HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Why MA on Bazaar is terrible, and how we can potentially fix it.


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 FenixStryk

FenixStryk

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 798 posts
  • LocationUS-East

Posted January 23 2013 - 11:36 PM

I'll be using a few images I grabbed from one of the Hawken wikis for this thread. Unedited images of various maps in the game can be found here.

EDIT: Corrections to corporation names in the first image have been made, and overall wording has been modified for clarification purposes.

Unlike the mostly-symmetric Origin, Bazaar's two spawns are vastly different: Sentium spawns in the city, while Prosk spawns in the canyon. For Missile Assault, Bazaar currently favors Sentium (the city team) by a grievous margin. The issue lies in the distribution of choke points across the map, marked in red and orange:

Posted Image

Whereas Sentium has no choke points on their side of the map, Prosk (the canyon spawn) must absolutely go through one of three tight choke points to attack either S1 or S2. This imbalance in choke distribution makes it highly advantageous for Sentium to hold S1 and S2 while Prosk is forced to grab S3 (since that silo favors neither team).

Outside of completely replacing the hills between current Prosk spawn and the silos with equivalent buildings, this issue cannot be fully addressed if spawns remain at their current locations. Widening the chokes will lessen the issue, but it will not remove it entirely.

It is for that reason that I wish to discuss a quick-fix option of moving corporation spawns to the following locations:

Posted Image

Moving spawns to the locations marked will push the focus of the map towards the city while leaving the chokes intact as an alternative attack option for both teams. Primary attack routes will remain shortest-path in nature, secondary flanking options will exist in the NW city, and a tertiary route will exist through the chokes. Since neither team is required to navigate the chokes to progress through the map, no one has to worry about their disadvantageous nature.

Regrettably, moving Prosk's spawn leaves the SE portion of the map to collect dust... however, I feel this is the lesser evil in the short-term when compared to leaving them at a severe map disadvantage.

This isn't the be-all-end-all solution for this map, so I'd like to hear from other users to see if they have any other improvement ideas that can be applied to this map.

Thank you for reading.


P.S. In the future, I would like to see MA maps built around the following layouts:

Posted Image

Edited by FenixStryk, January 24 2013 - 08:32 AM.

It was fun while it lasted.


#2 Guiotine

Guiotine

    Mech Collector

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,136 posts
  • Locationsomewhere between Illal and Eorzea

Posted January 23 2013 - 11:42 PM

Siege is pretty bad as well for the same reasons. If Prosk launches a battleship, and Sentium fails to take control of the AA (or S2 in MA), It is extremely difficult for Sentium to take the AA after that. This usually ends with Sentium falling back to their base and getting base camped until the battleship goes down.

ReachH said:

I dub thee, Guiotine, 'Coloxxen, the mech pokemon'

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on July 02 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

This wall of text gets the AJK Seal of Approval.

#3 Command0Dude

Command0Dude

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted January 23 2013 - 11:54 PM

By moving the EU spawns/missile batteries to the former team spawns (in addition to the proposed move in spawns) that would also really shake up Siege too (as well as make the Sentium spawn still relevant on the map).

The way the current EU trees are set up, each team typically farms one EU tree, with maybe a harass on the other.

Moving the locations would mean more competition for the EU/Missile battery near former Prosk spawn, since it is the closest and therefor more valuable, while still leaving one open at Sentium for the other team as a back up if they can't secure the former.

I should also point out, battleships should still launch from their current positions in Siege, which would completely remove the spawn camp element that usually dominates Siege, at least for this map.

Edited by Command0Dude, January 23 2013 - 11:55 PM.


#4 Culex

Culex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 544 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 12:15 AM

Just want to mention that team names are flipped in your first picture. Team Prosk has the chokepoints, and Sentium has the open field. Hope to eliminate some confusion.

I am matter... I am antimatter... I can see your past... I can see your future...

I consume time... And I will consume you!
Posted Image


#5 ArnieF4440

ArnieF4440

    Muscles

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,198 posts
  • LocationDown Under/invading US west servers

Posted January 24 2013 - 12:30 AM

Love the idea mate.

I kinda liked having it in a 1-map center-2 config, but if they can open up those chokepoints like in img 2, then it'll also improve fairness

Edited by ArnieF4440, January 24 2013 - 12:31 AM.

Posted Image
Me: Youtube | Drop Bears
Guides: Hawken Tips and Tricks | Fraps + Compression | Lag + Gaming
Rig: i7-920 + H50 | MSI X58A-GD45 | Corsair Dominator 12GB | 2x EVGA GTX 660TI SC+ 3GB | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB | Corsair HX1000 | CM HAF932

#6 ScHizNiK

ScHizNiK

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 244 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted January 24 2013 - 12:47 AM

There should be 3 exits from each spawn all leading to the 3 different AAs. At the moment we have a single exit point from the spawn that is very easy to cover and camp.

