21 replies to this topic

[Megacromulent]

1) Allow choice of map to play.
There are maps I _never_ want to play on I suspect many other people have similar preferences.

I do NOT want to get pug stomped all night, just to play alpine once, and die right away. There might as well not be a new map.

WHY IT'S IMPORTANT: Current method makes new maps less valuable:
Have not seen alpine yet... and in the future any new maps will be met with the same experience/feeling of "who cares if there's a new map, won't see it for days anyways, and will have to slog through 20 games of crappy blue-blob night vision, stuck in buildings night river city for each single time on with the new map"

2) Allow choice of number of players
Why can't we play against 4v4 or 1v1 (ala dueling)? Game and player rotation would sky rocket, ELO would match easily and quickly. Many, many games have this mode, and just throw in a simple "arena" style map that takes a week to make.

WHY IT'S IMPORTANT: It instantly changes the dynamic of the game and makes if feel new, without the need for a huge development investment. And can match weight classes without complex ELO logic.

--

With so many choice limits, with no apparent gain in fun or enjoyment (quite the opposite) makes this game feel less fun than at first when everything was new.

And now the new stuff is hard to get to.. *sigh*, fix please.

[Vlad Ward]

They mentioned already that they don't want to allow smaller player sizes right now because a 1v1 game takes as many server resources as a full 8v8 game, except they would need 8 times as many of them to handle the same number of players.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 19 February 2013 - 11:02 PM.

[Megacromulent]

Vlad Ward, on 19 February 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:

They mentioned already that they don't want to allow smaller player sizes right now because a 1v1 game takes as many server resources as a full 8v8 game, except they would need 8 times as many of them to handle the same number of players.

Well, that makes sense as a reason, but it's sad really. Why not let other run their own servers then?

[Megacromulent]

DCLXVI, on 19 February 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

careful russ I think this guy is gunning for your job

Lol, who is russ?

[Deamhan]

If done right, and we start fighting for control of planets, the planets should make use of a map or two and should allow us which map we are playing on. So you can play your favorites, avoid the ones you hate and preplan your premade before dropping.

[One Medic Army]

I'm a big fan of random maps.
It keeps variety in the mechs you see around. It encourages long-range builds to have close-in weaponry and short-range builds to have either speed or long-range weapons.
It punishes people who only build for one type of engagement.

[Megacromulent]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

I'm a big fan of random maps.
It keeps variety in the mechs you see around. It encourages long-range builds to have close-in weaponry and short-range builds to have either speed or long-range weapons.
It punishes people who only build for one type of engagement.

First, I didn't suggest in the remotest that random maps should be removed.
Second, choosing only river city with close range weapons wouldn't change anything from how it is now. (I almost exclusively use close range weapons on certain builds, no need for long range, and haven't played Alpine _once_ yet)

One of the things I really liked about old-school FPS mutliplayer games was playing against the same people over and over, changing tactics, and one-upping them, failing/succeeding and trying again. The chatting with the same players made it more personal and fun to team up with or play against them. And when I was tired of the group, I changed servers.

Currently, PUGs/Lone wolves just don't get any of this, where in the past, this was standard. This current system is _archaic_ by comparison.

Also, others have said they won't run assualts anymore because of the fear of hitting Alpine. You saying that you are glad others are "punished" seems extremely self centered....

Edited by Megachromulent, 19 February 2013 - 11:24 PM.

[Kernel]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

I'm a big fan of random maps.
It keeps variety in the mechs you see around. It encourages long-range builds to have close-in weaponry and short-range builds to have either speed or long-range weapons.
It punishes people who only build for one type of engagement.

I agree with you to a certain extent but when community warfare drops I hope this isn't the case. If we are charged with assaulting or defending a location, logic says we know where we are going and should be able to build for it. RPG wise no one drops and doesn't know where they are going lol. Perhaps when we have private matches these choices of maps can be made outside the realm of public battles.

[One Medic Army]

Long-range capable assault mechs will be fine.
I ran into alpine on my Stalker fitted with SSRMs and PPCs, it was great.

