88 replies to this topic

[Superslicks]

Agent of Change, on 20 February 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

because the devs stated waaaaaaaaaay back when in Closed beta that they were intentionally not allowing people to select mechs after map to encourage balanced builds.

It's a great policy, it encourages you to think what will happen to this mech if I end up on X map. Turns out that philosophy is starting to have an actual effect now beyond just caustic.

I hope they don't change their minds about this one.

So why dont they put in proper map rotation, so we dont get stuck on the same old ******* map time after time

[Sean von Steinike]

Grandpaw, on 20 February 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

I don't agree,seems to me it just encourages people to disco out on maps they don't like

There will always be those sorts of whiney slimes. Too friggen incompetent to actually use their brains. But hey, they get the death on their record, something they obviously care about.

[Vasces Diablo]

Because.....

Winter maps = only beam mechs
River city = only short range alley fighters
Caustic = only ballistic mechs
Alpine = only long range mechs

All this = boring cheese boat game

[Sean von Steinike]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 February 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Because.....

Winter maps = only beam mechs
River city = only short range alley fighters
Caustic = only ballistic mechs
Alpine = only long range mechs

All this = boring cheese boat game

Indeed. And the ones that are whining, well we know what sort of cheese players they really are now.

[Tarman]

Lycanstrom, on 20 February 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

This has been bugging me since I first started playing MWO way back in closed beta. Why is it that we choose our mech and hit launch w/o knowing which map we're going to be on?

I mean.... if you were piloting a 3-story tall robot on some future world, don't you think you'd know where you were heading BEFORE you headed there? Of course you would.... and you would bring a mech that would suit the situation.

I understand that PGI likely wants more "well-rounded" builds instead of builds that are optimized for a particular map, but shouldn't it be our choice which mech we want to play and when?

I'm not even saying we should be able to choose the map. If that were the case, some maps would undoubtedly be ghost towns when people got bored of them. But I don't understand why we can't launch first, see which map we're being deployed to, and then have a 10 or 15 second window to choose our mech before the match starts.

Another thing the current system is guaranteed to do if left as-is: force you to spend CBills to re-vamp all of your brawlers once more Alpine-sized maps are out. Not that you can't bring a brawler, but you are limiting yourself on huge maps with lots of cover.

Video game. We have no community warfare for a logical planetary drop concept to be attached to. Thus the game must be tooled for what we have, which is match-based fighting. Wait for community warfare when you'd actually have a briefing and an actual selected target dropzone that would actually make a difference to a metagame. Otherwise in regular matchplay it just leads to the same loadouts on the same maps, and we've had plenty of that already. Scats and Splats for example, have been so good for so long because all the maps to this point have favoured their loadouts. They aren't OP so much as the maps enhanced their effectiveness and encouraged their usage.

The bolded part at the end there is a brawler-centric veteran player view. This is not a broad enough view to see why build diversity is a good thing for the game overall. The game has been brawlerific precisely because the maps we started with are so dink-butt. Look at River City, where you can trade shots with the enemy right from your bases, and be within facehump range in under 20 seconds. This map is a brawler's paradise, and pretty much useless for a support loadout. Doesn't mean it's a bad map, it just means that that's all we've had so far.

This set of maps was never meant to be the entire game dynamic, it's just what we started with and it's led to people thinking that brawling is the entire Mechwarrior experience. The more maps we get, the more situations people will find a one-trick pony to find itself either enhanced or detracted by the map it finds itself on. Proposed future canyon map would be hell for missile guys and a probable heaven for JJ-equipped mechs with good arm elevation/depression. Active volcano map is probably not going to be the favourite dropzone of a 4P or other energy-only loadout. Not every map should be optimal for every loadout.

And as has been mentioned earlier, post-grouping-but-pre-battle mech selection messes with the ratings system.

I have zero problems with private matches being setup by players to do whatever they want, but for the regular public gameplay it is a detriment.

[Death Mallet]

Lycanstrom, on 20 February 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

I understand that PGI likely wants more "well-rounded" builds instead of builds that are optimized for a particular map, but shouldn't it be our choice which mech we want to play and when?