With 3 exits any person who pushes to the spawn would automatically lose map control.

Posted Image

Quote

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.


#7 GN010

GN010

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 193 posts
  • LocationPH GMT+8

Posted January 24 2013 - 12:50 AM

For middle to long range mechs, the first image will more likely to happen but if the team is composed mostly of CQC mechs, Its a different story. I often use CR-T for this map if I'm on the sentuim side otherwise I use Sharpshooter. I always avoid the choke points you pointed instead I choose to tackle them behind AA putting them pressure to leave their stronghold which is behind AA(the one facing at Prosk base).
public enum MECHS {
SHARPSHOOTER_LV25, REAPER_LV25, SCOUT_LV25, BRUISER_LV25, BRUISER_LV25, ROCKETEER_LV25, CRT_RECRUIT_LV20,
BRAWLER_LV1, GRENADIER_LV11
};//GN010 current mechs, plays @ us-west servers but located in gmt+8. @author gn010 @since 12/2012

#8 Kai_Kitamura

Kai_Kitamura

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 01:01 AM

I really like the proposed map design. Far too many games take "opposing sides" literally, we could use some variety. UT'99 had some awesome domination maps (and Missile is just domination with reverse counter) and so few games do anything like Sesmar, Condemned, or MetalDream.
Brawler - Gespenst Type-S -=- Bruiser - Gespenst Type-R -=- Rocketeer - Randgirth -=- Infiltrator - Lion -=- Sharpshooter - Weissritter

...make no mistake - we are not shy
We're very wide awake - the moon and I!


#9 draco7891

draco7891

    El Tigre

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 458 posts
  • LocationCA, USA

Posted January 24 2013 - 02:13 AM

One way to open up your proposed map is first to remove the north-side retaining wall at the AA entirely, and then to reduce the height of  the dividing wall on the south side of the ramp leading into former S3. This gives Sentium much wider, longer sightlines into the AA complex; Prosk might be first on the scene, but they would then have to devote significant resources to maintaining control against Sentium long-range fire.

The problem that I see with your proposal (and indeed your proposed map shapes later on), is that the game devolves into a 1-point-control game due to proximity. That is, each team will end up taking and holding one point apiece simply because it's so close to their spawn that any combat losses can be replaced far more rapidly than the opposing team can do so. Then, the entire map comes down to who holds that second point. MA is supposed to be balanced around the idea that any one of the three points is equally valuable and therefore equally viable to take, defend and base a defense from, and that's hard/impossible to do unless the points are essentially in a line.

I really like Command0Dude's idea to move the EU trees/outlying silos into the spaces occupied by the former spawns to avoid losing the lower half of the map and thereby eliminating some of the 1-point-ness. Some shaping would need to take place so that each point is equally accesible and defensible, but the points would work much better in those positions than leaving them where they are currently.

Another issue that I can see is that placing the Prosk spawn where you have it gives them a high-side oversight into S2 (in fact, that area is where the vast majority of Sharpshooters sit when firing into the AA site). However, Sentium will enjoy largely harrasment-free travel into S2 because their major movement paths are covered/walled off. Prosk, on the other hand, has to travail a long, hard, open-field slog from their spawn to get into S2. This leads to a scenario where Prosk can't take S2 (because it would mean moving off their superior firing position), and Sentium can't hold it (because Prosk is constantly respawning into a hugely advantageous enfilade). Stalemate ensues.

--

Proposal:

What if, instead, Prosk spawn was on the south side close to the current S1 (but further east), the old Sentium spawn space is pushed up northwest to eliminate the large rock ridge/chokepoint thing south of the AA, the AA itself is moved northwest into the center of the city square, S1 is relocated to the building on the far eastern bulge/upper ridge, and the rock between the current AA and S3 is removed (while leaving the hill and bowl effect of S3 intact), while perhaps sliding it slightly south for accessibility.

This, I think is a better map while still preserving a lot of your ideas. S1 is a tight high/low fight, S2 has about a million different approach paths (making for frenetic fighting), and S3 keeps it's great tug-of-war long-range tomfoolery. The city gets used all the time as the primary sieve to any of the particular silos/trees/AA.

I'll make you an image if it's not clear enough.

Draco

#10 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted January 24 2013 - 03:56 AM

Your suggested fix results in a LOT of wasted space. The map is very clearly built in an efficient manner as far as utilization of space goes and simply needs to lose the huge chokepoint wall (or alternatively add another one to the other side) and push S1 and S3 into more even positions (S3 especially)
Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#11 Sythorian

Sythorian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 191 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 04:18 AM

Honestly I prefer Beemann's suggestion, (mainly because it's the one I had in mind for a long time myself) due to the fact that it's much easier to tear a wall down, or add another one on the other side and move the objective points evenly into the middle, rather have to remodel almost 55% of the map just to change the spawn points around. It will save a hell of a lot of time on development that way, and the map gets to keep it's vastness and design.