I like seeing people punished for building 1-dimensional designs, like the 6xSRM6 Catapult, the 2x AC/20 catapult, the SRM+ML Stalkers, the AC/20+ML+SRM6 atlases.
The more we encourage people to build mechs that carry both long and short range weapons, the more interesting the overall meta of the game will be. Even more so if we encourage speed for more than getting behind atlases.

Edited by One Medic Army, 19 February 2013 - 11:33 PM.

[Alvor]

I suspect when CW goes live maps and mission options with become more abundant.

Hopefully more control to the players.

Match making is a wasted resource when players could simply choose to join a mission if players where given the option and information.

[Megacromulent]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

I like seeing people punished for building 1-dimensional designs, like the 6xSRM6 Catapult, the 2x AC/20 catapult, the SRM+ML Stalkers, the AC/20+ML+SRM6 atlases.
The more we encourage people to build mechs that carry both long and short range weapons, the more interesting the overall meta of the game will be. Even more so if we encourage speed for more than getting behind atlases.

But they aren't punished, unless (apparently) it's on Alpine... so I am not sure what you mean.

Alvor, on 19 February 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

I suspect when CW goes live maps and mission options with become more abundant.

Hopefully more control to the players.

Match making is a wasted resource when players could simply choose to join a mission if players where given the option and information.

It took a month to fix a huge glaring bug with floating mechs and permanent "overheat" screens (only fix was to shutdown and restart) right now, I don't think CW will happen, ever. If it does, it won't be for a year.

It would be cool though, and fix all the match making issues.

[FrostPaw]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

I'm a big fan of random maps.
It keeps variety in the mechs you see around. It encourages long-range builds to have close-in weaponry and short-range builds to have either speed or long-range weapons.
It punishes people who only build for one type of engagement.

This is why random maps are best, because it encourages diversity in mech design and group composition.

It would be better to address the issue the majority of players have with maps they don't like, assuming those issues are negative to the gameplay rather than negative to their strategy.

[One Medic Army]

Megachromulent, on 19 February 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

But they aren't punished, unless (apparently) it's on Alpine... so I am not sure what you mean.

It's better than nothing, they are also punished a little on Caustic.
The desert map is also supposed to be huge.

I like map variety, I like that people don't get to tailor all their mechs to specific maps.

[Megacromulent]

FrostPaw, on 19 February 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

This is why random maps are best, because it encourages diversity in mech design and group composition.

It would be better to address the issue the majority of players have with maps they don't like, assuming those issues are negative to the gameplay rather than negative to their strategy.

But as it was already mentioned (and in my experience) mechwarriors more often than not know what they are getting into. Who in their right mind would bring a black painted mech to a known desert location?

I think if the startup animation was more realistic to the game (ie, landing in a drop ship from space and departing the craft) it would be more obvious that we came to that location on purpose... knowing full well what is there (land type and often the enemy) and why we are there (objective). Right now it's a friggin random shooter...

[Grand Ayatollah Kerensky]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:14 PM, said:

I'm a big fan of random maps.
It keeps variety in the mechs you see around. It encourages long-range builds to have close-in weaponry and short-range builds to have either speed or long-range weapons.
It punishes people who only build for one type of engagement.

Before alpine: I ran brawlers, scouts, and snipers
After alpine: I only run sniper builds so that I remain optimal on all maps

Strange definition of variety you subscribe to.

[Megacromulent]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:39 PM, said:

It's better than nothing, they are also punished a little on Caustic.
The desert map is also supposed to be huge.

I like map variety, I like that people don't get to tailor all their mechs to specific maps.

Better than nothing is terrible logic to base game design around, especially when it'd likely be very easy to implement a menu (like the one we have for assault/conquest).

It seems your enjoyment of the game centers on other people not having as good a build as yours? Or that if they do, you'd get satisfaction out of random strangers accidentally landing on a map not conducive to their build? How does this make a game more for fun for anyone?

Again, I never suggested anything about limiting your choices, but you seem to suggest it's more fun (for someone) that other people have their choices limited.

Narcisoldier, on 19 February 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

Before alpine: I ran brawlers, scouts, and snipers
After alpine: I only run sniper builds so that I remain optimal on all maps

Strange definition of variety you subscribe to.