It is your choice. Play whatever mech you want.

If you want to succeed. . . build a flexible mech that's capable of handling a variety of different circumstances. Not a gimmicky rules exploiting 1 trick pony.

[dal10]

we really need maps of all types, just so ac/20 mechs are not everywhere.

[Livewyr]

Helmer ended this thread on page 1..

[Vasces Diablo]

Livewyr, on 20 February 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Helmer ended this thread on page 1..

True, but these are Internet forums and MY OPINION IS IMPORTANT!!!

[Agent of Change]

Superslicks, on 20 February 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

So why dont they put in proper map rotation, so we dont get stuck on the same old ******* map time after time

There is but due to the nature of randomness and streaks of results it can appear not to be.

i'm just gonna quote myself from earlier today.

Agent of Change, on 20 February 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

Expected map distribution based on observed data has previously followed an almost on the nose statistical distribution based on the number of maps in the pool. the pool has grown and is now 8 giving ~12.5% that any given drop will be any given map:

more specifically:
~12.5% Alpine
~12.5% Caustic
~ 25% Forest colony or variant
~ 25% River City or variant
~ 25% Frozen city or variant

Personally I to would pay good money to seealpine more often but a great middle ground for the time being would be to treat the variants of maps as part of a single statistical entity since we have 5 fully different maps now.

it would look like this:

~20% Alpine
~20% Caustic
~20% Forest colony: 50% normal/50% snow
~20% River City: 50% normal /50% Night
~20% Frozen city: 50% normal /50% Night

or you could be even simpler about it if each map as a specific set probability:


~20% Alpine
~20% Caustic
~10% Forest colony normal
~10% Forest colony snow
~10% River City normal
~10% River City Night
~10% Frozen city normal
~10% Frozen city Night

or if it is just a pool just put caustic and alpine in the pool twice to even out the weighting. point is we have 5 maps there is no reason to spend 75% of the time on 3 of them.

[One Medic Army]

Agent of Change, on 20 February 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

Expected map distribution based on observed data has previously followed an almost on the nose statistical distribution based on the number of maps in the pool. the pool has grown and is now 8 giving ~12.5% that any given drop will be any given map:

more specifically:
~12.5% Alpine
~12.5% Caustic
~ 25% Forest colony or variant
~ 25% River City or variant
~ 25% Frozen city or variant

Personally I to would pay good money to seealpine more often but a great middle ground for the time being would be to treat the variants of maps as part of a single statistical entity since we have 5 fully different maps now.

it would look like this:

~20% Alpine
~20% Caustic
~20% Forest colony: 50% normal/50% snow
~20% River City: 50% normal /50% Night
~20% Frozen city: 50% normal /50% Night

or you could be even simpler about it if each map as a specific set probability:


~20% Alpine
~20% Caustic
~10% Forest colony normal
~10% Forest colony snow
~10% River City normal
~10% River City Night
~10% Frozen city normal
~10% Frozen city Night

or if it is just a pool just put caustic and alpine in the pool twice to even out the weighting. point is we have 5 maps there is no reason to spend 75% of the time on 3 of them.

I think that shows the issue fairly clearly.
As far as Matchmaker is concerned there are 8 maps, and it doesn't care that there are 3 pairs that are essentially the same map but with different lighting/weather conditions.
I'd agree with modified option 1, have variants of the same map split the probability between them.

[Dan Nashe]

Balanced mechs does not mean owning one lrm boat that's good for alpine, one poptart for the crater map, and a splatcat for the urban maps. Interesting for me and many people is when you look at something with an ac20 and an er ppc and dont think "that's dumb, an LPL and two mls would do more damage at brawler range" but think "that's a mech that could be effective on any map. Because four mechs like that could kill an enemy at long range or blow the crap out of a pair of splat cats. The game is better if rather than running 2 LR mechs and 2 SR mechs, you run a balanced build. Also note what percentage of cheese is all one weapon type.

