance but disagree map rotation is a bad way as well.

The economy was bad for balancing because of the player behavior it caused. Afk farmers, base rushers, etc. The amount of pathways around the economy balance were too numerous.

And for your sake Noth, I really hope elo ends up working like it is suppose to cause from the sounds of it, you're not being challenged enough.

Random maps with a variety of ranges does not suffer from the same flaws the econ balance had. If the goal of PGI is to promote more diversified mech configs and not just encourage the top small percentage of specialized mechs, the map rotation is a solid way to go about doing it, IMHO.

Edited by Dracol, 20 February 2013 - 12:05 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Noth, on 20 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

I'd rather have balanced maps than any of the maps we currently have, but I still feel that the older maps are more balanced over all. Alpine is boring because it is so easy to just run long range. To me it is not good to just swing from one extreme to the other and call that diversity.

Many clearly disagree. And I don't even run long range builds. My typical build goes about as long as the 450m of full damage on an LL.

[Commander Kobold]

New map is almost fine, stop complaining about the one map that doesn't force you into a brawl >_>

[anonymous175]

Boaters gonna boat.

[Noth]

Lukoi, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

Many clearly disagree. And I don't even run long range builds. My typical build goes about as long as the 450m of full damage on an LL.

We can't say what the majority feel as the majority don't come to forums. Most of what I see in this thread are people just happy to have a map that is not brawler friendly rather than look at it objectively as a whole to the game. I play brawlers, long ranged and mixed ranged mechs. Long ranged even tend to be my favorite mechs overall. The map is just as bad as the other maps, just in the opposite direction.

[Coolant]

I've changed my Atlas to include more long-range weapons in preparation for this map...I had barely played in a month, that map caused me to log in yesterday and play...played about 7 matches total (no comment about the 10 in a row failed to find a match before giving up and coming back) and I didn't get to see the new map. I understand that my odds are 1 in 9. So I shouldn't expect to play it in 7 matches. However, it would be nice to up the chances of playing the new map when it is released, or give us the opportunity to choose a map, at least temporarily during the first few days or so. I've been vocal about the lack of maps, so if PGI isn't gonna let the community make maps. and they don't seem to like the idea of quantity over quality (I think a balance would be just fine), then at least give us a way to play the map if we have limited time. To me, the new map was the primary new content that actually visually changed the game in several months...

[Merc85]

I just love seeing splatcats complain about a new map which in most respects, IMO, is really a very good one.

[KingCobra]

Well PGI could fix this very fast and its easy to do.They only need to add the ability to save your configurations per mech in the mechlab.All past PC Mechwarrior games you could go into the mechlab design a mech and loadout save it into a config file like (2lbx20,2lrm10)and save it.You could have up to 20-30 saved configs per mech.Then you could pick the config that best suited the map or map and role you were going to play simple as that.You also could pick a config pick a map and drop and test your configs in solo or FFA battles.Im still amazed how much MWO is missing from past PC Mechwarrior games.

Edited by KingCobra, 20 February 2013 - 12:16 PM.

[Merc85]

Thontor, on 20 February 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Save configs? Yes please.

Pick a config best suited for the map? No thank you.

ditto

[Kylere]

Thontor, on 20 February 2013 - 06:41 AM, said:

If you want to fight, stop rushing the enemy base, go find the enemy mechs

I am trying, but considering my teams are doing the same, it is a rotten proposition!

[Mercules]

Noth, on 20 February 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

This balancing feature is as bad as trying to use the economy to balance the builds. Also even on river city you can excel at long range. I was pulling 1000+ damage and 3+ kill games with PPC on the maps including river city even before they got a heat reduction. It was easily doable. It just takes more effort than it does on Alpine.

Sounds like you are a good player and should be able to figure out how to make it work without whinging about short range mechs being hurt by one map out of the rotation.

[Symbiodinium]

I agree that the general problem is that wildly divergent maps can make the outcome of the match a roll of the dice with certain builds. Rather than selecting your mech after the map is selected or seeing which map is up next, perhaps allow players to veto maps? Starcraft 2 has the system where every ladder season there are 8-10 maps in the map pool, and each player can veto 3. The number of vetoes (1-3, depending on size of the map pool) and whether a veto prohibits a map or just makes it less likely could be up for tweaking, but it is another option.

[Zeh]

Merc85, on 20 February 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

Thontor, on 20 February 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Save configs? Yes please.

Pick a config best suited for the map? No thank you.

ditto

Hell yes. Another ditto. And for F's sake, I wish people would stop thinking choosing a mech for a specific map is an acceptable idea. It's a HORRENDOUS idea, and against (IMO) the entire idea of a mixed-map-pool.

Map veto would only work as long as there were enough maps that you can't eliminate an entire gameplay. IE. you shouldn't be able to veto all long-range maps, and bring 8 splatcats.

Edited by Zeh, 20 February 2013 - 12:44 PM.

[Vasces Diablo]

Silly me, I've been running balanced builds/multi role mechs all this time and never needed it until now.

[Ngamok]

Symbiodinium, on 20 February 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I agree that the general problem is that wildly divergent maps can make the outcome of the match a roll of the dice with certain builds. Rather than selecting your mech after the map is selected or seeing which map is up next, perhaps allow players to veto maps? Starcraft 2 has the system where every ladder season there are 8-10 maps in the map pool, and each player can veto 3. The number of vetoes (1-3, depending on size of the map pool) and whether a veto prohibits a map or just makes it less likely could be up for tweaking, but it is another option.

No, because all it does is that it makes only certain maps favored while the rest enver get played. Also all it does is promote cheese builds.

Example. Modern Warfare 2. Map; Rust. Everyone skipped that map most of the time because it was small and people were taking noob tubes on it because you can launch it at all the spawn spots easily. People who play certain builds will favor certain maps just because they only want to run a certain mech.

[Salient]

Alpine is dumb... since you cant prepare for it, its just up to chance which team is gonna have the better loadout for it. BORING.

Matchmaker needs a pregame lobby showing the players what map is upcoming, and allow them a minute or so to change out their mechs.

GOD forbid PGI make a worthwhile change to the matchmaker. They seriously need to hire more talent, there is a lot of features this game needed day 1 that just aren't present. You cant hide under a beta tag while collecting money from your customers, and never deliver on the content. Unacceptable. I refuse to dish out another dime on this **** of a game until PGI actually catches up to other multiplier F2P titles... hell SMITE was more functional on day 1 than MWO current state months after its open beta. Thats just COMPLETELY unacceptable.

Edited by Salient, 20 February 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Commander Kobold]

Let players choose their mech after knowing what map they're going to, problem solved

[SkyCake]

People like OP should be stuffed into the barrel of an AC/20 and fired into the nearest star