Edited by Sythorian, January 24 2013 - 04:19 AM.


#12 TheVulong

TheVulong

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,797 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted January 24 2013 - 05:47 AM

I think that we just need to move a couple of rocks and replace/add some covers. Like that:
Posted Image

Posted Image


#13 Azrael39

Azrael39

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 06:30 AM

I am stunned and amazed the game developers didn't realize the problems with this map when they first built it and looked at the overhead view.  The OP is 100% correct.  This map is not an even playing field for both sides in a competitive 3 node style map.  It baffles me that design teams can't see these things in the design stage.  This should have been addressed when the Level Designer first showed the Lead Designer his map layout in the grayblock stage.  Or should easily have been understood how unfair this map was during the grayblocking stage before any textures went on the Environmental 3d pieces.  Sahara is great for team deathmatch but lousy imbalanced for MA or Siege and the reason I don't play MA or Siege.

The OP's suggestion to move the starting zones is a good one.  The Map will become much smaller but more equal and fair for both teams.

Hawken needs more maps badly.  4 maps is not enough.  I think the production team would be well served by creating a milestone of getting out a new map every 3 months to have 8 by the end of 2013.
Sharpshooter lvl 25, Berserker lvl 25, Scout lvl 25, Bruiser lvl 25, CRT lvl 25, Brawler lvl 25, Infiltrator lvl 25, Reaper lvl 25, Rocketeer lvl 25, Raider lvl 25, Technician lvl 25, Grenadier lvl 25, Assault lvl 25

Good luck and have fun see you on the Battlefields!

#14 Noin

Noin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 06:41 AM

Disclaimer: I didn't read the whole thread yet.

1. Wait for the map tweaks that are coming in the patch today.

2.  I feel it is a lopsided map, however it is lopsided both ways.  Either team can take the advantage and once they do, and they own the center, it is very difficult to turn the tide.

#15 LunaticCalm

LunaticCalm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 06:48 AM

I'll take any solution proposed in this thread. Something needs to be done, and quickly. This map is awful with competent teams that know how to abuse the chokes.

#16 ReachH

ReachH

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,459 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted January 24 2013 - 07:03 AM

The current way would be less foul if they simply

FIXED THE RUSH DISTANCES

Making one team have to travel further is just evil.

Oh, and off-topic, but forcing a team to attack through chokes to get at the AA in siege is hideously stupid.

View PostBeemann, on January 24 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

Your suggested fix results in a LOT of wasted space. The map is very clearly built in an efficient manner as far as utilization of space goes and simply needs to lose the huge chokepoint wall (or alternatively add another one to the other side) and push S1 and S3 into more even positions (S3 especially)
It's pretty simple to delete a portion of the map, or just leave it there. Maybe they can have it be some sort of 'secondary resource' point if they choose to develop the game mode more. (*hint hint ADH* EU powered drones)

Also, great map analysis by OP, and thanks for posting link to map images, this has been a thorn in my side for a looong time. +1

Edited by ReachH, January 24 2013 - 07:10 AM.

View Post[HWK]HUGHES, on October 23 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Development happens.


Posted Image


#17 R33F3R

R33F3R

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 121 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

Posted January 24 2013 - 07:15 AM

I like your post, but I dislike your fixed spawn image. I dont like it for the same reason I dont like Battefield conquest maps. Once all three bases are taken its spawn killing time, whereas with the current setup a sneaky ninja can slip away to any three equidistant silos. Just a thought.
Posted Image

#18 ReachH

ReachH

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,459 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted January 24 2013 - 07:33 AM

View PostR33F3R, on January 24 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

I like your post, but I dislike your fixed spawn image. I dont like it for the same reason I dont like Battefield conquest maps. Once all three bases are taken its spawn killing time, whereas with the current setup a sneaky ninja can slip away to any three equidistant silos. Just a thought.
This would actually be easier with the proposed spawns. Since the silos and the line of battle can be on different vectors from the base. Also more ground to cover -> more interesting games imo.

View Post[HWK]HUGHES, on October 23 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

Development happens.


Posted Image


#19 LunaticCalm

LunaticCalm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 08:32 AM

View PostR33F3R, on January 24 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

I like your post, but I dislike your fixed spawn image. I dont like it for the same reason I dont like Battefield conquest maps. Once all three bases are taken its spawn killing time, whereas with the current setup a sneaky ninja can slip away to any three equidistant silos. Just a thought.
I don't see how the proposals are any worse than what we have now. Unless there are multiple exits from the base there can be spawn camping, and even then its just a bit more difficult.

#20 SeaOfInsanity

SeaOfInsanity

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted January 24 2013 - 09:02 AM

As a quick fix it is quite viable and would make MA a little more balanced untill they can come up with a more concrete solution. Still it is patch day, maybe they have done something to the map already.
Yea I use Rocket Turrets and I don't care who knows it




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users