Secondly if you want to get realistic, we don't swap the main gun on a battletank for every battlefield. We don't have 4 tanks for every tank crew.

From a lore perspective every pilot owned one mech. One. Heck, even the heads of the factions only had one mech. Swapping weapons on a mech is not like putting on new tires. It's reengineering an enormously complicated machine. The weapon loadouts were modified by teams of engineers over years, and variants are actually Built in different factories, and each variant might have had One standard retrofit that could be done in months. It takes a month to travel between planets, there's simply no time to send it back to be re-engineered after every battle.


That's what made clan omnimechs so ridiculously good. They Can switch weapons on board a dropship in transit. In any event, even clanners didnt choose different mechs on different campaigns. They were assigned a mech and it was theirs with only rare changes for any reason other than their old mech being destroyed. Or possibly getting transfers to a different regiment. I suspect that's how modern fighter/helicopter pilots work too. Yeah they could pilot a different type of fighter every mission to suit the mission, bit they don't.

Now I do get wanting to super optimize for a particular map, that is fun too... But game designers have to make a choice. You can encourage super optimization or you can encourage trying to be ready for anything. Each is a valid way to design a game. So I don't think people are wrong to ask for map selection, but I personally don't want to see it, and right now, the developers are on my side.

Edited by DanNashe, 20 February 2013 - 09:23 PM.

[Agent of Change]

One Medic Army, on 20 February 2013 - 01:13 PM, said:

I think that shows the issue fairly clearly.
As far as Matchmaker is concerned there are 8 maps, and it doesn't care that there are 3 pairs that are essentially the same map but with different lighting/weather conditions.
I'd agree with modified option 1, have variants of the same map split the probability between them.

Technically all the suggested repairs work out to the same math it just all depends on how the current randomizer is structured. the end result would be to weight all unique maps identically leading to a 40% combined chance of getting Caustic or Alpine compared toe the current 25% combined chance

[Shadowsword8]

Orgasmo, on 20 February 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Players should be aware of what map is coming up, and able to change loadout, modules and camo in preparation. Soldiers don't get blindfolded then thrown out at random places where they do battles. Instead, they prepare themselves and formulate plans prior to going in. Customization and tactics are the name of the game.

That would be lame.

You'd end up with SRM Online in River city and PPC Online on Alpine.

Current situation is better: you can go long range, close range, or mix, and each of those three choices have risks you'll have to assume. That risk is the thing that give value to the choices you make. I find it fairly childish to want to remove it.

You also say that customization allow you to use tactics. On the contrary, it limit you to only one tactic, chosen before you even know what the enemy brings or what he's doing. That doesn't sound very "tactical" to me...


There's a chinese saying that go along those lines: "Beware what you wish for, for you might obtain it".

Edited by Shadowsword8, 20 February 2013 - 01:27 PM.

[keith]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 February 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Because.....

Winter maps = only beam mechs
River city = only short range alley fighters
Caustic = only ballistic mechs
Alpine = only long range mechs

All this = boring cheese boat game

u are wrong. this only happens on poor designed maps. load up MW4 go on some of their city maps, plenty of range fighting happening there, because of big open city parks with city around it. lets u be creative on how u want to play. the hot *** maps have many hills that u can pop and weave, so when u use energy mechs u can cool behind them. these maps are way too small and dedicated by the poor excuse of a base capping for winning. someone has to think outside the box, or maybe load of MW4 and look at some of them amazing maps they have their.

[Vasces Diablo]

keith, on 20 February 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

u are wrong. this only happens on poor designed maps. load up MW4 go on some of their city maps, plenty of range fighting happening there, because of big open city parks with city around it. lets u be creative on how u want to play. the hot *** maps have many hills that u can pop and weave, so when u use energy mechs u can cool behind them. these maps are way too small and dedicated by the poor excuse of a base capping for winning. someone has to think outside the box, or maybe load of MW4 and look at some of them amazing maps they have their.