I would hate to end up on a large map in slow mover, I haven't even played alpine yet, and my I am hesitant to run my slower mechs...

[One Medic Army]

Megachromulent, on 19 February 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

Better than nothing is terrible logic to base game design around, especially when it'd likely be very easy to implement a menu (like the one we have for assault/conquest).

It seems your enjoyment of the game centers on other people not having as good a build as yours? Or that if they do, you'd get satisfaction out of random strangers accidentally landing on a map not conducive to their build? How does this make a game more for fun for anyone?

Again, I never suggested anything about limiting your choices, but you seem to suggest it's more fun (for someone) that other people have their choices limited.

All I ever said was that I like random maps punishing 1-dimensional builds and encouraging well rounded builds.
You can try and put all the words in my mouth you want, but that's my opinion and nothing you've said so far has changed my mind.

[Megacromulent]

One Medic Army, on 19 February 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

All I ever said was that I like random maps punishing 1-dimensional builds and encouraging well rounded builds.
You can try and put all the words in my mouth you want, but that's my opinion and nothing you've said so far has changed my mind.

Let me be more clear, you are saying that you "like random maps punishing 1-dimensional builds"... you do realize there are no maps that actually punish anyone for this? That is why we have so many splat cats... (again, unless you are referring to the _one_ map alpine)

Conversely, you said "like random maps [that] encouraging well rounded builds", and again, no maps do this... (accept maybe alpine?)

So, your logic doesn't add up. Random maps doesn't affect builds at all... (unless it's alpine?)

[One Medic Army]

Megachromulent, on 19 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

Let me be more clear, you are saying that you "like random maps punishing 1-dimensional builds"... you do realize there are no maps that actually punish anyone for this? That is why we have so many splat cats... (again, unless you are referring to the _one_ map alpine)

Conversely, you said "like random maps [that] encouraging well rounded builds", and again, no maps do this... (accept maybe alpine?)

So, your logic doesn't add up. Random maps doesn't affect builds at all... (unless it's alpine?)

Liking the idea behind random maps, and liking the current crop of maps are different things.
Yes, most of the maps are currently close-in.
However, until recently River City was a bad map to use LRMs on, and Caustic has always been a bad map to run a high-heat build, or striker type that relies on mobility and cover.
So yes, the current maps do emphasize different builds on different maps.

That all being said, Alpine is a step in the right direction, giving the longest range weapons (like ERLL) a reason to exist and a place to be used.
I would like to see more variety in maps in the future.

None of this changes my opinion vis-à-vis random map choices, I like what it can do, even if it's not doing it much yet.

[edit] And yes, to be completely honest there's a little schadenfreude in the thought of a SRM6 catapult or a brawler ECM atlas being pummeled at range on alpine. This is a PvP game, ultimately a good portion of any single person's enjoyment here comes as part of the defeat of others.

Edited by One Medic Army, 20 February 2013 - 12:07 AM.

[Megacromulent]

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

However, until recently River City was a bad map to use LRMs on, and Caustic has always been a bad map to run a high-heat build, or striker type that relies on mobility and cover.
So yes, the current maps do emphasize different builds on different maps.

I use long range weapons on every map, because it's useful. Especially against cheese builds like splatcat. But it's useful on every single map... not just the wide open ones.

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

That all being said, Alpine is a step in the right direction, giving the longest range weapons (like ERLL) a reason to exist and a place to be used.

I use ERLL with great effect on all the current maps...

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

I would like to see more variety in maps in the future.

We all would.

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

None of this changes my opinion vis-à-vis random map choices, I like what it can do, even if it's not doing it much yet.

Considering that ERLL work well on all current maps, and random maps don't deter boating or cheese builds, I am not understanding the foundation to you wanting no one else to be able to choose maps...

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 12:03 AM, said:

[edit] And yes, to be completely honest there's a little schadenfreude in the thought of a SRM6 catapult or a brawler ECM atlas being pummeled at range on alpine. This is a PvP game, ultimately a good portion of any single person's enjoyment here comes as part of the defeat of others.

Ah, you got me there. Beating other people to death with pretend weapons is logically no different than wishing them pain from poor build choices...