I don't know if you've noticed, but river city does have wide open spaces (the river) and the hot map does have giant hills to hide behind. But why sit in the open in the city when I have cover and can focus on short range damage boating, and "having hills to hide behind to cool off" is no where near and offset to just running cooler (with ballistics) all the time.

Random mapping encourages flexible balanced builds, which is more fun (IMO) and as you say, allows us to be creative in the way we play.

[De La Fresniere]

I gotta admit this is really getting to me.

I thought this patch would rekindle my interest in playing MWO. Spent 10 or 12 million on a Trébuchet and started trying out different loadouts.

Got River City Night and Frozen City (day) a lot, and I hate playing a game that has no image, so that was a pretty bad start.

Then... pretty much every build I tried put me on whatever map was most awful for it. 4 MPLs? Caustic!

Whenever I push the Launch button, there's 2/3 chance I'll get a map I won't enjoy. *Then* there's the possibility of mass base rushes or LRM ******* contests or just plain inept players...

There's too many variables. Choosing maps is one we could actually fix.

If everyone picks Alpine with tons of long-range weaponry, what's the problem? Better than hoping you'll get a map you don't hate, hoping your build will work, hoping your camo doesn't make you stand out because it's totally inappropriate for the climate, etc...

Ah well, I think I'll just keep monitoring the forums and abstain from playing. The game's over a year from release, there's just too much stuff that's not in-game yet.

[keith]

Vasces Diablo, on 20 February 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

I don't know if you've noticed, but river city does have wide open spaces (the river) and the hot map does have giant hills to hide behind. But why sit in the open in the city when I have cover and can focus on short range damage boating, and "having hills to hide behind to cool off" is no where near and offset to just running cooler (with ballistics) all the time.

Random mapping encourages flexible balanced builds, which is more fun (IMO) and as you say, allows us to be creative in the way we play.

did u even play MW4? that little river is nothing to the park land in big city. big city had a 1k by 1k park in the middle. that death river run u compare it too, is not the same. i played MW4 for over 6 years in NBT. in that time many FOTM builds came and went, many different tatics that u can not do on these maps happened. u keep saying u want mixed configs, well guess what they do not work, well. that is y we need a lobby system with the map before hand, and capping gone.

[Agent of Change]

De La Fresniere, on 20 February 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

I gotta admit this is really getting to me.

I thought this patch would rekindle my interest in playing MWO. Spent 10 or 12 million on a Trébuchet and started trying out different loadouts.

Got River City Night and Frozen City (day) a lot, and I hate playing a game that has no image, so that was a pretty bad start.

Then... pretty much every build I tried put me on whatever map was most awful for it. 4 MPLs? Caustic!

Whenever I push the Launch button, there's 2/3 chance I'll get a map I won't enjoy. *Then* there's the possibility of mass base rushes or LRM ******* contests or just plain inept players...

There's too many variables. Choosing maps is one we could actually fix.

If everyone picks Alpine with tons of long-range weaponry, what's the problem? Better than hoping you'll get a map you don't hate, hoping your build will work, hoping your camo doesn't make you stand out because it's totally inappropriate for the climate, etc...

Ah well, I think I'll just keep monitoring the forums and abstain from playing. The game's over a year from release, there's just too much stuff that's not in-game yet.

Not to be too much of a **** but you could try to build a mech that is heat efficient no matter what and is either fast enough or armed properly to deal with or evade threats at all ranges.

can't help you with the maps you don't enjoy but I assure you allowing people to pick maps would fall prey to the law of unintended consequences in a BIG way.

[One Medic Army]

keith, on 20 February 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

did u even play MW4? that little river is nothing to the park land in big city. big city had a 1k by 1k park in the middle. that death river run u compare it too, is not the same. i played MW4 for over 6 years in NBT. in that time many FOTM builds came and went, many different tatics that u can not do on these maps happened. u keep saying u want mixed configs, well guess what they do not work, well. that is y we need a lobby system with the map before hand, and capping gone.

No offense, but it would be easier to take your arguments seriously if you properly used punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.
If English is a second language for you it's understandable, if you're just using twitter-speak not so much.